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.
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.
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.
The way the ruling reads, yes, a university can legally deny funding or recognition to any group that practices discrimination.
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?
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.
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?
Do you have any idea how stupid that sounds? So you tolerate everyone? You descriminate against no one?
no, it means the university doesn't have to fund the christian group that excludes gay.
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).
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.....
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?
So if your group doesn't allow NAMBLA memebers in you shouldn't get money either? Aren't you "decriminating" as well?
You are either missing the point completely or just pretending to not understand, I'm not sure which.
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?
Do you have any idea how stupid that sounds? So you tolerate everyone? You descriminate against no one?
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?