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
QuoteSupreme 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.
MARTY TO THE RESCUE!!!
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.
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.
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.
Quote from: Iormlund on December 07, 2009, 07:36:57 PM
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.
make them join the anime club.
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!
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 07, 2009, 07:38:46 PM
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.
Quote from: Palisadoes on December 07, 2009, 07:54:05 PM
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?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 07, 2009, 07:38:46 PM
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.
Quote from: Faeelin on December 07, 2009, 08:34:29 PM
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.
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?
Hastings is a UC school, so yes they take state and federal funds.
No idea about the group accepting school money.
Quote from: Stonewall on December 07, 2009, 08:53:01 PM
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.
The three things official school recognition got you at my school were a little bit of money, the right to put up flyers around school, and the use of classrooms for meetings.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 07, 2009, 09:07:59 PM
The three things official school recognition got you at my school were a little bit of money, the right to put up flyers around school, and the use of classrooms for meetings.
Yeah, that's pretty much the norm, though I'd certainly not assume that it's universally the case.
Hey Tim, you saw this, right?
QuoteUnder 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.
The group was on shaky ground even before they barred gay students.
Not all student groups got a budget at the schools I went to, especially small groups like that. They were just allowed to use school facilities to meet.
Quote from: DontSayBanana on December 07, 2009, 09:27:30 PM
Hey Tim, you saw this, right?
QuoteUnder 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.
The group was on shaky ground even before they barred gay students.
I saw it, I think it's retarded. How can you have any groups with a religious or political mission if they can't discriminate due to beliefs? This cuts both ways. The campus gay rights groups should be able to ban students who go to evangelical churches that preach against homosexuality, the campus democrats should be able to ban all members who don't belong to the Democratic party, etc.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 07, 2009, 07:52:14 PM
Quote from: Iormlund on December 07, 2009, 07:36:57 PM
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.
Huh? Obviously nobody is questioning their right to advocate their views as they see fit. I don't get the connection.
Quote from: katmai on December 07, 2009, 08:56:34 PM
Hastings is a UC school, so yes they take state and federal funds.
No idea about the group accepting school money.
Doesn't matter if they accept school money. Once they get that "approved by student activities/life/whatever" stamp on the poster, they're endorsed by the school. That's an establishment issue if they're only promoting Christian officers.
Circuit courts are at odds probably more than you realize. Decisions and opinions from a higher court that has jurisdiction over a lower court have the force of law; decisions and opinions from a sister court at the same appellate level are treated as amici curiae.
Regarding public funding, until someone comes along and proves "they're taking public funding from the college" I'm gonna call bullshit on that one. At all the schools I've been to, extracurricular "club-type" groups were entirely in charge of raising their own funds.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 07, 2009, 07:27:11 PM
No group should be forced to accept members that engage in behavior or has beliefs that group advocates against.
...except they sorta have to as an officially recognized student organization. They can simply become an unofficial group and they no longer have to abide by the rules.
Quote from: Valmy on December 07, 2009, 09:36:20 PM
...except they sorta have to as an officially recognized student organization. They can simply become an unofficial group and they no longer have to abide by the rules.
:yes:
Funny; I never would have figured Timmay to be one of those rabid "religion trumps public interest" guys.
If you've read my latest post, I'm record as saying that leftist groups can discriminate against religious members, how is that position that "religion trumps public interest"?
They should just do away with all official student groups. I always resented that I was forced to pay money every semester that went to them.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on December 07, 2009, 09:40:07 PM
If you've read my latest post, I'm record as saying that leftist groups can discriminate against religious members, how is that position that "religion trumps public interest"?
That's ridiculous. No protected class has carte blanche authority to discriminate against another one; the law is more concerned with equality and is more likely to rule against the foaming-at-the-mouth evangelical who wants to make hell for homosexuals start a little earlier than death than against the outspoken gay fiancee who wonders why the first amendment's anti-establishment clause doesn't seem to apply to his or her marital status that's used as a qualifier for a great many federal programs.
Whoa, that is one long fucking sentence.
Student groups at GU could borrow the school's shuttle busses too. I know this because my buddy was president of the campus Japanese club and I schlepped all the fucking way up to College Park Maryland to attend some Asian festivus, only to discover on arrival that the Maryland campus was dry.
But on the upside I got to see Len Bias before he kicked the bucket. He was lounging on the student union steps with his posse, looking surly.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 07, 2009, 10:05:21 PM
But on the upside I got to see Len Bias before he kicked the bucket. He was lounging on the student union steps with his posse, looking surly.
Are you the one who supplied him with his blow?
Quote from: katmai on December 07, 2009, 10:06:49 PM
Are you the one who supplied him with his blow?
A fierce blow on his knavish pate forsooth.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 07, 2009, 09:53:15 PM
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. :P
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.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on December 07, 2009, 10:34:52 PM
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?
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?
Quote from: Berkut on December 07, 2009, 11:26:55 PM
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. :P
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.
Quote from: Stonewall on December 08, 2009, 12:27:03 AM
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.
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.
QuoteIf 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.
Quote from: Neil on December 07, 2009, 07:30:43 PM
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 :P
Quote from: Viking on December 08, 2009, 05:31:32 AM
QuoteIf 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.
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.
Quote from: Viking on December 08, 2009, 05:31:32 AM
QuoteIf 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.
Quote from: Martinus on December 08, 2009, 06:06:42 AM
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?"
Quote from: Viking on December 08, 2009, 05:31:32 AM
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.
Quote from: Viking on December 08, 2009, 05:31:32 AM
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.
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?
Quote from: Martinus on December 08, 2009, 10:35:56 AM
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?'.
Quote from: Valmy on December 08, 2009, 10:42:25 AM
Quote from: Martinus on December 08, 2009, 10:35:56 AM
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.
Quote from: Faeelin on December 08, 2009, 10:45:12 AM
Quote from: Valmy on December 08, 2009, 10:42:25 AM
Quote from: Martinus on December 08, 2009, 10:35:56 AM
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.
Quote from: Martinus on December 08, 2009, 10:46:05 AM
Quote from: Faeelin on December 08, 2009, 10:45:12 AM
Quote from: Valmy on December 08, 2009, 10:42:25 AM
Quote from: Martinus on December 08, 2009, 10:35:56 AM
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."
Quote from: Martinus on December 08, 2009, 04:25:09 AMDo 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.
QuoteThe 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:
QuoteA 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.
QuoteHere, 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.
Quote from: Martinus on December 08, 2009, 10:35:56 AM
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.
Quote from: Stonewall on December 08, 2009, 11:45:05 AM
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."
Quote from: grumbler on December 08, 2009, 12:58:35 PM
Quote from: Stonewall on December 08, 2009, 11:45:05 AM
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.
If God didn't hate fags why would He make them homosexuals in the first place?
Quote from: grumbler on December 08, 2009, 11:38:54 AM
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.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on December 08, 2009, 01:38:42 PM
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."
Quote from: grumbler on December 08, 2009, 02:36:26 PM
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."
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?
Quote from: grumbler on December 08, 2009, 12:58:35 PM
Quote from: Stonewall on December 08, 2009, 11:45:05 AM
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."
Were we talking about a private group at a private university, I would agree. However, we're talking about a private group (which enjoys the right to discriminate) at a public university (which doesn't enjoy that right since it acts with the color of state authority), which changes the nature of the argument. Group rights are tricky. There is a strong line of cases (if my memory is right - it's been a while since I did anything with discrimination) that make it incredibly difficult for state authorities to get membership lists of private groups on the basis of freedom of association. Groups have standing to defend these kinds of actions on behalf it their individual members on the basis that if an individual member has standing to defend, that right percorated to the group.
Quote from: Stonewall on December 08, 2009, 03:15:30 PM
Quote from: grumbler on December 08, 2009, 12:58:35 PM
Quote from: Stonewall on December 08, 2009, 11:45:05 AM
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."
Were we talking about a private group at a private university, I would agree. However, we're talking about a private group (which enjoys the right to discriminate) at a public university (which doesn't enjoy that right since it acts with the color of state authority), which changes the nature of the argument. Group rights are tricky. There is a strong line of cases (if my memory is right - it's been a while since I did anything with discrimination) that make it incredibly difficult for state authorities to get membership lists of private groups on the basis of freedom of association. Groups have standing to defend these kinds of actions on behalf it their individual members on the basis that if an individual member has standing to defend, that right percorated to the group.
Could you explain what are the grounds for the group's right to discriminate?
If a group is organizing a rally in a street, can they legally prevent people from joining, as long as such people are not disruptive?
Quote from: Faeelin on December 08, 2009, 02:45:42 PM
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."
I don't see why the Uni would have to tolerate a group that says "no non-Jews allowed." The club can have the purpose of exploring Jewish faith and identity, but I don't see any public interest served by having a group that doesn't offer its benefits to all members of the community. Few non-Jews would want to join, but they should be able to if they want to.
And I would reiterate that I don't think groups have rights like "freedom of speech." Other than that, I think we are in agreement.
Quote from: Stonewall on December 08, 2009, 03:15:30 PM
Were we talking about a private group at a private university, I would agree. However, we're talking about a private group (which enjoys the right to discriminate)
Can you cite for me again the source of group rights? Are they the same basic thing as states' rights?
Because I don't see anything that would support your contention that "a private group ... enjoys the right to discriminate." The group may have a power, and the individuals a right, but that is true of any individuals.
Quote...at a public university (which doesn't enjoy that right since it acts with the color of state authority),
Wherein does the uni get rights, as well? Same place as the student groups?
Quotewhich changes the nature of the argument. Group rights are tricky. There is a strong line of cases (if my memory is right - it's been a while since I did anything with discrimination) that make it incredibly difficult for state authorities to get membership lists of private groups on the basis of freedom of association. Groups have standing to defend these kinds of actions on behalf it their individual members on the basis that if an individual member has standing to defend, that right percorated to the group.
People have a right of association, but not a right of getting access to university facilities for any purpose they desire. There is a long string of cases which restrict the rights of students when necessary to the education mission. I see no reason why the school could not deny access to those facilities to students who deny that access to other students.
Quote from: Martinus on December 08, 2009, 03:17:56 PM
Could you explain what are the grounds for the group's right to discriminate?
If a group is organizing a rally in a street, can they legally prevent people from joining, as long as such people are not disruptive?
I would think they can't prevent them, even if they are disruptive. It's an open forum out in the street. If the group has some facility of its own which is maintained by the members, they may do as they please. If they meet on a college campus, they may only do such that the college allows them to do in their property. That's my take.
Not that it totally hinges on whose land the group is using. You certainly can't carte-blanche say that all groups must allow anyone in under any circumstances, though.
The way I see it, both the freedom of speech (or religion) and the freedom of association have a much stronger component that is "positive" than the one that is "negative".
As far as freedom of speech (or religion) is concerned, you have a right to say "gays go to hell" or "Jesus is god", but you don't have a right to demand that noone can say that "Jesus is not a god".
As far as freedom of association is concerned, you have a right to meet with Al, Barry and Charlie in a public place to argue your point, but you do not have a right to say that Derek and Elisabeth can't join you there as well (of course, as I said, this differs when the meeting is held on a private property you own, but that's not the case here).
So I think from that perspective, a university rule saying "you can't promote hate speech" would be a bigger restriction of freedom than saying "you can't exclude gays" (irrespective of whether such restrictions are allowed because this is university and all).
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on December 08, 2009, 03:31:03 PM
Quote from: Martinus on December 08, 2009, 03:17:56 PM
Could you explain what are the grounds for the group's right to discriminate?
If a group is organizing a rally in a street, can they legally prevent people from joining, as long as such people are not disruptive?
I would think they can't prevent them, even if they are disruptive. It's an open forum out in the street. If the group has some facility of its own which is maintained by the members, they may do as they please. If they meet on a college campus, they may only do such that the college allows them to do in their property. That's my take.
Not that it totally hinges on whose land the group is using. You certainly can't carte-blanche say that all groups must allow anyone in under any circumstances, though.
Yeah, that was my point, really. As long as the property is "non-private" from the perspective of the group (i.e. it is either public or owned by someone else, at the sufferance of whom they are using it - which is the uni case), I can't see how they would have a right to prevent people from attending their meetings.
Now I realise there is more to a group's membership than attending meetings, but I was trying to slice the "membership" into individual benefits/rights and see if anything "sticks" as it were.
Quote from: Martinus on December 08, 2009, 03:17:56 PM
Quote from: Stonewall on December 08, 2009, 03:15:30 PM
Quote from: grumbler on December 08, 2009, 12:58:35 PM
Quote from: Stonewall on December 08, 2009, 11:45:05 AM
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."
Were we talking about a private group at a private university, I would agree. However, we're talking about a private group (which enjoys the right to discriminate) at a public university (which doesn't enjoy that right since it acts with the color of state authority), which changes the nature of the argument. Group rights are tricky. There is a strong line of cases (if my memory is right - it's been a while since I did anything with discrimination) that make it incredibly difficult for state authorities to get membership lists of private groups on the basis of freedom of association. Groups have standing to defend these kinds of actions on behalf it their individual members on the basis that if an individual member has standing to defend, that right percorated to the group.
Could you explain what are the grounds for the group's right to discriminate?
If a group is organizing a rally in a street, can they legally prevent people from joining, as long as such people are not disruptive?
Yes. I remember reading recently about a KKK rally in some town in Ohio where the KKK went out and got permits to use public streets for their rally. An anti-KKK group also sought to use those streets, but were prohibited. The state (and colleges/universities) often allows private groups to use public facilities for private purposes. Practically, it is difficult to restrict access to a public street, but groups often can and do just that. Faelin hit on this earlier. The state can't discriminate on the basis of the content of particular speech. It can, however, discriminate on the basis of conduct.
My own example is my fraternity in college. We had a meeting room on campus that was allocated to us by the university. We had that room from 7pm to 9pm every Sunday evening and we enjoyed the right to restrict access to members only. People trying to come in who were not members were turned away. There was one group of feminazi anti-fraternity women who tried so desperately to get in a meeting taht we ended up calling the campus police. They were arrested and removed for trespassing. We, as a private group, had secured the universities permission to use that public room for our private purpose.
Quote from: Stonewall on December 08, 2009, 04:00:10 PM
Quote from: Martinus on December 08, 2009, 03:17:56 PM
Quote from: Stonewall on December 08, 2009, 03:15:30 PM
Quote from: grumbler on December 08, 2009, 12:58:35 PM
Quote from: Stonewall on December 08, 2009, 11:45:05 AM
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."
Were we talking about a private group at a private university, I would agree. However, we're talking about a private group (which enjoys the right to discriminate) at a public university (which doesn't enjoy that right since it acts with the color of state authority), which changes the nature of the argument. Group rights are tricky. There is a strong line of cases (if my memory is right - it's been a while since I did anything with discrimination) that make it incredibly difficult for state authorities to get membership lists of private groups on the basis of freedom of association. Groups have standing to defend these kinds of actions on behalf it their individual members on the basis that if an individual member has standing to defend, that right percorated to the group.
Could you explain what are the grounds for the group's right to discriminate?
If a group is organizing a rally in a street, can they legally prevent people from joining, as long as such people are not disruptive?
Yes. I remember reading recently about a KKK rally in some town in Ohio where the KKK went out and got permits to use public streets for their rally. An anti-KKK group also sought to use those streets, but were prohibited. The state (and colleges/universities) often allows private groups to use public facilities for private purposes. Practically, it is difficult to restrict access to a public street, but groups often can and do just that. Faelin hit on this earlier. The state can't discriminate on the basis of the content of particular speech. It can, however, discriminate on the basis of conduct.
My own example is my fraternity in college. We had a meeting room on campus that was allocated to us by the university. We had that room from 7pm to 9pm every Sunday evening and we enjoyed the right to restrict access to members only. People trying to come in who were not members were turned away. There was one group of feminazi anti-fraternity women who tried so desperately to get in a meeting taht we ended up calling the campus police. They were arrested and removed for trespassing. We, as a private group, had secured the universities permission to use that public room for our private purpose.
Yeah but that was the university's policy, not your constitutional right. Had the university chosen to, they could have allowed the feminazis to go into your premises and you would have no "right" to stop it.
Quote from: Martinus on December 08, 2009, 04:23:20 PM
Quote from: Stonewall on December 08, 2009, 04:00:10 PM
Quote from: Martinus on December 08, 2009, 03:17:56 PM
Quote from: Stonewall on December 08, 2009, 03:15:30 PM
Quote from: grumbler on December 08, 2009, 12:58:35 PM
Quote from: Stonewall on December 08, 2009, 11:45:05 AM
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."
Were we talking about a private group at a private university, I would agree. However, we're talking about a private group (which enjoys the right to discriminate) at a public university (which doesn't enjoy that right since it acts with the color of state authority), which changes the nature of the argument. Group rights are tricky. There is a strong line of cases (if my memory is right - it's been a while since I did anything with discrimination) that make it incredibly difficult for state authorities to get membership lists of private groups on the basis of freedom of association. Groups have standing to defend these kinds of actions on behalf it their individual members on the basis that if an individual member has standing to defend, that right percorated to the group.
Could you explain what are the grounds for the group's right to discriminate?
If a group is organizing a rally in a street, can they legally prevent people from joining, as long as such people are not disruptive?
Yes. I remember reading recently about a KKK rally in some town in Ohio where the KKK went out and got permits to use public streets for their rally. An anti-KKK group also sought to use those streets, but were prohibited. The state (and colleges/universities) often allows private groups to use public facilities for private purposes. Practically, it is difficult to restrict access to a public street, but groups often can and do just that. Faelin hit on this earlier. The state can't discriminate on the basis of the content of particular speech. It can, however, discriminate on the basis of conduct.
My own example is my fraternity in college. We had a meeting room on campus that was allocated to us by the university. We had that room from 7pm to 9pm every Sunday evening and we enjoyed the right to restrict access to members only. People trying to come in who were not members were turned away. There was one group of feminazi anti-fraternity women who tried so desperately to get in a meeting taht we ended up calling the campus police. They were arrested and removed for trespassing. We, as a private group, had secured the universities permission to use that public room for our private purpose.
Yeah but that was the university's policy, not your constitutional right. Had the university chosen to, they could have allowed the feminazis to go into your premises and you would have no "right" to stop it.
It gets fuzzy. Schools that are state funded, i.e. public schools, generally can not discriminate against an individual or a group based on the content of that person's speech. Think back to the Boy Scouts and their ban on gay scout masters. A school where that scout group met and had its meetings tried to ban the group from the premises. The courts stepped in and said, "oh no you don't." They did this because if the school is going to make its facilities available for public use, then it can't viewpoint discriminate to deny access to groups they disagreed with. The school was under no obligation to make the facilities available for public use, but once it did so, certain rights were triggered. It's not a black and white issue.
Quote from: Stonewall on December 08, 2009, 04:31:59 PMIt gets fuzzy. Schools that are state funded, i.e. public schools, generally can not discriminate against an individual or a group based on the content of that person's speech. Think back to the Boy Scouts and their ban on gay scout masters. A school where that scout group met and had its meetings tried to ban the group from the premises. The courts stepped in and said, "oh no you don't." They did this because if the school is going to make its facilities available for public use, then it can't viewpoint discriminate to deny access to groups they disagreed with. The school was under no obligation to make the facilities available for public use, but once it did so, certain rights were triggered. It's not a black and white issue.
I don't know the details of the boy scout case, but was it a membership discrimination that the school opposed or the content of their speech? I believe the case for both is different, as I said before - I don't think the uni should be able to say "ok, you can't say that homosexuality is a sin", but they can say "ok, you can't say that homosexuals are not allowed".
If the school in the Boy Scout case would say "ok, you can come to our meetings, unless you are a homo", I don't think a school should be required to let them operate on their premises, if they do not allow some of the students to join in a meeting.
Edit: Besides, I think there is a substantial hypocrisy going on here, unless I am mistaken. I mean, if the boy scout organization came to a preliminary school and started to teach kids about fisting and ass-to-mouth sex, could a school ban them "based on the speech content" or not? If they could, I don't see why they should not be able to ban what they deem hate speech - this is however my personal opinion, not a legal comment.
Quote from: Stonewall on December 08, 2009, 04:31:59 PM
It gets fuzzy. Schools that are state funded, i.e. public schools, generally can not discriminate against an individual or a group based on the content of that person's speech. Think back to the Boy Scouts and their ban on gay scout masters. A school where that scout group met and had its meetings tried to ban the group from the premises. The courts stepped in and said, "oh no you don't." They did this because if the school is going to make its facilities available for public use, then it can't viewpoint discriminate to deny access to groups they disagreed with. The school was under no obligation to make the facilities available for public use, but once it did so, certain rights were triggered. It's not a black and white issue.
The scouts won some cases and lost others. Interestingly, the BSA argues that it is a religious organization that can ban atheists, but is also not a religious organization that would violate the separation of church and state if they could not engage in (what they admit is) religious-based recruitment and meeting. The difference, as I understand it, is that they claim that their religion is so broad as to not be religion, just religious.
Personally, I think tha the BSA is probably a por example to use as a legal precedent. No one can get justice in a case involving the BSA, because they won't have enough impartial jurists to properly hear the case.
The Boy Scout case sounds like it was decided wrongly to me, but maybe because it was a publicly-owned place.. Tell me, Stoney. If that case had involved some sort of privately-owned gathering place instead of a school--say they were having their scout meetings at Chuck E Cheese. Then would it have been ok for Chuck E Cheese to give the scouts the boot?
Quote from: Stonewall on December 08, 2009, 03:15:30 PM
Were we talking about a private group at a private university, I would agree. However, we're talking about a private group (which enjoys the right to discriminate) at a public university (which doesn't enjoy that right since it acts with the color of state authority), which changes the nature of the argument. Group rights are tricky.
Well at least there is debate in America over the right of the government to interfere in membership rights. In the UK no matter how "private" a membership club is, the government still has the right to overrule their constitutions for the cause of ending discrimination. There were quite a few men-only golf clubs which had to admit women, for example. I assume the same would be applied to things like the Women's Institute too.
Seems ridiculous, but hey, that's the Labour party! They love to interfere.
Quote from: Martinus on December 08, 2009, 10:46:05 AM
But the same can be said about divorcees, yet their rights are not restricted.
Divorce doesn't have the same devastating social implications that fags do.
Quote from: The Brain on December 08, 2009, 02:06:47 PM
If God didn't hate fags why would He make them homosexuals in the first place?
:D