- Joined
- Jul 21, 2005
- Messages
- 51,713
- Reaction score
- 35,494
- Location
- Washington, DC
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
OK, I'm actually reading the court's decision itself right now:
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1371.pdf
It seems that the school had a policy in place that stated "Hastings requires that [RSOs] allow any student to participate, . . . regardless of [her] status or beliefs. For example, the Hastings Democratic Caucus cannot bar students holding Republican political beliefs".
An important part of the Decision:
"Private groups, such as fraternities and sororities,commonly maintain a presence at universities without official school affiliation."
I see nothing wrong with the decision in light of these facts. I was was under the impression Sororities adn fraternities received school funding. If they don't there's no problem here.
Yep, in general, if they're applying this across the board I don't have a huge issue with it...just be consistant as a college. My one question would be regarding JUST beliefs, or behaviors as well? For example a Democrat Club can't hold people to not have Republican beliefs, but what about attending republican rallies? Could attending or organizing a tea party rally get someone kicked out of the Democrat club? If so, then all the club would need to do is change from making people agree to uphold a certain belief to them agreeing to uphold certain actions.
It looks like there is stuff about behvioral requirements being related to things like dues, and a more generalized definition go "gross misconduct". But the rules do not prevent behavrioa standards from what I've seen so far. the link I put up before is 85 pages long, so I'm not entirely certain how much is included.
See, that's the issue....
I could think they're the ****tiest most backassword Christians ever that don't understand their own book at all.
But in general if behavioral requirements are in there if they want to put in a requirement that individuals do not actively without repentence engage in or advocate for lifestyles deemed contrary to the faith the club adheres to then there would be no problem in my mind. The issue would be in making them agree to follow a particular type of FAITH, and then using the faith agreement to regulate action. In the above case one may keep their belief that homosexuality is okay, that homosexuality isn't a sin, that homosexuals should be able to be married, they just couldn't date a man or promote gay marriage.
By default, it'll likely discriminate against homosexuals, but its a restriction on action not on belief.
Much like people were criticizing Tex earlier for supporting this when he'd be against it for an islamic group, how many people here are simply focusing on "CHRISTIANS!" or focusing on "BAD TO GAY PEOPLE" and would react differently if it was the same situation but with different groups that didn't instill those feelings in you?
I think the point of contention was the following:
Statement of Faith | CLS
Was a requirement for membership, and that violates the schools rules for RSO's. They have other groups that receive RSO status that have strong and opposite opinions, so the actual issue wasn't the point of view of the group. It was that they act to exclude anyone who doesn't conform to their point of view. No groups that receive RSO are allowed to do that, according to the rules in place.
As the case unfolded before the Supreme Court, the Justices appeared to be uncertain just what the policy was. So, before agreeing to hear the case, they called for the record that the lawyers had made in lower courts. The most important discovery the Court made in going through that record, it turned out, was that the Society’s lawyers had agreed to a joint stipulation that the policy was an “all-comers” policy — that is, recognition was available to any student group at Hastings Law that allowed any student to take part in that group, including rising to leadership.
I could care less what group is involved. If they receive public dollars, they are not allowed to discriminate in terms of membership. That means that straight people, if they are so inclined, can join a gay club. It means that boys can join the local breast cancer awareness club (and at my daughter's high school, they do).
If you want a private club that plays by your prescriptive rules, start it with your own money on your own property. The end.
Money Quote:
That isn't actually true. The dissenting opinion shows a few examples of clubs that exclude people (political, ethcnic, etc clubs). However the christian group's lawyers stipulated that an "accept all students" rule was in place and enforced, which seems to me to be the reason they lost the suit.
Not if Breyer actually believed what he said in his dissent in the recent case that incorporated the 2nd against the states: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.
That isn't actually true. The dissenting opinion shows a few examples of clubs that exclude people (political, ethcnic, etc clubs).
Wait, I'm confused....
At one moment you're saying there were clubs that got funds that didn't accept all students but instead excluded them....while at the same time you're saying the Christian Group stated there was an enforced "Accept all students" rule?
If there was an "Accept all students" agreement, how were there groups that didn't accept all students and yet got funding?
Or am I misunderstanding something?
I didn't see anything in the dissenting opinion that showed that these clubs actually excluded people by rule.
Only that they had political, ethnic, etc focuses. The key is that membership was open to all even though the club had these types of focus. One wouldn't have to actually adhere to teh group's professed ideology in order to belong to the group. That wasn't a requirement for membership for any of the groups.
CLS had a requirement for membership that wouldn't allow access to all. One must sign a document that they would adhere to the CLS professed ideology in order to be a member of CLS.
They were asked to remove that requirement in order to get RSO status and they refused.
They could still have adhered to the same professed ideology as a group without requiring members to sign a oath that they too adhered to those views. If they had doen that, they would have been granted the RSO status.
People are allowed to "self-exclude" through this policy that HAstings set up, but groups cannot purposefully exclude while getting RSO status.
In essence, CLS decided that they wanted to **** themselves and pretend it was descrimination.
For example, the bylaws of the Hastings Democratic Caucus provided that “any full-time student at Hastings may become a member of HDC so long as they do not exhibit a consistent disregard and lack of respect for the objective of the organization as stated in Article 3, Section 1.
The dissenting opinion notes a few groups that had the following in their charter.
This allows racial/political groups to exclude members who don't line up with their message. So the club's membership was not open to all, along with some similar groups.
But that doesn't force them to adhere to its message and proclaim it as their own. CLS should have used a similar requirement instead fo requiring peopel to actually adhere to their message.
The difference seems fairly arbitrary to me. Does it really make a difference if CLS is exluding gays because they "exhibit disregard...etc" or if they exclude gays because they won't sign a paper saying they aren't gay prior to joining?
Okay, this is weird, and I think I'd like to see the actual rules of this club.
In one instance it seems to be saying that gays could join, they'd just need to sign the same statement all voting members do that state that regards participation or advocacy of immoral lifestyles as inconsistant with the faith beliefs of the club. I would have zero legal issue with this really. It doesn't bar people from joining, but it clearly details the faith of the club and if you don't agree with the clubs views don't join it. Its not KEEPING people from joining, it just means to join you have to agree with the club. To me this would be no different than having a Young Democrats club and requiring voting members to sign a statement that they will not activitly advocate for views inconsistant with the DNC's platform.
Its that whole free market thing. If you don't want discrimination then you should have to let anyone join, but groups should still be free to have their group views, goals, and activities. If you don't like those activities, don't join it...but know the oppertunity is there.
If these people were actively just denying the allowance of gays into the group no matter what, even if they repented their participation in the life style daily and signed the faith statement, then it would definitely be discrimination because they are not open admission and the signing statement is obviously just a smokescreen.
Additionally, if it was found that the group was violating its own rules and standards by arbitrarily enforcing them, allowing people who knowingly were unrepentant participators of sexually immoral lifestyles, such as having premaritial sex, but disallowing homosexuals then I'd say there'd be grounds for the school to revoke their funding as most campus's I've seen have rules regarding the creation of clubs and the gaining of funding that a club must actually be fulfilling its charter....and not upholding its own rules would NOT be fulfilling its charter.
So this is really tricky and I think i'd need more information.
Were they actively disallowing gays? Or did they simply have a requirement for voting rights that was done in such a way that it would be difficult for homosexuals to honestly and volunteerly go along with it?
Well before the law equal we are all and if a club is seem kind of public money they have to abide by that. And I would also be willing to bet the school has a non discrimination policy
Yeah. Exhibiting disregard and a lack of respect to the message implies that the person's presence in the group will be inherently disruptive towards the group and doesn't exclude those who are discretely in disagreement or don't respect the message. The key is that the disregard and lack of respect must be exhibited consistently. It doesn't exclude for ideological nonconformity, it excludes due to overtly opposing the message.
While CLS's requirement completely excludes discrete disregard and lack of respect from mebership as well because it requires conformity.
Forgive me for stating the obvious at this late point, but it suddenly struck me. Why would a Christian group wish to discriminate against members?
I guess they missed 1 Timothy 1:15 during bible study:
Is the Christian club suggesting that they are without sin?
If so, then why do they need Christ?
I can't help but think that they need a remedial class on Jesus 101.
Eh - I think that's splitting hairs. The Democratic group's clause was clearly intended to exclude non-democrats from the club, just as the Christian group's oath was intended to exclude non-christians. The opinion and the case focused on whether or not a group could exclude members, not the difference between members who discretely oppose the group's message versus those who overtly oppose the group's message.
So what if I claimed I was a democrat but most of my beliefs were anything but Democrat in nature. Could I skate by demanding entry under the argument of descrimination?
Sure why not but why do that?
Sure why not but why do that?
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?