Supreme Court to consider case against California law school

[Faeelin]

Why does the white supremacist group not have a legitimate purpose?

Because they are "wilfully promoting hatred".

Now I suppose it could get fuzzier if they tried to style themselves as a "European Heritage Association", but even then I don't imagine it'd be too hard to weed out groups like that.

I'm still trying to phrase out the difference. If the Christian Legal Society states on its website that all nonchristians face eternal damnation, is that wilfully promoting hatred? What if it opposes the campaign to legalize gay marriage out of Christian beliefs in 2012?

[grumbler]

Well, I disagree - I'd rather get into the 'foggy area of which restrictions make sense and which don't'.  I think the university community as a whole is better served by having a range of groups, including those with a narrow focus.

Absolutely agree, and this is why I think clubs must have open enrollment, because college clubs are a way for people to discover whether they find narrowly-focused groups of a given type attractive.  By banning those not already a "part of the group" the club robs itself of its educational purpose (which is the purpose an educational institution should be supporting).

Just going off the top of my head, I would think membership restrictions should be "restrictions necessarily tied to the legitimate purpose of the club".  A white supremacist group restricting access to blacks would not be a legitimate purpose.  A basketball group restricting access to people over 6 feet height is not necessarily tied to the group's purpose.

Agreed, with the proviso that a university-sponsored club (as opposed to one just using the university's facilities) should have as a necessary the legitimate purpose of educating (as well as whatever).

And from my time in government there was always some discretion on the part of the student's union to not recognize certain groups.

Makes sense in a sensible society, but not in a litigious one.

[Barrister]

Why does the white supremacist group not have a legitimate purpose?

Because they are "wilfully promoting hatred".

Now I suppose it could get fuzzier if they tried to style themselves as a "European Heritage Association", but even then I don't imagine it'd be too hard to weed out groups like that.

I'm still trying to phrase out the difference. If the Christian Legal Society states on its website that all nonchristians face eternal damnation, is that wilfully promoting hatred? What if it opposes the campaign to legalize gay marriage out of Christian beliefs in 2012?

I used the phrase "wilfully promoting hatred' deliberately, as "wilfully promoting hatred" is a crime in Canada (if it is in a public place, and directed towards an 'identifiable group').  There is however a religious exception.

So no, a Christian group stating that gays face eternal damnation is likely not promoting hatred, because they do so as part of a religious belief.  On the other hand, if Neil attempted to form a group stating that gays are evil spiteful people, that likely would be "wilfully promoting hatred", as he wouldn't have the religious defence.

Gay marriage is a different kellte of fish, as it is a legitimate matter of public policy, so as long as it does not resort to anti-gay bashing (as opposed to anti-gay marriage bashing) it should be fine.  That being said however, how does denying gays membership tie into the purpose of being opposed to gay marriage?  Certainly there are some gays who aren't in favour of it (a definite minority though, but still).

[Neil]

I would never form such a group.

[Barrister]

I would never form such a group.

Smart move. 

[Martinus]

I would love to see gay students to join a Christian hate group en masse and vote themselves to its funds.

That seems like a good argument to support of the christian group. 

I believe I read once about some frat boys joining a gay-straight alliance and spending the group's money on booze.

[Neil]

I would never form such a group.

Smart move. 

On the other hand, why would I not have a religious defence?  My scripture is universal, and people should have no other god before Me.

Besides, it's not the homosexuality that makes them evil.  It's the misplaced values, and the lack of conformity.

[garbon]

I used the phrase "wilfully promoting hatred' deliberately, as "wilfully promoting hatred" is a crime in Canada (if it is in a public place, and directed towards an 'identifiable group').  There is however a religious exception.

So no, a Christian group stating that gays face eternal damnation is likely not promoting hatred, because they do so as part of a religious belief. 

How lovely.

Certainly there are some gays who aren't in favour of it (a definite minority though, but still).

Not sure what your point is here.

[Barrister]

Certainly there are some gays who aren't in favour of it (a definite minority though, but still).

Not sure what your point is here.

My point was that it wasn't clear to me why or how an anti-gay marriage group would be able to justify prohibiting gays from joining.

[Martinus]

I used the phrase "wilfully promoting hatred' deliberately, as "wilfully promoting hatred" is a crime in Canada (if it is in a public place, and directed towards an 'identifiable group').  There is however a religious exception.

I'm still debating whether I am more outraged that religions get special privileges secular organizations do not enjoy or amused by the fact that Canadian lawmakers apparently recognize that religions "willfully promote hatred" and this is so important for their operations, you cannot ban them from doing so. 

[Faeelin]

I used the phrase "wilfully promoting hatred' deliberately, as "wilfully promoting hatred" is a crime in Canada (if it is in a public place, and directed towards an 'identifiable group').  There is however a religious exception.

So no, a Christian group stating that gays face eternal damnation is likely not promoting hatred, because they do so as part of a religious belief.  On the other hand, if Neil attempted to form a group stating that gays are evil spiteful people, that likely would be "wilfully promoting hatred", as he wouldn't have the religious defence.

Gay marriage is a different kellte of fish, as it is a legitimate matter of public policy, so as long as it does not resort to anti-gay bashing (as opposed to anti-gay marriage bashing) it should be fine.  That being said however, how does denying gays membership tie into the purpose of being opposed to gay marriage?  Certainly there are some gays who aren't in favour of it (a definite minority though, but still).

I'm just trying to figure out how this works, and it seems sorta fluffy to me. If they form a group saying gays are evil, spiteful people because of the bible, that's not immoral?

If arguing against gay marriage is a policy issue, what about arguing that homosexual sex should be criminalized?

[Neil]

Do they say that gays are evil and spiteful?  Evil and selfish I could see, but spiteful?

[Barrister]

If arguing against gay marriage is a policy issue, what about arguing that homosexual sex should be criminalized?

I dunno.  I think you have to give "debating policy issues" a pretty wide berth, but surely a line has to be drawn somewhere.  Gay marriage is a debate going on right now so I have no problem with that.  Decriminalizing gay sex was within living memory, but seems to be uncontroversial.  What about arguing to disenfranshize women?  Re-institute slavery?  At some point surely something is just plain hateful and not debating public policy...

[Martinus]

Do they say that gays are evil and spiteful?  Evil and selfish I could see, but spiteful?

Err. Have you met garbon or myself? 

[Neil]

Do they say that gays are evil and spiteful?  Evil and selfish I could see, but spiteful?

Err. Have you met garbon or myself? 

True, but you guys aren't all the gays.  Homosexuality isn't a condition based in spitefulness.  People don't become gays out of hatred, unless they have other, more serious mental problems.

Selfishness is the root of the gay problem, not spitefulness.