• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Court: Christian group can't bar gays [and] get funding

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
100,194
Reaction score
52,838
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Court: Christian group can't bar gays, get funding - Politics - msnbc.com

WASHINGTON — An ideologically split Supreme Court ruled Monday that a law school can legally deny recognition to a Christian student group that won't let gays join, with one justice saying that the First Amendment does not require a public university to validate or support the group's "discriminatory practices."

The court turned away an appeal from the Christian Legal Society, which sued to get funding and recognition from the University of California's Hastings College of the Law. The CLS requires that voting members sign a statement of faith and regards "unrepentant participation in or advocacy of a sexually immoral lifestyle" as being inconsistent with that faith.

Seems like a reasonable decision to me. The first amendment protects your right to discriminate but it does not protect your right to receive public funding or recognition to enable your discrimination. (the Christian group in question excluded homosexuals)

5-4 decision, with the expected conservative/liberal split and Kennedy siding with the liberals on this one. That four supreme court justices think the first amendment protects your right to public funding of discrimination is fairly disturbing.

On the plus side, this gives some hope to the folks waiting on overturn of California's Prop 8, as it shows that Kennedy wont automatically side against homosexuality. Overturning Prop 8 is a much bigger decision, though, so how he ends up in the inevitable Supreme Court case remains to be seen.
 
Last edited:
I guess I can agree with this. Hopefully it will extend to all groups and not just Christian ones.
 
I guess I can agree with this. Hopefully it will extend to all groups and not just Christian ones.

The way the ruling reads, yes, a university can legally deny funding or recognition to any group that practices discrimination. It doesn't say that the school has to deny funding, so if some other school still wants to recognize a similar group they can do so.
 
The way the ruling reads, yes, a university can legally deny funding or recognition to any group that practices discrimination. It doesn't say that the school has to deny funding, so if some other school still wants to recognize a similar group they can do so.

Is there any kind of legal binding for public universities? I fear this will be abused and created to be a way for universities to "protest" groups and ideologies. I think private universities should have complete control over their funding, but a public university shouldn't ban funding to a Christian group that doesn't accept gays and then fund a Muslim group that doesn't accept anyone of another faith.
 
This ruling is completely correct. Its just too bad that we have 4 justices that cannot understand that the state not only CAN but is required by the Constitution to implement non-discrimination policies.
 
This ruling is completely correct. Its just too bad that we have 4 justices that cannot understand that the state not only CAN but is required by the Constitution to implement non-discrimination policies.


is that what they said? Do you have a link showing that?


j-mac
 
The way the ruling reads, yes, a university can legally deny funding or recognition to any group that practices discrimination.

Stop and think about what you just said. That would mean every group would have to tolerate everyone no matter what the senario lest they be accused of discrimination.

This is what you really want?
 
This ruling is completely correct. Its just too bad that we have 4 justices that cannot understand that the state not only CAN but is required by the Constitution to implement non-discrimination policies.

Do you have any idea how stupid that sounds? So you tolerate everyone? You descriminate against no one?
 
Do you have any idea how stupid that sounds? So you tolerate everyone? You descriminate against no one?

Read the Constitution:
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
 
Read the Constitution:
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Nothing in that statement says sexual orientation must be considered.

You are generalizing to include something that was never stated.
 
Stop and think about what you just said. That would mean every group would have to tolerate everyone no matter what the senario lest they be accused of discrimination.

This is what you really want?

no, it means the university doesn't have to fund the christian group that excludes gay.
 
With Hastings College being private (at least I believe it is) why would 4 justices deny their right to fund or defund whatever groups they want?
 
Do you have any idea how stupid that sounds? So you tolerate everyone? You descriminate against no one?

It only sounds stupid to those who don't understand the concept of non-discrimination. Its not a matter of individual "tolerance", its a matter of the state not allowing discriminatory policies in a state funded facility. I have no problem with a private university if a "Christian" group wants to deny membership to gays (however, I would question exactly how "Christian" they truly are).
 
I think what is says is that if the institution is receiving tax payer funding they can't discriminate.
 
no, it means the university doesn't have to fund the christian group that excludes gay.

So if your group doesn't allow NAMBLA memebers in you shouldn't get money either? Aren't you "decriminating" as well?
 
It only sounds stupid to those who don't understand the concept of non-discrimination.

Which is something you don't have a clue what it actually means.

Its not a matter of individual "tolerance", its a matter of the state not allowing discriminatory policies in a state funded facility. I have no problem with a private university if a "Christian" group wants to deny membership to gays (however, I would question exactly how "Christian" they truly are).

So if you have a group say a children's nonprofit and you denied a NAMBLA member attending you wouldn't be eligable for funding either because you decriminate against NAMBLA.

Starting to get the idea on how stupid your line of thinking really is?
 
Which is something you don't have a clue what it actually means.



So if you have a group say a children's nonprofit and you denied a NAMBLA member attending you wouldn't be eligable for funding either because you decriminate against NAMBLA.

Starting to get the idea on how stupid your line of thinking really is?

No...you are simply demonstating how weak your position is by trying desperately to stretch out whatever argument you can possibly make.
First of all, when you are talking about a "children's non-profit" you aren't talking about a state-sponsored university. Second, that would be a private agency in any event.....
 
No...you are simply demonstating how weak your position is by trying desperately to stretch out whatever argument you can possibly make.
First of all, when you are talking about a "children's non-profit" you aren't talking about a state-sponsored university. Second, that would be a private agency in any event.....

That doesn't answer my question. I'll ask it again. How can you pretend to be supporting non descrimination if I can find groups you would desciminate against?
 
That doesn't answer my question. I'll ask it again. How can you pretend to be supporting non descrimination if I can find groups you would desciminate against?

You are either missing the point completely or just pretending to not understand, I'm not sure which. Individuals are free in this country to believe anything they want and to personally harbor discriminatory views if they want. However, the STATE is barred by the Constitution from discriminating. AGAIN, if a private so called "Christian" university wants to ban gays, they can mask their bigotry behind their religion and do so. The STATE however...cannot. Understand?
 
So if your group doesn't allow NAMBLA memebers in you shouldn't get money either? Aren't you "decriminating" as well?

That's stupid. Membership in special interest clubs isn't protected. Further, in your moronic example, membership by a NAMBLA member (no, still not a protected classs) would be construed as countering the mission of the nonprofit and potentially injurious to its reputation, goals, and clients.
 
Last edited:
Stop and think about what you just said. That would mean every group would have to tolerate everyone no matter what the senario lest they be accused of discrimination.

This is what you really want?

No, thats not what that means. It means the university is not constitutionally required to fund those groups. And no, not every group of any sort is a protected class.

Sooo... you're wrong.

Also noteworthy is that the university still can fund those groups if it elects to do so. The ruling only seems to indicate that denying funding is not a violation of the first amendment.

You're blowing the scope of this ruling way out of proportion.
 
Last edited:
Do you have any idea how stupid that sounds? So you tolerate everyone? You descriminate against no one?

To be honest, I try to tolerate everyone. Our company hired a gay technician not too long ago. Why did we hire him? Because he has more than 10 years experience, and was the best man for the job, out of all the applications we received. In the long run, discrimination only hurts those who practice it.
 
Last edited:
This ruling is completely correct. Its just too bad that we have 4 justices that cannot understand that the state not only CAN but is required by the Constitution to implement non-discrimination policies.

Yea, because when I think of important Supreme Court precedent regarding universities, the first thing that comes to mind is that the Court has been opposed to discrimination in all its forms.
 
Yea, because when I think of important Supreme Court precedent regarding universities, the first thing that comes to mind is that the Court has been opposed to discrimination in all its forms.

At least the 5 that understand the Constitution.
 
Back
Top Bottom