Supreme Court to Hear Christian Group's Appeal

[ericlp]

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/04/19/national/main6409682.shtml

The University of California's Hastings Law School says the Christian Legal Society's policy discriminates against gays and non-Christians.

So this is how it starts huh?

Next thing you know they will be asking if your a christain on your job app... check the no box and your screwed.

Oh did you want a loan for a car? Or that new house? Not a church goer? No cash for you!

Where does this shit end?

This country has turned into a big religious out of control cult.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Yeah, because a Christian group wants to have Christians in it means you are going to have to be a Christian to buy a car.

What next, dogs and cats living together in sin?

 

[Throckmorton]

The university should be free to not recognize whatever group it wants for whatever reason it wants.

 

[theflyingpig]

This country has turned into a big religious out of control cult.

This should be obvious to anyone who has watched our election processes. America is filled with religious fools. Everyone knows this.

 

[Linflas]

The university should be free to not recognize whatever group it wants for whatever reason it wants.

Nice theory so I assume then if the university decided it would not allow a homosexual student association because the university found homosexuality to be an abomination you would defend their right to do so?

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/04/19/national/main6409682.shtml

The University of California's Hastings Law School says the Christian Legal Society's policy discriminates against gays and non-Christians.

So this is how it starts huh?

Next thing you know they will be asking if your a christain on your job app... check the no box and your screwed.

Oh did you want a loan for a car? Or that new house? Not a church goer? No cash for you!

Where does this shit end?

This country has turned into a big religious out of control cult.

You do realize that this group is not asking for anything that this university has not already permitted for other associations?

 

[PokerGuy]

Hopefully the SCOTUS will smack down the school on this one.

 

[actuarial]

Nice theory so I assume then if the university decided it would not allow a homosexual student association because the university found homosexuality to be an abomination you would defend their right to do so?

You do realize that this group is not asking for anything that this university has not already permitted for other associations?

At my university student groups basically had to allow anyone who wanted to join to do so, and the leadership had to be decided by election. There was lots of cultural clubs but anyone could join.

Both the club and the university are being idiots here, IMO. Frankly, no gay person would get elected to be the leader of a Christian club anyways, so the policy itself probably doesn't have any effect (which is why the university is being an idiot). I honestly don't think that you'd have enough people to make up the leadership if there was a 'no sex' stipulation on any club at my school though, so I imagine that they feel it's selectively enforced. If so, the university is just pissed that the club is finding a roundabout way to hang a 'no gays' sign out front, which I doubt they want to be associated with (the club is just going out of it's way to exacerbate this fact, which is why they're being idiots).

It's no different in my mind (and in Canada the classes are protected equally) than a club stipulating that you have to sign a document stating that you believe that the white race is superior to all others to be in the leadership.

 

[actuarial]

Hopefully the SCOTUS will smack down the school on this one.

The club is a member of the university, so why would the SCOTUS grant rights to the club (free selection of association) but not the university?

I can't see how an argument can be made supporting the Christian Group that also wouldn't support the university. Conversely, I can't see any argument against the university that also wouldn't go against the Christian group.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

This should be interesting...pot calls kettle black. But it's kinda tough to tell which one is the pot and which one is the kettle though.

 

[Danube]

The Boy Scouts already won on this kind of thing.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

At my university student groups basically had to allow anyone who wanted to join to do so, and the leadership had to be decided by election. There was lots of cultural clubs but anyone could join.

Both the club and the university are being idiots here, IMO. Frankly, no gay person would get elected to be the leader of a Christian club anyways, so the policy itself probably doesn't have any effect (which is why the university is being an idiot). I honestly don't think that you'd have enough people to make up the leadership if there was a 'no sex' stipulation on any club at my school though, so I imagine that they feel it's selectively enforced. If so, the university is just pissed that the club is finding a roundabout way to hang a 'no gays' sign out front, which I doubt they want to be associated with (the club is just going out of it's way to exacerbate this fact, which is why they're being idiots).

It's no different in my mind (and in Canada the classes are protected equally) than a club stipulating that you have to sign a document stating that you believe that the white race is superior to all others to be in the leadership.

It's not quite the same though. What if the NAACP were in the hypothetical situation of having the KKK gaining control? Could they prevent this? That's an extreme case, but wanting to prevent people who may have fundamentally different philosophies from destroying your organization is understandable. I do get what you are saying though. The OP was just an exercise in hyperbole. He'll have to pass a Christian litmus test for a loan about the same time he'll need to allow gays to fondly his kids. Both are asinine claims.

 

[WHAMPOM]

Christian Legal Society! What a misnomer, neither *Christian*(as you do unto the least of mine, so do you do to me) or *Legal*(by school policy open to all), but a truely closed *Society*.

 

[Mursilis]

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/04/19/national/main6409682.shtml

The University of California's Hastings Law School says the Christian Legal Society's policy discriminates against gays and non-Christians.

So this is how it starts huh?

Next thing you know they will be asking if your a christain on your job app... check the no box and your screwed.

Oh did you want a loan for a car? Or that new house? Not a church goer? No cash for you!

Where does this shit end?

This country has turned into a big religious out of control cult.

Great - first, my sarcasm meter was already on the fritz, and now my idiot meter just exploded!

 

[thraashman]

This one is kinda a double-whammy. Sort of a damned if you do, damned if you don't. The school has a very understandable anti-discrimination policy in place. At the same time, you can fully understand why a group like the Christian Legal Society would want to have members who agree with the beliefs the group has. Also you'd kind of wonder if anyone who didn't agree would ever want to join such a group. The problem here lies that by allowing a group to not allow members based on religion or sexual orientation, you have to consider the slippery slope argument from a legal standpoint for the school. While I think that the slippery slope argument is bullshit for pretty much any discussion, in this case from a legal standpoint the school has a valid argument. Because if another group came up that wanted to restrict membership to disallow say Muslims, they could point to how the school already allows a group to disallow non-Christians. Legal precedence is a pain in the ass sometimes.

 

[thraashman]

The Boy Scouts already won on this kind of thing.

From your previous posts I'm guessing you're on the side of the Christian group. But do you realize that in this case the University is the one that would be the Boy Scouts. Because the university would win the argument that they're allowed to ban a group like this. The Boy Scouts are a private organization that are allowed to deny membership based on their own set criteria. And while I completely disagree with them not allowing gay members, I can see the legal standpoint. On the other hand, the Christian Legal Soceity is a group within a university system and the university can set rules that says they're not allowed to limit membership.

In other words, you're on the side of the university with this argument. Which I am just slightly on the side of myself. Thanks for your input.

 

[lopri]

The distortion here is bizzare. It is the CLS (Christian Legal Society) who want to exclude others on impermissible grounds, not the other way around. And as a matter of fact, CLS is perfectly free to discriminate as long as it doesn't insist on using school's money. The issue arose because CLS wants an "official recognition" of the school, which is an alias of the government sanction in this case.

The school has a non-discrimination policy that reads like any other: on the basis of race, national origin, religion, sex, sexual orientation, age, etc. Of course it is easier to target gays in today's legal environment, and I believe this is part of the long running campaign of the religious right who precedes their political gain over anything.

Indeed, CLS had no problem with gay members in the past. The policy change came from 'up above' recently. This isn't an isolated incidence in this area - Boyscout in NJ, adoption center in MA, and now schools in CA; Local Boyscout had no problem with gay scoutmaster, let alone gay members but its national committee suddenly pressures to lose them. A local Catholic adoption center always welcomed same-sex couples but suddenly changes its policy after same-sex marriage becomes legal (no doubt because the church remembered its forgotten 'teachings'), Christian students organization that used to embrace gay Christian students shuts its door after the national leadership decides on a new crusade against gays.

There are, of course, legal issues on each case but there is also an unmistakable theme in all of this, which is the desire of the religious right to prevail in public sphere. And unfortunately it takes a bigoted idea more often than not - it is easier targeting real people than targeting some abstract sin, which obviously isn't enforceable.

It wasn't too long ago when a religious school had an official policy of banning interracial marriage. Bob Jones University v. United States. (A fun quote: The ban on interracial dating was lifted in 2000 after Dr. Bob Jones III, following a media uproar prompted by the visit of presidential candidate George W. Bush, announced its nullification on Larry King Live) Think about it.

 

[MotF Bane]

So this is how it starts huh?

Next thing you know they will be asking if your a christain on your job app... check the no box and your screwed.

Oh did you want a loan for a car? Or that new house? Not a church goer? No cash for you!

lolwut?

 

[FerrelGeek]

Hopefully the SCOTUS will smack down the school on this one.

Agreed. This has little to do with religion; it's a matter of freedom of speech and association. Think of it this way. How would a campus group of black students like it if they had to allow an open KKK member, skinhead, etc. to become their president? Or a lesbian group being forced to take direction from a flaming misogynist?

Oh wait, I forgot. We're talking about Christians here. They don't deserve the rights afforded to the enlightened or other politically approved victim groups.

 

[zsdersw]

The Boy Scouts already won on this kind of thing.

The Boy Scouts of America is not a public institution.

 

[OutHouse]

This country has turned into a big religious out of control cult.

ummm no not even close.

how exactly does this story affect your life?

 

[Brainonska511]

Agreed. This has little to do with religion; it's a matter of freedom of speech and association. Think of it this way. How would a campus group of black students like it if they had to allow an open KKK member, skinhead, etc. to become their president? Or a lesbian group being forced to take direction from a flaming misogynist?

Oh wait, I forgot. We're talking about Christians here. They don't deserve the rights afforded to the enlightened or other politically approved victim groups.

From what I read, this is more an issue with receiving public funding/recognition. Since the group doesn't abide by the anti-discrimination policy set in place by the University (and by the public funding it receives), it cannot publicly support the group as long as the group has an official discrimination policies. The university is not banning the group, just refusing to official support it.

 

[actuarial]

Agreed. This has little to do with religion; it's a matter of freedom of speech and association. Think of it this way. How would a campus group of black students like it if they had to allow an open KKK member, skinhead, etc. to become their president? Or a lesbian group being forced to take direction from a flaming misogynist?

Oh wait, I forgot. We're talking about Christians here. They don't deserve the rights afforded to the enlightened or other politically approved victim groups.

So why do you support the CLS getting to choose who they associate with, but not the University?

And where did the University say they had to have a gay president? They just have to allow the possibility (ie. not openly disallow). If it's like many other groups, the president is elected, so it would require a majority of the members to want the person as president, thereby there was no forcing. What other mechanism would there be to choose the president that would result in a ridiculous slippery slope like you've used above?

 

[Balt]

Hopefully the SCOTUS will smack down the school on this one.

So you support the Supreme Court imposing its will on the law school for following its guidelines that prevent recognition/funding of discriminatory organizations? You want the Supreme Court to force the law school to recognize/fund the group?

Please tell me you've never whined about judicial activism before.

 

[nonlnear]

Why would a student group whose values are radically different from those of their state feel they are wronged by not getting state sponsorship? These whiny kids need either a good bitch-slapping or they need to toss aside their beliefs that they apparently don't hold quite so dear. I miss the good old days when all student groups were illicit. Back then membership really meant something.

 

[shira]

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

Politically correct, legally wrong

Monday, April 19, 2010

PICTURE THIS: gay student organizations forced to accept those who believe that homosexuality is an abomination. Student political groups, such as Young Republicans or Young Democrats, compelled to allow members of the other party to vote on policy platforms. A law association for African American students being told that it must let white supremacists run for leadership posts.

Sound absurd? Welcome to the University of California, Hastings College of Law. The school says that student groups that want to enjoy certain benefits must adhere to the school's nondiscrimination policy. Fair enough, except that the school's "all comers" policy requires that a group accept as voting members even those who disagree with its core principles. Organizations that comply gain the right to use campus meeting rooms and school e-mail lists and are invited to the annual student organization fair. They also have the right to apply for grants funded by student activity fees and vending machine sales.

The school lists about 60 such "recognized school organizations," including the Hastings Association of Muslim Law Students, the Hastings Jewish Law Students Association and Hastings Outlaw, a group founded by gay students.

The Christian Law Society (CLS) is not among them. Although it allows all Hastings students to attend meetings, CLS reserves voting membership and leadership posts for those who sign a declaration of faith that includes belief in Jesus Christ. The group asserts that "in the view of the clear dictates of Scripture, unrepentant participation in or advocacy of a sexually immoral lifestyle is inconsistent with an affirmation of the Statement of Faith, and consequently may be regarded by CLS as disqualifying such an individual from CLS membership." What CLS considers as disqualifying are "all acts of sexual conduct outside of God's design for marriage between one man and one woman, which acts include fornication, adultery, and homosexual conduct."

The policy did not go over well in the San Francisco-based law school, which declined to recognize CLS after concluding that its policies discriminate on the basis of religion and sexual orientation. CLS filed suit, and the Supreme Court will hear argument Monday. The law school argues that its actions are reasonable because it applies the nondiscrimination policy fairly to all groups. But the school approved the bylaws of La Raza Law Students Association even though they limited membership to "students of Raza background"; La Raza amended its bylaws after a lawyer for CLS took note.

It is one thing to require that groups that accept school funds and use school facilities give every student the opportunity to attend meetings or explore the virtues of a particular organization. But it is altogether different to require groups to accept as members or leaders even those who disagree with its central beliefs. This cuts at the core of meaningful association; penalizing a group by withholding school benefits only exacerbates the harm.

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.