Supreme Court to Hear Christian Group's Appeal

[Kanalua]

The distortion here is bizzare.

nice...then you go on the distortion train!

The school has already discriminated against non-hispanic student when it approved La Raza who's bylaws at the time restricted "students of Raza background".

Too bad the CLS lawyer stipulated otherwise...

 

[actuarial]

nice...then you go on the distortion train!

The school has already discriminated against non-hispanic student when it approved La Raza who's bylaws at the time restricted "students of Raza background".

Too bad the CLS lawyer stipulated otherwise...

But when that was brought up La Raza changed their membership conditions.

Did the CLS do the same?

 

[Kanalua]

But when that was brought up La Raza changed their membership conditions.

Did the CLS do the same?

They changed after the fact, they didn't need to.

When they were approved, they had, according to the law schools criteria, a "discriminatory" policy.

 

[Tab]

Good. I can't wait to watch them lose. Spreading bigotry with state funds? Fuck that.

 

[ericlp]

After thinking about this story for awhile and seeing it exploited to private religious schools I guess this is just a drop in the bucket. Maybe we should just let religious groups do what they want. Discriminate even if half the funds they get are from tax payers that don't agree with them.

They are already doing it in private high-schools and grade schools. Sorry I forgot it's already happening on a much grander scale sadly.

 

[Moonbeam]

The Washington Post had what I thought was a good editorial on this issue this morning:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/18/AR2010041802818.html



I really feel torn on this, and ultimately have a lot of sympathy for the CLS position. Imagine some small, publicly-funded group with an extremely unpopular message (an on-campus branch of NAMBLA, for example). If such a group was required (in order to continue to receive public funding) to accept all applicants as voting members, the group could (and probably would) be co-opted by the large majority who opposed the original group's core message and agenda. Thus, the original message of the group would effectively be silenced. That doesn't sound right to me.

My feeling is that a publicly-supported group be required to accept as "participant" members all who apply, with the proviso that a good-faith condition of continuing membership be that such members not engage in behavior destructive to the group's core purpose. I also think it's reasonable that such groups be allowed to restrict voting rights to those allied with the group's core purpose.

Interesting. I don't have an opinion on the case other than that it's difficult, but I have objections to free speech in some cases. Considering that it is illegal to advocate for the violent overthrow of the country, it ought to be illegal to advocate violence against children, and more so because they have little in the way of defense. I feel the same way about Nazis. No free speech for them. 50 million dead because of those assholes is enough.

 

[actuarial]

They changed after the fact, they didn't need to.

When they were approved, they had, according to the law schools criteria, a "discriminatory" policy.

So the school approved a club they shouldn't have, the reason was brought up, and it was fixed (the club now conforms). You're using that as a reason why another club SHOULDN'T have to change their rules to conform to the policy?

 

[actuarial]

Interesting. I don't have an opinion on the case other than that it's difficult, but I have objections to free speech in some cases. Considering that it is illegal to advocate for the violent overthrow of the country, it ought to be illegal to advocate violence against children, and more so because they have little in the way of defense. I feel the same way about Nazis. No free speech for them. 50 million dead because of those assholes is enough.

It has nothing to do with free speech. The club can spew all the hate they want at their meetings, they just can't discriminate on who can join the club.

 

[Mursilis]

It has nothing to do with free speech. The club can spew all the hate they want at their meetings, they just can't discriminate on who can join the club.

Yes they can - only certain types of discrimination are illegal. When airlines hire pilots, do you think they can be sued because they discriminate against those without a pilot's license?

 

[actuarial]

Yes they can - only certain types of discrimination are illegal. When airlines hire pilots, do you think they can be sued because they discriminate against those without a pilot's license?

Now you're just nit picking. Throughout this thread 'discriminate' has been used in place of 'discriminate based on a class listed in the school's anti-discrimination policy'. It would be pretty tiresome to type that each time we're using it, and you clearly understood what I meant.

 

[Brainonska511]

It has nothing to do with free speech. The club can spew all the hate they want at their meetings, they just can't discriminate on who can join the club.

They actually can discriminate all they want, but if they want to do that, the school doesn't have to give them official recognition or money.

 

[daishi5]

So the school approved a club they shouldn't have, the reason was brought up, and it was fixed (the club now conforms). You're using that as a reason why another club SHOULDN'T have to change their rules to conform to the policy?

Do you believe the Hastings Jewish Law Students Association allows christian students who believe "all jews need to be converted to christ" to be voting members? Or do you think the Hastings Association of Muslim Law Students allows aethists as members? Even if those groups don't actually state their discriminatory preferences in their charters, I would bet they discriminate in practice. I don't think it is better for a group to discriminate in practice if they pretend they don't discriminate when they write down their laws.

 

[actuarial]

Do you believe the Hastings Jewish Law Students Association allows christian students who believe "all jews need to be converted to christ" to be voting members? Or do you think the Hastings Association of Muslim Law Students allows aethists as members? Even if those groups don't actually state their discriminatory preferences in their charters, I would bet they discriminate in practice. I don't think it is better for a group to discriminate in practice if they pretend they don't discriminate when they write down their laws.

I don't know whether or not they discriminate, but I am sure there are varying degrees of belief within a religious association, and some that are of that association by birth but do not follow the practices.

And there is certainly a difference in terms of in practice and by rule. The university can't patrol every admission to every club, so they must a) rule out clubs that discriminate in their policies, and b) investigate clubs when people complain about discrimination in their admission practices. If a member complained about not being allowed into one of the above clubs without good reason, they should complain and the university can investigate. They didn't even need to do that with the CLS because they had a "need not apply" sign right out front.

 

[Mursilis]

Now you're just nit picking. Throughout this thread 'discriminate' has been used in place of 'discriminate based on a class listed in the school's anti-discrimination policy'. It would be pretty tiresome to type that each time we're using it, and you clearly understood what I meant.

But see, that's part of the main issue in this case - the school's anti-discrimination policy has to line up with recognized legal prohibitions on discrimination within the law. The school can't just say Club X can't discriminate against Group Y just because we say so. Legal issues are all about nit-picking.

 

[Balt]

Honestly, the school should just rewrite the rules so that it doesn't fund/recognize any student group that is exclusionary by its very nature. If you want a public service group that anyone can join, fine. If you want a Christian/Muslim/White/Black/Male/Female group that TECHNICALLY anyone can join (but you hope they won't), do it on your own dime and without official recognition.

 

[daishi5]

I don't know whether or not they discriminate, but I am sure there are varying degrees of belief within a religious association, and some that are of that association by birth but do not follow the practices.

And there is certainly a difference in terms of in practice and by rule. The university can't patrol every admission to every club, so they must a) rule out clubs that discriminate in their policies, and b) investigate clubs when people complain about discrimination in their admission practices. If a member complained about not being allowed into one of the above clubs without good reason, they should complain and the university can investigate. They didn't even need to do that with the CLS because they had a "need not apply" sign right out front.

I would think the Muslim and Jewish law associations have an implicit "non muslims/jews need not apply" sign out front. I think the christian group is being singled out because they are still hanging on to their gay=bad crap. I doubt this would be an issue if the group had not decided to attack homosexuals like they did. I don't think they are applying the rules evenly. I think they will continue to have a group that only accepts muslims, a group that only accepts jews, and a group that is not allowed to only accept christians that think homosexual people are icky.

However, on a second thought, the "think homosexual people are icky" might be just enough of a difference to matter, but I doubt it.

 

[HumblePie]

Here's the thing it boils down to and where there is precedent unfortunately. I'm not in favor of any form of discrimination and would like to keep religious zealots from ram-rodding their beliefs down everyone's throats. However the rub is this, they aren't doing anything more discriminating than the girls soccer team. Or the boys football team.

Sports teams by ALL colleges discriminate based on sex which is a Federally protected statute. This is all the precedent they need. Then we get to associations sponsored by schools that are for the disabled, but not for the "enabled" if they wish to join. This is another precedent set for discrimination for disability, even if this is a reverse example.

The fact is, while the federally protected areas of race, religion, sex, age, disability and others need to be done, there are fine lines drawn everywhere legally even in "government" or public areas. As I said, girls can't play on the state university's football team and guys can't play on the girls softball team. There are also age restrictions as well that goes along with that.

This religion group wants to be part of a public school and still ostracize who they want to. I can see a ruling going either way on this as precedents for both are set. This is not a clear cut case.

 

[Tab]

Honestly, the school should just rewrite the rules so that it doesn't fund/recognize any student group that is exclusionary by its very nature. If you want a public service group that anyone can join, fine. If you want a Christian/Muslim/White/Black/Male/Female group that TECHNICALLY anyone can join (but you hope they won't), do it on your own dime and without official recognition.

Or they could just not fund and recognize groups that promote bigotry.

 

[shira]

Interesting. I don't have an opinion on the case other than that it's difficult, but I have objections to free speech in some cases. Considering that it is illegal to advocate for the violent overthrow of the country, it ought to be illegal to advocate violence against children, and more so because they have little in the way of defense. I feel the same way about Nazis. No free speech for them. 50 million dead because of those assholes is enough.

There's a difference between actions that are illegal and speech that advocates that those actions be legalized.

For example, Schedule 1 drugs are illegal. But should speech that advocates that those drugs be legalized for personal use be banned? I cannot imagine a Constitutional argument that could support such a ban.

Note that there's a vast difference between advocating that illegal acts be committed ("incitement") and advocating that laws that make an act illegal be rescinded.

 

[FerrelGeek]

This is essentially the point I was trying to make. What do you think the reaction would be if a group of black students was inundated by a bunch of neo-Nazis? I see nothing wrong with any group establishing a set of core values and then wanting to ensure that those core values are adequately protected. If you don't like the group, don't attend.

I really feel torn on this, and ultimately have a lot of sympathy for the CLS position. Imagine some small, publicly-funded group with an extremely unpopular message (an on-campus branch of NAMBLA, for example). If such a group was required (in order to continue to receive public funding) to accept all applicants as voting members, the group could (and probably would) be co-opted by the large majority who opposed the original group's core message and agenda. Thus, the original message of the group would effectively be silenced. That doesn't sound right to me.

My feeling is that a publicly-supported group be required to accept as "participant" members all who apply, with the proviso that a good-faith condition of continuing membership be that such members not engage in behavior destructive to the group's core purpose. I also think it's reasonable that such groups be allowed to restrict voting rights to those allied with the group's core purpose.

 

[lopri]

When airlines hire pilots, do you think they can be sued because they discriminate against those without a pilot's license?

That is not a discrimination but a merit-based selection.

 

[Moonbeam]

There's a difference between actions that are illegal and speech that advocates that those actions be legalized.

For example, Schedule 1 drugs are illegal. But should speech that advocates that those drugs be legalized for personal use be banned? I cannot imagine a Constitutional argument that could support such a ban.

Note that there's a vast difference between advocating that illegal acts be committed ("incitement") and advocating that laws that make an act illegal be rescinded.

I know, to me they are one and the same. First the Nazis advocated then 50 million were dead. I believe there are absolute evils and that they should be silenced where possible. Evil wins because good people do nothing to stop it. But you have to look deep into what you think is good. I am satisfied with what I see here.