Supreme Court takes case of student group that bars gay members

[Admiral Yi]

Are you the one who supplied him with his blow?

A fierce blow on his knavish pate forsooth.

[DontSayBanana]

Whoa, that is one long fucking sentence.

All I need to know, I learned from James Joyce.

Wait, scratch that.  All I need to know I learned from comedians parodying James Joyce.

[The Minsky Moment]

Looks like an interesting case; pits the associations rights of the student group against the rights of the university to set its own associational policies.  The fact that it is a public university arguably raises dueling first amendment issues - on the one hand, the public uni has some basis to contend that it is taking cautionary steps to avoid excessive religious entanglement; on the other hand, the plaintiffs can argue that the uni is suppressing particular messages on the basis of content.

[Faeelin]

Looks like an interesting case; pits the associations rights of the student group against the rights of the university to set its own associational policies.  The fact that it is a public university arguably raises dueling first amendment issues - on the one hand, the public uni has some basis to contend that it is taking cautionary steps to avoid excessive religious entanglement; on the other hand, the plaintiffs can argue that the uni is suppressing particular messages on the basis of content.

Isn't this more of a conduct case, than a content one?

[Berkut]

Seems pretty straighforward to me.

The group has the right to fear Teh Gay and exclude them because they are a bunch of closet fags themselves, and the University has the right to not recognize them for being douchebags.

What is the problem?

[sbr]

Seems pretty straighforward to me.

The group has the right to fear Teh Gay and exclude them because they are a bunch of closet fags themselves, and the University has the right to not recognize them for being douchebags.

What is the problem?

It frightens me when I agree with you so much.

[Stonewall]

This is a very interesting case.  There are a couple issues that I see.  One is the nature of the school/group relationship.  I think it's pretty clear that the school can't ban the group (not that they have tried to do so) based on their discriminatory membership rules.  However, just as the school can't ban them, the school is not required to give them a platform for or subsidize their viewpoint either, so long as it refuses based on content neutral criteria, which the non-discrimination language appears to be.  I think the school will prevail on this issue.

An interesting irony of this particular case is that the religious "litmus test" that the group imposes on its leadership will be its undoing.  There is no doubt that groups (using a few from my law school days) like the Pro-choice Alliance, Environmentalism Now, the Rainbow Alliance, the Federalist Society or other ideologically based groups often do discriminate in who they allow to become members and especially in who they allow to assume leadership posts. 

I think this kind of discrimination is a good thing.  Groups with an ideological purpose should be free to organize and promote their agenda.  For the most part, they are.  The non-discrimination policy in place, while well-meaning, and seemingly perfectly legal, does not translate into an open and diverse intellectual environment in that it has a disparate impact on religious groups because one group's discrimination based on viewpoint is ok because the particulars of that discrimination don't fall under the umbrella of the college's non-discrimination policy.  Religious groups, whether they be God Hates Homos, Muslims for Jihad, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster Society, don't enjoy the same ability to discriminate with respect to membership since their discrimination is necessarily based on religion, not viewpoint.  It's an interesting dichotomy and I'll be interested to see how the court balances these viewpoints, if it even attempts to do so.

[Martinus]

I think this kind of discrimination is a good thing.  Groups with an ideological purpose should be free to organize and promote their agenda.  For the most part, they are.  The non-discrimination policy in place, while well-meaning, and seemingly perfectly legal, does not translate into an open and diverse intellectual environment in that it has a disparate impact on religious groups because one group's discrimination based on viewpoint is ok because the particulars of that discrimination don't fall under the umbrella of the college's non-discrimination policy.  Religious groups, whether they be God Hates Homos, Muslims for Jihad, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster Society, don't enjoy the same ability to discriminate with respect to membership since their discrimination is necessarily based on religion, not viewpoint.  It's an interesting dichotomy and I'll be interested to see how the court balances these viewpoints, if it even attempts to do so.

Do you think (this is not a rhetorical question - I'm curious of your opinion here) whether it should at all be relevant that the rule preventing gay participation is not, at least directly, related to the "identity" of the student group?

The group here describes itself as a "Christian" group. As such, it could very well discriminate by stating that it only accept Christians - but by excluding gays, it is going beyond the "identity" discrimination, and thus loses the protection you are talking about in your post. Of course, in this line of reasoning we run into a whole lot of practical issues and problems (e.g. who gets to determine what a "Christian" is) but do you see this argument at least having a theoretical merit?

I mean, if they wanted to make a "Protection of Marriage" group that's opposed to gay marriage, I don't think they would have a problem with not accepting gay marriage advocates. Likewise, in your examples, I don't think there is a fair and legitimate interest for a non-muslim to join a Muslim Association or a gay hater to join the Rainbow Alliance - so if they are barred from doing so, it could be seen as reasonable and intended to prevent "trolling".

Here, however, I think a lot of the argument/willingness of gay people to join the group comes from the fact that many gay people consider themselves Christians, and thus they feel the policy is discriminatory and not legitimate.

[Viking]

This happened a few years before my time at Imperial. A group of people sometimes associated with homophobia and pranks *cough*Rugbyplayers*cough* signed up en-masse for the gay group on campus got a majority and disbanded the group. So, I'm in favour of allowing such groups to self-identify, as long as that self-identification is subject to outside and independent review. If a church wants to ban gays and lesbians I think they should be allowed to do so as long as they can argue in front of a court that they are doing this for religious reasons, not discriminatory ones.

If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. -- Lev.20:13

this is pretty straight forward, got hates fags. So, yes, I think churches should be able to ban gays, just as soccer clubs should be able to ban people who refuse to play by the rules out of principle.

[Tamas]

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

yes, it would break under a much lesser skull, let alone Marty's slavo-neanderthal structure

[Martinus]

If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. -- Lev.20:13

this is pretty straight forward, got hates fags. So, yes, I think churches should be able to ban gays, just as soccer clubs should be able to ban people who refuse to play by the rules out of principle.

Oh please let's not start this again. It is also pretty straihtforward that Leviticus hates eating shellfish.

Besides, only because homosexuality is a sin does not mean an organisation has a legitimate reason to ban homosexuals. If Christian churches admitted only sinless people, they would be empty. Forgiveness for one's sins is a central tenet of Christianity.

Edit: And besides, show me where it says lesbianism is not allowed too.

Seriously, I try to be "tolerant" and polite and all, but I can't when you are being such a fucking retard.

[Tamas]

He has a point though, Marty: I say lets stop state funding of churches and then let them be as private clubs as they want to be. If their little petty hatemongering god hates gays, they would betray their religion by not hating you for being gay.

[grumbler]

If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. -- Lev.20:13

this is pretty straight forward, got hates fags. So, yes, I think churches should be able to ban gays, just as soccer clubs should be able to ban people who refuse to play by the rules out of principle.

You'd have an argument if the group banned anyone who violated the laws laid down by Leviticus (e.g. someone who did not break all of the crockery in their house touched by someone with an ulcer).  There is nothing in Levitivcus to imply that homosexuality is worse than disobeying one's father, adultery, or screwing your father's widow (even if she is unrelated to you by blood).

For that matter, the club needs to ban anyone who has worked seven years in a row.

[grumbler]

Seriously, I try to be "tolerant" and polite and all, but I can't when you are being such a fucking retard.

Seriously, "tolerant" is not the word you think it is; you are not trying to be tolerant at all.  Maybe "restrained?"

[Faeelin]

This happened a few years before my time at Imperial. A group of people sometimes associated with homophobia and pranks *cough*Rugbyplayers*cough* signed up en-masse for the gay group on campus got a majority and disbanded the group. So, I'm in favour of allowing such groups to self-identify, as long as that self-identification is subject to outside and independent review. If a church wants to ban gays and lesbians I think they should be allowed to do so as long as they can argue in front of a court that they are doing this for religious reasons, not discriminatory ones.

You can address this in lots of other ways, though.