Would you give up a second Obama term to avoid a Trump presidency?

[The Minsky Moment]

BS.  CLS is clearly discriminating (and also discriminates against those who engage in unmarried heterosexual conduct).  But it's allowed to because it's a religious organization following the tenets of it's faith.  This is an easily defensible decision.

The issue here was eligibility for university subsidies so the defensibility is not so clear.
But what is interesting is that Sykes did not rely on that argument, but went further to say it doesn't discriminate against gays in the first place.  That's a blinking red light in my book. 

[Barrister]

My understanding (based of course on my being a damn Canuckistani) is that Southern Illinois University has to account for the rights not only of it's gay students and their right not to be discriminated against, but also it's Christian students and their rights to freedom of assembly and freedom of religion.

Students are entitled to form groups that subscribe to shared values, and to discriminate on who they might allow as members of that group.

I'm really surprised A: that this would be a leading opinion, as it's fairly small potatoes and such issues have been litigated plenty of times, but B: that you think it's controversial.

[The Minsky Moment]

BB: CLS freedom of religion \wasn't an issue - CLS and its members could practice whatever faith it wants and free exercise is a negative right, there is no entitlement to subsidies.  (in fact support in a public u setting arguable raises Establishment Clause problems).

The case was brought as a First Amendment viewpoint discrimination case.  That is perhaps an arguable point and had that been the sum total of Sykes' opinion I agree it would not be notable.

But she also held that the university policy didn't even reach the conduct based on this inane distinction between "inclination" on the one hand and "support" or "conduct" or another.  That's batty.

[LaCroix]

that's not the bottom line

CLS prohibited non-marital sex. technically speaking, the judge is right. 

No technically speaking she's wrong.  CLS separately prohibits "affirmation" of homosexual conduct, of any kind under any circumstance.  That is exactly what the university policy prohibits.

I'd have to spend more time reading about the opinion to respond, and I just don't want to. but, you do have a habit of bringing politics into your interpretations of legal opinions, at least on languish, so

[Barrister]

BB: CLS freedom of religion \wasn't an issue - CLS and its members could practice whatever faith it wants and free exercise is a negative right, there is no entitlement to subsidies.  (in fact support in a public u setting arguable raises Establishment Clause problems).

The case was brought as a First Amendment viewpoint discrimination case.  That is perhaps an arguable point and had that been the sum total of Sykes' opinion I agree it would not be notable.

But she also held that the university policy didn't even reach the conduct based on this inane distinction between "inclination" on the one hand and "support" or "conduct" or another.  That's batty.

The "subsidy" involved being allowed to post on law school bulletin boards and being allowed to book rooms at the law school.

[Josquius]

McCain seemed pretty damn decent as republicans go.
Romney...pretty bad. It remains to be seen whether as bad as Trump though- hopefully Trump being so at odds with the republican establishment will lessen the shit.

[The Minsky Moment]

I'd have to spend more time reading about the opinion to respond, and I just don't want to. but, you do have a habit of bringing politics into your interpretations of legal opinions, at least on languish, so

What politics are you referring to?  And what examples support this habit?

If a policy prohibits discrimination on the basis of skin color, and an organization says people with black skin are allowed as long as they bleach, it is really "political" to point out this is an obvious violation of the policy?

[Admiral Yi]

Dakota, as your special advisor on political strategery, it is my duty to point out that right now might not be the optimal time to go looking for new opponents.

[The Minsky Moment]

The "subsidy" involved being allowed to post on law school bulletin boards and being allowed to book rooms at the law school.

It also involved cash. 
The plaintiff conceded it was able to hold meetings on campus using campus facilities without molestation.

[Admiral Yi]

Romney...pretty bad.

But he never closed a single coal mine. 

Hey Squeeze, on the subject of coal miners, how does it make you feel that your beloved chavs were the ones responsible for Brexit and Trump?

[LaCroix]

What politics are you referring to?  And what examples support this habit?

If a policy prohibits discrimination on the basis of skin color, and an organization says people with black skin are allowed as long as they bleach, it is really "political" to point out this is an obvious violation of the policy?

our citizens united discussion. that was an instance where two (or more) legit interpretations existed, but you said the legit interpretation the court took was wrong. here, I'm assuming the opinion was heard before a panel. it's unlikely the panel straight up got it wrong

[Barrister]

The "subsidy" involved being allowed to post on law school bulletin boards and being allowed to book rooms at the law school.

It also involved cash. 
The plaintiff conceded it was able to hold meetings on campus using campus facilities without molestation.

It might involve cash.  The details were not clear that it did for CLS.

[garbon]

that's not the bottom line

CLS prohibited non-marital sex. technically speaking, the judge is right. 

No technically speaking she's wrong.  CLS separately prohibits "affirmation" of homosexual conduct, of any kind under any circumstance.  That is exactly what the university policy prohibits.

I'd have to spend more time reading about the opinion to respond, and I just don't want to. but, you do have a habit of bringing politics into your interpretations of legal opinions, at least on languish, so

Here's an example.

[LaCroix]

Dakota, as your special advisor on political strategery, it is my duty to point out that right now might not be the optimal time to go looking for new opponents.

my post was pretty harsh, and "habit" was too strong

[LaCroix]

Here's an example.

I actually wondered whether you'd reference that post in your response to my question in the other thread. but you called me a dick before the post existed.