Supreme Court takes case of student group that bars gay members

[jimmy olsen]

I think that Supremes will probably back the Chicago court and justly so. No group should be forced to accept members that engage in behavior or has beliefs that group advocates against.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/1208/p02s07-usju.html

Supreme Court takes case of student group that bars gay members

Christian student group cites freedom of religion in disallowing gay members. The college cites its nondiscrimination policy. The Supreme Court has agreed to decide which will prevail.

By Warren Richey | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor

from the December 7, 2009 edition
Washington - The US Supreme Court on Monday agreed to take up a case testing the limits of religious freedom and association when those rights clash with a college's policy of nondiscrimination against gays and lesbians.

The Christian Legal Society (CLS) at the Hastings College of the Law in San Francisco was stripped of its registered student organization status at the college because it refused to allow gay and lesbian students to become voting members or officers of the group.

Under the Hastings nondiscrimination policy, student organizations must allow fellow students to join and potentially seek leadership positions in any organization without regard to their status or beliefs.

A statement of Christian faith

Starting in the 2004-2005 academic year, the CLS required prospective members to sign a statement of Christian faith. The statement includes a pledge that the undersigned student trusts in "Jesus Christ as my savior."

Prospective members must express belief in several religious tenets, including "one God, eternally existent in three persons, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit." The statement includes a pledge of belief in the virgin birth, eternal life, Jesus' resurrection, a divinely created heaven and earth, and that the Bible is the inspired word of God.

In addition, the national Christian Legal Society developed a policy position stating its view of biblical principles of sexual morality. The position, adopted by the Hastings chapter, said that "unrepentant participation in or advocacy of a sexually immoral lifestyle" was inconsistent with the group's statement of faith and would disqualify an individual from membership.

"A person who advocates or unrepentantly engages in sexual conduct outside marriage between a man and a woman is not considered to be living consistently with the Statement of Faith and, therefore, is not eligible" for membership in the CLS, according to the group's legal brief.

Official recognition denied

Hastings officials informed CLS that it would have to open its membership to all students despite their religion or sexual orientation. When the group refused, the law school denied CLS official recognition as a student group.

"No other student organization had ever refused to comply with Hastings' nondiscrimination policy and none has a membership policy like CLS's, which explicitly prevents Hastings students from joining on the basis of their religion, sexual orientation, or any other protected status," writes Ethan Schulman in a brief filed on behalf of Hastings.

Mr. Schulman says the college's nondiscrimination policy is designed to encourage "tolerance, cooperation, and learning among students of different backgrounds and viewpoints."

There are about 60 registered student organizations on the Hastings campus, including Hastings Outlaw (a gay rights group), Black Law Students Association, the Clara Foltz Feminist Society, Silenced Right: National Alliance Pro-Life Group, Law Students for Choice, Hastings Republicans, and Hastings Democratic Caucus.

CLS did not restrict students of different beliefs or perspectives from attending its meetings and events. The issue is over who can become a voting member and potential leader of the organization.

According to briefs in the case, CLS continued to meet on campus and conduct activities after its official status demotion. Between nine and 15 students regularly attended the meetings in 2004-05.

CLS filed suit in federal court, claiming Hastings officials violated its members' right to expressive association, free speech, free exercise of religion, and equal protection of the law.

The judge upheld the college's nondiscrimination policy as an acceptable regulation of CLS's conduct, rather than regulation of its speech. The Ninth US Circuit Court of Appeals also upheld the college's nondiscrimination policy. It found that the restrictions were neutral and reasonable.

Two circuit courts at odds?

In appealing to the US Supreme Court, CLS lawyer Gregory Baylor argues that the San Francisco-based Ninth Circuit's decision squarely conflicts with a 2006 decision of the Chicago-based Seventh Circuit. The Seventh Circuit case also involved a college-based chapter of the Christian Legal Society challenging a nondiscrimination policy.

In contrast, the Seventh Circuit ruled for the CLS, saying imposition of the nondiscrimination policy at Southern Illinois University School of Law undercut the group's ability to advocate its viewpoint.

That court concluded that "it would be difficult for CLS to sincerely and effectively convey a message of disapproval of certain types of conduct if, at the same time, it must accept members who engage in that conduct."

In ruling for CLS, the Chicago-based appeals court applied strict scrutiny, the toughest level of judicial inspection to the school's actions. In contrast, the Ninth Circuit applied a lower level of scrutiny to the Hastings policy.

Colleges' public funding and antibias rules

In a statement after the high court announcement, Americans United for Separation of Church and State said the justices should use the case to establish the principle that public funding and official recognition on public college campuses must be open to all.

"Public schools have every right – indeed, an obligation – to refuse to advance religious discrimination," said the Rev. Barry Lynn, executive director of Americans United.

"This case is about fundamental fairness," he said. "If the student religious group wins, it will mean some students will be compelled to support clubs [through payment of required student activity fees] that won't even admit them as members. That's just not right," he said.

The case is Christian Legal Society v. Martinez. It will probably be argued next spring.

[Darth Wagtaros]

MARTY TO THE RESCUE!!!

[Neil]

I'm pulling for the Christians, in hopes that Martinus will band his head into his MacBook so hard that he'll fracture his skull and die.

This is, of course, ridiculous.  The MacBook is so poorly constructed that the impact of Marti's skull will disintegrate it.

[Iormlund]

Damn, those 7th Circuit judges are retarded. I'd love to see if they would have used the same argument if it were a group of Muslims that banned women from voting and leadership.

[Admiral Yi]

I'm with the fags.  This is not about free association.  They can free associate in someone's dorm room.  It's about use of school funds.

[jimmy olsen]

Damn, those 7th Circuit judges are retarded. I'd love to see if they would have used the same argument if it were a group of Muslims that banned women from voting and leadership.

While I certainly wouldn't approve of such a group, I would hope that the court would rule in their favor.  They have the right to advocate their views as they see fit.

[Ed Anger]

make them join the anime club.

[Palisadoes]

The law shouldn't be allowed to interfere with the constitution of private membership clubs.

Regardless of if they should or should not be allowed... tough case!

[MadImmortalMan]

I'm with the fags.  This is not about free association.  They can free associate in someone's dorm room.  It's about use of school funds.

Yes, the school's association with/support of the group changes the game.

[Faeelin]

The law shouldn't be allowed to interfere with the constitution of private membership clubs.

Regardless of if they should or should not be allowed... tough case!

They are allowed to do whatever they want. They can form the group. The issue is should the school be forced to recognize a group (and being at a law school now, this entails funding) that discriminates against people?

[derspiess]

       

I'm with the fags.  This is not about free association.  They can free associate in someone's dorm room.  It's about use of school funds.

Agree. 

Semi-related, I think universities fund too much extracurricular shit to begin with.  People complain about the cost of a college education-- if they scaled back funding for all the crap that is only used by a tiny percentage of the student population, we (I'm a taxpayer so I'm helping pay for it) would get a lot more bang for our buck.

[Neil]

The issue is should the school be forced to recognize a group (and being at a law school now, this entails funding) that discriminates against people?

Of course they should.

[Stonewall]

Is that law school a public or a private one?  Also, I didn't see anywhere in the article where it says the group accepts school funds.  Was it in there and I missed it or is that information coming from elsewhere else or are people just assuming they get school money?

[katmai]

Hastings is a UC school, so yes they take state and federal funds.

No idea about the group accepting school money.

[Faeelin]

Is that law school a public or a private one?  Also, I didn't see anywhere in the article where it says the group accepts school funds.  Was it in there and I missed it or is that information coming from elsewhere else or are people just assuming they get school money?

I'm assuming, because every recognized group at my school gets law school funding.