Supreme Court takes case of student group that bars gay members

[Valmy]

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.

I suppose if that was the only line of the Bible that would be justified theologically...unfortunately the context is in a bunch of laws Christians claim do not apply to them and they do not follow.

[Martinus]

And besides, as I said, even if all behavior condemned by the Bible as considered "sinful" by modern day Christians (and it isn't), isn't forgiveness for sins and the acceptance of the sinful human nature the central tenet of Christianity?

Do Christian organisations ban people who "say the Lord's name in vain" or who fail to attend the Sunday mass?

[Valmy]

And besides, as I said, even if all behavior condemned by the Bible as considered "sinful" by modern day Christians (and it isn't), isn't forgiveness for sins and the acceptance of the sinful human nature the central tenet of Christianity?

Do Christian organisations ban people who "say the Lord's name in vain" or who fail to attend the Sunday mass?

The Bible never says any particular sin is worse than others.  I do sorta like it when Fundy Christians condemn gays because they are "sinners".  I am sorta like 'and that makes them different from all other humans how exactly?'.

[Faeelin]

And besides, as I said, even if all behavior condemned by the Bible as considered "sinful" by modern day Christians (and it isn't), isn't forgiveness for sins and the acceptance of the sinful human nature the central tenet of Christianity?

Do Christian organisations ban people who "say the Lord's name in vain" or who fail to attend the Sunday mass?

The Bible never says any particular sin is worse than others.  I do sorta like it when Fundy Christians condemn gays because they are "sinners".  I am sorta like 'and that makes them different from all other humans how exactly?'.

Because unlike other sinners, gays want the rest of society to treat them equally and not perceive their actions as immoral.

[Martinus]

And besides, as I said, even if all behavior condemned by the Bible as considered "sinful" by modern day Christians (and it isn't), isn't forgiveness for sins and the acceptance of the sinful human nature the central tenet of Christianity?

Do Christian organisations ban people who "say the Lord's name in vain" or who fail to attend the Sunday mass?

The Bible never says any particular sin is worse than others.  I do sorta like it when Fundy Christians condemn gays because they are "sinners".  I am sorta like 'and that makes them different from all other humans how exactly?'.

Because unlike other sinners, gays want the rest of society to treat them equally and not perceive their actions as immoral.

But the same can be said about divorcees, yet their rights are not restricted.

[grumbler]

And besides, as I said, even if all behavior condemned by the Bible as considered "sinful" by modern day Christians (and it isn't), isn't forgiveness for sins and the acceptance of the sinful human nature the central tenet of Christianity?

Do Christian organisations ban people who "say the Lord's name in vain" or who fail to attend the Sunday mass?

The Bible never says any particular sin is worse than others.  I do sorta like it when Fundy Christians condemn gays because they are "sinners".  I am sorta like 'and that makes them different from all other humans how exactly?'.

Because unlike other sinners, gays want the rest of society to treat them equally and not perceive their actions as immoral.

But the same can be said about divorcees, yet their rights are not restricted.

Divorcees, fornicators, blasphemers, workers on the sabbath, daughters of priests... we could make a huge list.  The argument that gays are unique in this regard (we won't go into fashion sense) is absurd.  The only difference is that some heterosexuals see gay sex as "icky."

[Stonewall]

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?

It is relevant to the extent that the nature of the discrimination as it relates to the identity of the group leads one to the conclusion that the discrimination is based on status, rather than on viewpoint.  I think that's significant.

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?

Equally significant, however, is the actual worded policy of the group is to only prohibit unrepentant homosexuals.  It's not a blanket ban on gay people, at least based on the wording.  The actual wording from the article is:

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.

That kind of conduct policy would capture unrepentant gay people as well as unrepentant straight people having pre-marital sex.   While prohibiting gay people from becoming members may be one of many results of the policy, I'm not sure that the characterization that the policy is aimed at banning gay people is wholly accurate.  The policy itself seems bent on prohibiting members from engaging in unrepentant extramarital sex, which, admittedly, would exclude almost all homosexuals due to the inability of gays to marry.  It would also mean that, technically, if the gays members were repentant about their conduct, they could participate and stay members. 

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.

I consider myself to be an environmentalist, yet I doubt Greenpeace or the Sierra Club would welcome me into their midst as a member of their leadership committees.  I think that in order to ensure a group is free to associate with whom it chooses, it needs to be allowed to define what a "good Christian" or a "good environmentalist" is. 

All that said, there are two separate issues at play here: (1) the right of a group to choose set criteria regarding who can constitute its membership and (2) whether a public university can refuse recognition of said group based on its discriminatory admissions criteria.   

[MadImmortalMan]

And besides, as I said, even if all behavior condemned by the Bible as considered "sinful" by modern day Christians (and it isn't), isn't forgiveness for sins and the acceptance of the sinful human nature the central tenet of Christianity?

You have basically outlined the "normal" view of average Christians, yeah.

[grumbler]

All that said, there are two separate issues at play here: (1) the right of a group to choose set criteria regarding who can constitute its membership and (2) whether a public university can refuse recognition of said group based on its discriminatory admissions criteria.

I don't see this as two issues, really.  Organizations (clubs) that want to have the "right" to decide who can be members of their organization and also want to deny the "right" of other organizations (universities) to decide which clubs can be members of their organization.  Logically, their position is absolutely untenable... unless organizations do not have "rights."

[MadImmortalMan]

All that said, there are two separate issues at play here: (1) the right of a group to choose set criteria regarding who can constitute its membership and (2) whether a public university can refuse recognition of said group based on its discriminatory admissions criteria.

I don't see this as two issues, really.  Organizations (clubs) that want to have the "right" to decide who can be members of their organization and also want to deny the "right" of other organizations (universities) to decide which clubs can be members of their organization.  Logically, their position is absolutely untenable... unless organizations do not have "rights."

Interesting point. Individuals have rights, not organizations, AFAIK. But the right of an individual to free association does apply as the membership of the group chooses as a group of individuals with whom to associate, yes? Sounds convoluted, though. So, I'll see what others have to say.

[The Brain]

If God didn't hate fags why would He make them homosexuals in the first place?

[derspiess]

Divorcees, fornicators, blasphemers, workers on the sabbath, daughters of priests... we could make a huge list.  The argument that gays are unique in this regard (we won't go into fashion sense) is absurd.  The only difference is that some heterosexuals see gay sex as "icky."

Or could it be that gays define themselves through their lifestyle, which Christians view as sinful.  I doubt someone who, for example, outwardly defined his lifestyle as that of fornication would be welcome in this group, either.

Also, every breath Marti takes is a sin.

[grumbler]

Interesting point. Individuals have rights, not organizations, AFAIK. But the right of an individual to free association does apply as the membership of the group chooses as a group of individuals with whom to associate, yes? Sounds convoluted, though. So, I'll see what others have to say.

I think that you are correct that the students have a right to associate, and can associate with whom they please, but I would contend that groups have no "right" to be recognized by the university; it can set whatever standards it wishes for the use of its facilities.

The members of such a group do not simultaneously have the "right to exclude based on self-described identity" and "immunity to exclusion based on self-described identity."

[Faeelin]

I think that you are correct that the students have a right to associate, and can associate with whom they please, but I would contend that groups have no "right" to be recognized by the university; it can set whatever standards it wishes for the use of its facilities.

The members of such a group do not simultaneously have the "right to exclude base3d on self-described identity" and "immunity to exclusion based on self-described identity."

Surely that can't be so. It couldn't say "No Jewish groups," for instance. So is it saying "No Christian groups here?"

I don't think so. This looks like a neutral law on its face; it sucks that this group has an incidental burden (putting up with gays), but its freedom of speech remains the same.

Hrmm. Let's tease this out. Suppose the school also says "You cannot use school funding to promote hate speech."

[Martinus]

I just thought of another thing - to what extent does "freedom of association" extend to excluding people from the association in question. I am not talking here about things that would involve private property (e.g. restricting access to premises you own, or usage of a registered/trademarked name/logo) but to participate in meetings of an association when carried out in a public space and without being disruptive.

I mean, as far as I understand, these associations meet on university premises, so from the perspective of a relationship between an association and a student it is a "public space" (neither of the parties owns the premises). As such, on what grounds can an association actually restrict an access to such meetings by excluding people they do not like?