I feel like we've talked about this case before, however it's in the news again because it's going before the Supreme Court. I lean in favor of the student group. Religious groups should be able to choose to keep out nonbelievers, political groups should be able to keep out nonparty members, gay rights groups should be able to keep fundamentalists who are opposed to them, etc. Otherwise there's no point in having a group that professes any kind of ideology.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/17/AR2010041702908.html
QuoteSupreme Court to consider case against California law school
By Robert Barnes
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, April 18, 2010
SAN FRANCISCO -- At the oldest law school in the West, law is being made this semester, not just taught.
In a case that carries great implications for how public universities and schools must accommodate religious groups, the University of California's Hastings College of the Law is defending its anti-discrimination policy against charges that it denies religious freedom.
The college, which requires officially recognized student groups to admit any Hastings student who wants to join, may be well-meaning, says the student outpost of the Christian Legal Society. But the group contends that requiring it to allow gay students and nonbelievers into its leadership would be a renunciation of its core beliefs, and that the policy violates the Constitution's guarantee of free speech, association with like-minded individuals and exercise of religion.
"Hastings' policy is a threat to every group that seeks to form and define its own voice," the group told the court in a brief. The case, Christian Legal Society v. Martinez, will be argued in the Supreme Court Monday morning.
Hastings counters that the CLS, a national organization that seeks to "proclaim, love and serve Jesus Christ through the study and practice of law," is demanding special treatment. It wants the college's official stamp of approval and the access to benefits and student activity fees that come with it, but it will not commit to following the nondiscrimination policy that every other student group follows.
ad_icon
Click here!
The CLS is not being forced to do anything, Hastings contends. "A group may abide by the school's viewpoint-neutral open-membership policy and obtain the modest funding and benefits that go along with school recognition, or forgo recognition and do as it wishes," it said in its brief.
The case poses a quandary for a court that has recognized both the ability of public universities and schools to control the use of their facilities and funds and the right of religious groups to select members based on their beliefs. It comes as religious groups have become more active and litigious in demanding a place in the public forum of free speech.
Christian groups have brought suits against similar policies across the country, from the University of Florida to Boise State University. "In every case . . . either the courts have ruled for the religious student group or the university has settled or mooted the case by revoking its unconstitutional policy," the CLS brief asserts.
The controversy also raises questions about who needs protection. CLS lawyer Michael W. McConnell, a former federal judge and director of the Stanford Constitutional Law Center, likens the underdog status of Christian groups at liberal law schools such as Hastings to the way gay rights groups might have felt on a Southern campus years ago.
"One of the things I find kind of pleasantly ironic about the briefing in this case is we find ourselves relying on about a dozen cases that involve gay rights groups in universities," said McConnell, who was appointed as an appellate judge by President George W. Bush. The other side, he said, relies on decisions and legislative acts that helped Bible clubs.
Hastings has also brought in high-powered help. It is represented by Gregory G. Garre, a solicitor general under Bush who is now in private practice. The National Center for Lesbian Rights, which represented a campus gay rights group called Hastings Outlaw that is a party to the case, has made way at the high court for Washington lawyer Paul M. Smith. He successfully argued Lawrence v. Texas, in which the court struck down a state law making homosexual conduct illegal.
They are joined by 37 organizations and states who have filed amicus briefs. Notably missing is the Obama administration, which chose not to get involved.
Hastings is far from the usual image of an ivy-clad law school; it is a collection of mid-size buildings on the edge of San Francisco's gritty Tenderloin district. It draws applicants interested in public service, said Leo P. Martinez, its acting chancellor and dean. About a third of its students go to work for government or nonprofit groups, he said, and more California judges are graduates of Hastings than of any other law school.
There are nearly 70 recognized student organizations, including law-oriented groups such as the Federalist Society, ethnic groups such as the Middle Eastern Law Students Association and groups such as ballroom-dancing enthusiasts and Hastings Legal Vines, a wine club.
Martinez said he has been asked if the school's policy means that a Jewish organization would have to allow a Nazi sympathizer to join, and his answer is yes. "That's a necessary consequence of being nondiscriminatory," he said. "We accept students of all stripes. We can't do that and then tell some students, 'Listen, there are going to be some aspects of the educational experience at this school that are foreclosed to you.' "
Official recognition brings the right to use the Hastings name and logo, access to an e-mail address with a link to the law school's network, office space and meeting rooms, and small grants from student-activity fees and university funds.
A Christian group was part of the landscape for years. But when it decided to affiliate with the national CLS, it was told the group's ban of gays and nonbelievers in leadership positions violated the college's policy and its insistence that all Hastings students be allowed to join any club.
ad_icon
The CLS sued. A federal judge sided with the school, saying its blanket policy did not single out the religious group because of its views. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit affirmed.
The CLS's brief says Hastings' "all-comers" policy is a litigation strategy, at odds with how the college has actually treated other groups. It is not viewpoint-neutral, the brief says, because the policy "targets solely those groups whose beliefs are based on 'religion' or that disapprove of a particular kind of sexual behavior."
But it said all groups would be threatened if required "to admit as leaders and voting members those who disagree with their core beliefs and viewpoints."
Hastings counters that the CLS stipulated during the suit that the anti-discrimination policy applied equally to all groups, and said in its brief that the religious organization has created "straw men" to try to convince the court that there are greater constitutional issues to be decided.
Garre told the court in his brief that the CLS wants it to find that religious and other groups with a point of view "not only may insist that the public subsidize their practices, they may insist on using the state's name while doing so. Nothing in the First Amendment compels that remarkable result.
Nobody is saying the kids can't meet up somewhere and form a school. The issue is does a public school have an obligation to fund and or recognize officially organizations that discriminate?
Quote from: Faeelin on April 18, 2010, 10:13:18 PM
Nobody is saying the kids can't meet up somewhere and form a school. The issue is does a public school have an obligation to fund and or recognize officially organizations that discriminate?
I don't see why not.
It's perfectly possible for such groups to ostracize anyone who doesn't fit in the group. Just "forget" to send them invitations to group events, leave them out of the loop, don't talk to them, etc.
QuoteI lean in favor of the student group. Religious groups should be able to choose to keep out nonbelievers
The thing is they do not just want to keep nonbelievers out (which I think would be fine), but also gay people. You do recognize the difference, right?
Unless you believe that religious groups should only accept people who are "without sin". Which, I guess, wouldn't allow them to call themselves Christian any more.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 18, 2010, 09:38:07 PM
I feel like we've talked about this case before, however it's in the news again because it's going before the Supreme Court. I lean in favor of the student group. Religious groups should be able to choose to keep out nonbelievers, political groups should be able to keep out nonparty members, gay rights groups should be able to keep fundamentalists who are opposed to them, etc. Otherwise there's no point in having a group that professes any kind of ideology.
And to elaborate, all examples you quote are examples about
beliefs not about
biological traits.You are building a strawman here - either deliberately or because you are so fucking stupid. Do you think these groups should be able to say "no colored people" (they have no souls) or "no cripples" (surely a sign of God's disfavor)?
Is there any proof that homosexuality is a biological trait?
Quote from: Martinus on April 19, 2010, 01:53:46 AM
QuoteI lean in favor of the student group. Religious groups should be able to choose to keep out nonbelievers
The thing is they do not just want to keep nonbelievers out (which I think would be fine), but also gay people. You do recognize the difference, right?
Unless you believe that religious groups should only accept people who are "without sin". Which, I guess, wouldn't allow them to call themselves Christian any more.
Of course I realize the difference, and because of that as Christian I would not join a group that barred membership to gay members. But that doesn't mean they shouldn't be able to determine the membership of their club. Otherwise they're just a ridiculous mockery of what they purport to stand for. Either allow the organizations to determine their own membership, or offer no monetary support for any organizations with an ideological goal.
As long as they're not committing or inciting violence they can do what ever they want in my opinion. It's a club, not a business, they're not obligated to serve everyone.
As for your next post, when the article mentioned the Middle Eastern Law Students Association, my immediate thought was that I'd be fine with them limiting membership to Middle Eastern students. So, yeah, I'd be fine with it.
If people want to expose to the world that they're racist morons, then good. The world's better off knowing that students x, y, z are horrible bigots than having them hide it. It is when these views are held out in the open that they are exposed for the stupidity they are, where they can be denounced, mocked and argued against.
Quote from: Jaron on April 19, 2010, 02:09:43 AM
Is there any proof that homosexuality is a biological trait?
Go away, troll. Or do you not understand the meaning of the word "biological"?
Of course I do. What I'm asking is if there is any scientific evidence currently that homosexuality is in fact somehow more than simply a choice of lifestyle. Your black/cripple example are two things in which the person has no direct control. So what I'd like to know is if there is any proof beyond word of mouth from gay people that homosexuality is somehow biologically determined and not simply the result of a decision. For what its worth, I believe it is not a choice but is there any evidence to back that claim ?
Quote from: Martinus on April 19, 2010, 01:53:46 AM
QuoteI lean in favor of the student group. Religious groups should be able to choose to keep out nonbelievers
The thing is they do not just want to keep nonbelievers out (which I think would be fine), but also gay people. You do recognize the difference, right?
Unless you believe that religious groups should only accept people who are "without sin". Which, I guess, wouldn't allow them to call themselves Christian any more.
Which part of the New Testament prohibits homosexuality?
Quote from: citizen k on April 19, 2010, 02:51:10 AM
Quote from: Martinus on April 19, 2010, 01:53:46 AM
QuoteI lean in favor of the student group. Religious groups should be able to choose to keep out nonbelievers
The thing is they do not just want to keep nonbelievers out (which I think would be fine), but also gay people. You do recognize the difference, right?
Unless you believe that religious groups should only accept people who are "without sin". Which, I guess, wouldn't allow them to call themselves Christian any more.
Which part of the New Testament prohibits homosexuality?
Romans 1
Quote from: Razgovory on April 19, 2010, 03:54:12 AM
Quote from: citizen k on April 19, 2010, 02:51:10 AM
Quote from: Martinus on April 19, 2010, 01:53:46 AM
QuoteI lean in favor of the student group. Religious groups should be able to choose to keep out nonbelievers
The thing is they do not just want to keep nonbelievers out (which I think would be fine), but also gay people. You do recognize the difference, right?
Unless you believe that religious groups should only accept people who are "without sin". Which, I guess, wouldn't allow them to call themselves Christian any more.
Which part of the New Testament prohibits homosexuality?
Romans 1
Paul was a prude. Film at 11. He also supported the oppression of women. Should women be banned from Christian groups?
Quote from: citizen k on April 19, 2010, 02:51:10 AM
Which part of the New Testament prohibits homosexuality?
I don't think that Jesus is reported to have said anything about it, but Christianity has little to do with what Jesus supposedly said.
I cannot believe that this case has gotten this far. It seems open and shut to me; if a group wants school funding and preference, it must admit any student who wishes to join. If it wants to exclude students of the school, for whatever reason, then it doesn't get the small subsidy nor the use of the school bulletin boards. Organizations get to choose their status.
Anyone can keep the Jews, the homosexuals, the non-Middle-Easterners, or whatever from joining their club. In excluding fellow-students, though, they are sacrificing the preferences the school gives to open association clubs, and they should. Taxpayers should not be obliged to support organizations which do not consider them worthy of belonging to said organization.
Quote from: citizen k on April 19, 2010, 04:31:32 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 19, 2010, 03:54:12 AM
Quote from: citizen k on April 19, 2010, 02:51:10 AM
Quote from: Martinus on April 19, 2010, 01:53:46 AM
QuoteI lean in favor of the student group. Religious groups should be able to choose to keep out nonbelievers
The thing is they do not just want to keep nonbelievers out (which I think would be fine), but also gay people. You do recognize the difference, right?
Unless you believe that religious groups should only accept people who are "without sin". Which, I guess, wouldn't allow them to call themselves Christian any more.
Which part of the New Testament prohibits homosexuality?
Romans 1
Paul was a prude. Film at 11. He also supported the oppression of women. Should women be banned from Christian groups?
Ideally, yes. Men too.
Quote from: grumbler on April 19, 2010, 06:19:14 AM
I cannot believe that this case has gotten this far. It seems open and shut to me; if a group wants school funding and preference, it must admit any student who wishes to join. If it wants to exclude students of the school, for whatever reason, then it doesn't get the small subsidy nor the use of the school bulletin boards. Organizations get to choose their status.
Anyone can keep the Jews, the homosexuals, the non-Middle-Easterners, or whatever from joining their club. In excluding fellow-students, though, they are sacrificing the preferences the school gives to open association clubs, and they should. Taxpayers should not be obliged to support organizations which do not consider them worthy of belonging to said organization.
This is why I find their defense in the early cases about gay groups seeking the right to organize at law schools ridiculous. Nobody is saying these groups can't organize as the "We hate gays and am sure this will work out great for our social lives at a school in San Francisco" club. They just can't expel members based on their orientation, religion, etc.
Quote from: grumbler on April 19, 2010, 06:19:14 AM
Quote from: citizen k on April 19, 2010, 02:51:10 AM
Which part of the New Testament prohibits homosexuality?
I don't think that Jesus is reported to have said anything about it, but Christianity has little to do with what Jesus supposedly said.
I cannot believe that this case has gotten this far. It seems open and shut to me; if a group wants school funding and preference, it must admit any student who wishes to join. If it wants to exclude students of the school, for whatever reason, then it doesn't get the small subsidy nor the use of the school bulletin boards. Organizations get to choose their status.
Anyone can keep the Jews, the homosexuals, the non-Middle-Easterners, or whatever from joining their club. In excluding fellow-students, though, they are sacrificing the preferences the school gives to open association clubs, and they should. Taxpayers should not be obliged to support organizations which do not consider them worthy of belonging to said organization.
Unless there are some facts I don't know, this seems reasonable.
Quote from: grumbler on April 19, 2010, 06:19:14 AM
Quote from: citizen k on April 19, 2010, 02:51:10 AM
Which part of the New Testament prohibits homosexuality?
I don't think that Jesus is reported to have said anything about it, but Christianity has little to do with what Jesus supposedly said.
I cannot believe that this case has gotten this far. It seems open and shut to me; if a group wants school funding and preference, it must admit any student who wishes to join. If it wants to exclude students of the school, for whatever reason, then it doesn't get the small subsidy nor the use of the school bulletin boards. Organizations get to choose their status.
Anyone can keep the Jews, the homosexuals, the non-Middle-Easterners, or whatever from joining their club. In excluding fellow-students, though, they are sacrificing the preferences the school gives to open association clubs, and they should. Taxpayers should not be obliged to support organizations which do not consider them worthy of belonging to said organization.
This.
I would love to see gay students to join a Christian hate group en masse and vote themselves to its funds. :D
Quote from: Martinus on April 19, 2010, 10:07:16 AM
I would love to see gay students to join a Christian hate group en masse and vote themselves to its funds. :D
I would love to see those students savagely murdered by an angry mob. Now that would be justice.
My preference goes to the student group, although it does raise some troubling issues.
I was president of my university's student group for a particular party. By our constitution, our membership was limited to anyone who was capable of membership in the national party - which meant citizens and landed immigrants. We therefore would exclude any student who did not fall into those categories - and as at any university there were a umber of students there on student visas.
But surely that restriction made sense? Surely some other restrictions make sense? A Christian group wanting to restrict members to 'practicing Christians', a lesbian group wanting to restrict membership to lesbians?
But of course you can imagine more spiteful, hateful examples - the Aryan students association, "no kikes or niggers allowed".
And let's not oversell the benefits most groups get by being 'recognized' - at my university you could get free room rentals, access to bulletin boards, and the ability to set up a booth in the middle of university a couple of times.
Actually, as far as I know, you don't have "gay" groups usually but some kinds of "gay-straight" alliance groups - so it is rare that there is a discrimination of any kind in membership.
I think grumbler's approach is pretty sensible - if you want to restrict membership in any way, you should not be receiving the funding, period. This may be not a perfect solution (since sometimes these restrictions "make sense", as you say) but the alternatives - i.e. perfect freedom in restricting access (so you have groups like you mention) or the college (or any other authority) getting into a foggy area of deciding which restrictions make sense and which don't - are worse.
Also, I am curious why you side with the group restricting access for gays, but consider an extreme example to restrict access for Jews or blacks - how are these examples different? :huh:
Quote from: grumbler on April 19, 2010, 06:19:14 AM
I cannot believe that this case has gotten this far.
Hastings is part of the UC system - it is a public school and hence a state actor. Therefore, Hastings can make no rule (law) restricting freedom of speech or association. The legal question comes down to a significant degree on whether the Hastings non-discrimination rule is viewpoint "neutral" or not. The school contends that general nondiscrimination principles are inherently viewpoint neutral and constitutionally favored. The student group's argument is that the rule only applies to discrimination against religion (and sexual orientation) - and that therefore the school is picking out a particular set of viewpoints -- religious beliefs -- to which to apply its rule. In the student group's argument, that amounts to content or viewpoint based discrimination.
Quote from: Barrister on April 19, 2010, 10:56:13 AM
And let's not oversell the benefits most groups get by being 'recognized' - at my university you could get free room rentals, access to bulletin boards, and the ability to set up a booth in the middle of university a couple of times.
Eh. If the benefits are so slight, why does the Christian Legal Society want it?
Quote from: Barrister on April 19, 2010, 10:56:13 AM
My preference goes to the student group, although it does raise some troubling issues.
I was president of my university's student group for a particular party. By our constitution, our membership was limited to anyone who was capable of membership in the national party - which meant citizens and landed immigrants. We therefore would exclude any student who did not fall into those categories - and as at any university there were a umber of students there on student visas.
But surely that restriction made sense? Surely some other restrictions make sense? A Christian group wanting to restrict members to 'practicing Christians', a lesbian group wanting to restrict membership to lesbians?
Your club's restrictions make sense for a political party club, but not for a university club. A club such as yours is certainly legal and logical, but no university should be sponsoring it, as it does not serve the needs of the school's students.
Ditto for the Christian-only clubs, gay-only clubs, and whatnot. These clubs serve only the interests of subsets of the university's students, and so should not be "official" clubs. They should be allowed to meet in campus facilities just like the local ladies' flower-growing club should be, but they shouldn't be allowed to advertise meetings on bulletin boards reserved for official club news.
The "official club" title should be restricted to those clubs whose members are endowed with self-proclaimed expertise as a result of joining, like the race car building clubs, and anyone must be allowed to join those and proclaim themselves instant experts (else what future does the internet have?).
Quote from: grumbler on April 19, 2010, 11:51:37 AM
Quote from: Barrister on April 19, 2010, 10:56:13 AM
My preference goes to the student group, although it does raise some troubling issues.
I was president of my university's student group for a particular party. By our constitution, our membership was limited to anyone who was capable of membership in the national party - which meant citizens and landed immigrants. We therefore would exclude any student who did not fall into those categories - and as at any university there were a umber of students there on student visas.
But surely that restriction made sense? Surely some other restrictions make sense? A Christian group wanting to restrict members to 'practicing Christians', a lesbian group wanting to restrict membership to lesbians?
Your club's restrictions make sense for a political party club, but not for a university club. A club such as yours is certainly legal and logical, but no university should be sponsoring it, as it does not serve the needs of the school's students.
Ditto for the Christian-only clubs, gay-only clubs, and whatnot. These clubs serve only the interests of subsets of the university's students, and so should not be "official" clubs. They should be allowed to meet in campus facilities just like the local ladies' flower-growing club should be, but they shouldn't be allowed to advertise meetings on bulletin boards reserved for official club news.
The "official club" title should be restricted to those clubs whose members are endowed with self-proclaimed expertise as a result of joining, like the race car building clubs, and anyone must be allowed to join those and proclaim themselves instant experts (else what future does the internet have?).
Snort. :)
Why do gays need special dick sucking / pussy licking clubs on campus? Do that shit in the back alleys and truck stops where it belongs.
Quote from: Martinus on April 19, 2010, 11:04:39 AM
Actually, as far as I know, you don't have "gay" groups usually but some kinds of "gay-straight" alliance groups - so it is rare that there is a discrimination of any kind in membership.
I think grumbler's approach is pretty sensible - if you want to restrict membership in any way, you should not be receiving the funding, period. This may be not a perfect solution (since sometimes these restrictions "make sense", as you say) but the alternatives - i.e. perfect freedom in restricting access (so you have groups like you mention) or the college (or any other authority) getting into a foggy area of deciding which restrictions make sense and which don't - are worse.
Also, I am curious why you side with the group restricting access for gays, but consider an extreme example to restrict access for Jews or blacks - how are these examples different? :huh:
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.
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.
And from my time in government there was always some discretion on the part of the student's union to not recognize certain groups.
Quote from: Martinus on April 19, 2010, 10:07:16 AM
I would love to see gay students to join a Christian hate group en masse and vote themselves to its funds. :D
That seems like a good argument to support of the christian group. :P
Quote from: Barrister on April 19, 2010, 12:01:12 PM
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.
And from my time in government there was always some discretion on the part of the student's union to not recognize certain groups.
Why does the white supremacist group not have a legitimate purpose?
Quote from: Faeelin on April 19, 2010, 12:25:34 PM
Quote from: Barrister on April 19, 2010, 12:01:12 PM
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.
And from my time in government there was always some discretion on the part of the student's union to not recognize certain groups.
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.
Quote from: Barrister on April 19, 2010, 12:27:53 PM
Quote from: Faeelin on April 19, 2010, 12:25:34 PM
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?
Quote from: Barrister on April 19, 2010, 12:01:12 PM
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).
QuoteJust 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).
QuoteAnd 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.
Quote from: Faeelin on April 19, 2010, 12:42:12 PM
Quote from: Barrister on April 19, 2010, 12:27:53 PM
Quote from: Faeelin on April 19, 2010, 12:25:34 PM
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).
I would never form such a group.
Quote from: alfred russel on April 19, 2010, 12:25:13 PM
Quote from: Martinus on April 19, 2010, 10:07:16 AM
I would love to see gay students to join a Christian hate group en masse and vote themselves to its funds. :D
That seems like a good argument to support of the christian group. :P
I believe I read once about some frat boys joining a gay-straight alliance and spending the group's money on booze. :P
Quote from: Barrister on April 19, 2010, 01:40:15 PM
Quote from: Neil on April 19, 2010, 01:38:40 PM
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.
Quote from: Barrister on April 19, 2010, 01:26:47 PM
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. :bleeding:
Quote from: Barrister on April 19, 2010, 01:26:47 PMCertainly there are some gays who aren't in favour of it (a definite minority though, but still).
Not sure what your point is here.
Quote from: garbon on April 19, 2010, 02:09:55 PM
Quote from: Barrister on April 19, 2010, 01:26:47 PM
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.
Quote from: Barrister on April 19, 2010, 01:26:47 PMI 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. :lol:
Quote from: Barrister on April 19, 2010, 01:26:47 PM
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?
Do they say that gays are evil and spiteful? Evil and selfish I could see, but spiteful?
Quote from: Faeelin on April 19, 2010, 04:24:06 PM
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...
Quote from: Neil on April 19, 2010, 04:55:28 PM
Do they say that gays are evil and spiteful? Evil and selfish I could see, but spiteful?
Err. Have you met garbon or myself? :huh:
Quote from: Martinus on April 19, 2010, 05:00:03 PM
Quote from: Neil on April 19, 2010, 04:55:28 PM
Do they say that gays are evil and spiteful? Evil and selfish I could see, but spiteful?
Err. Have you met garbon or myself? :huh:
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.
Quote from: Barrister on April 19, 2010, 04:58:58 PM
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...
Segregation was within living memory as well, but I can't see Canadian courts saying that's not promoted out of willful spite, no?
This seems incredibly blurry.
It's not a "bright line" to be sure.
Quote from: Martinus on April 19, 2010, 04:18:59 PM
Quote from: Barrister on April 19, 2010, 01:26:47 PM
Quote from: Faeelin on April 19, 2010, 12:42:12 PMI'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.
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. :lol:
A Christian shouldn't hate someone they believe is on the road to eternal damnation, on the contrary, Christ says that one should love them more. So no, it's not important to their operations at all.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 19, 2010, 08:55:32 PM
A Christian shouldn't hate someone they believe is on the road to eternal damnation, on the contrary, Christ says that one should love them more. So no, it's not important to their operations at all.
Christ's contribution to Christianity is relatively minor.
Pretty cool play by play of the case as presented to the Supremes.
http://www.slate.com/id/2251320/pagenum/all/#p2
QuoteHug of War
The Supreme Court considers the risks and rewards of forced association
By Dahlia LithwickPosted Monday, April 19, 2010, at 7:41 PM ET
The great hope of the U.S. Supreme Court is that it can be a place of diverse viewpoints, open minds, and subtle persuasion. Reasonable minds might differ. Kind of like a college campus. But more and more often, the high court looks like it's composed of two separate clubs, whose members regard one another with only hostility and suspicion. Justice Stephen Breyer may be right today when he concludes that the time for discussion and persuasion and hugs is gone. Apparently now we can only learn from our own.
Print This ArticlePRINTDiscuss in the FrayDISCUSSEmail to a FriendE-MAILGet Slate RSS FeedsRSSShare This ArticleRECOMMEND...Single PageSINGLE PAGE
Yahoo! Buzz
Facebook FacebookPost to MySpace!MySpaceMixx MixxDigg DiggReddit RedditDel.icio.us del.icio.usFurl FurlMa.gnolia.com Ma.gnoliaSphere SphereStumble UponStumbleUponCLOSE
Today's oral argument tests whether a college anti-discrimination policy trumps a campus religious group's right to exclude members who are either gay or not Christian. Christian Legal Society—the student group bringing today's challenge against U.C. Hastings—is represented by Stanford Law School's Michael W. McConnell, a former federal appeals court judge, one of the most country's foremost thinkers on matters of church and state. In 2004, when it affiliated with the national CLS group, the U.C. Hastings branch changed its bylaws to require voting members and officers to sign a statement of faith that precludes "unrepentant participation in or advocacy of a sexually immoral lifestyle" and to pledge "to live their lives accordingly." Hastings advised CLS that because its ban on gay and nonbelieving leaders and officers violated the school's nondiscrimination policy, the group could still operate but would not be treated as one of about 70 registered student organizations, with access to school funding, facilities, e-mail, and bulletin boards. CLS sued, Hastings won in the lower federal court and again at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit.
This is an unbelievably hard case, pitting a religious group's basic right to define and preserve its core beliefs against a publicly funded university's effort to ensure that school-sponsored and -funded groups do not discriminate on the basis of religion or sexual orientation. But judging from the ideological zeal of today's battle, you'd think the case was open-and-shut. The liberals are for nondiscrimination. The conservatives are certain that liberals plan to infiltrate unpopular Christian groups for nefarious purposes. If there was any hugging, I missed it entirely.
Quantcast
Complicating the big constitutional matters is a factual dispute over whether Hastings changed the description of its nondiscrimination policy over the course of this litigation. There's an even bigger battle raging over joint stipulations filed in this case. It seems that while CLS denies that Hastings has an "all-comers" policy—meaning that in order to be a registered student organization, you need to allow all students to join—it has already stipulated to this fact during litigation. CLS claims that "all-comers" is a pretext for a policy that singles out CLS for exclusion. Indeed, pretextual is one of the kinder words McConnell uses today. (Silly, crazy, and preposterous come up too.) So messy are the claims and counterclaims about what, specifically, the Hastings' policy may be, that Justice Anthony Kennedy opens his questioning by demanding: "What is the case that we have here?" A few minutes later, he chides, "It's frustrating for us not to know what kind of case we have in front of us."
Justice Samuel Alito says that he understood the school policy was that "anybody who applied to any group would be admitted" but that this "was the stated policy but not necessarily the actual policy that was employed." Ruth Bader Ginsburg reminds him that CLS has already stipulated to, and is bound by, the fact that Hastings has an "all-comers" policy, but McConnell replies, "We stipulated that this was their policy. That stipulation contains nothing about how Hastings has actually applied it."
Justice Antonin Scalia warns McConnell that "you are going to waste your whole time just discussing this stipulation point." This telegraphs that if McConnell won't start arguing the religious and free-expression angles, then he, Scalia, may have to do it for him. McConnell, taking the hint, describes the school's anti-discrimination policy as "a frontal assault on freedom of association. Freedom of association is the right to form around shared beliefs."
Justice Sonia Sotomayor cuts him off: "Are you suggesting that if a group wanted to exclude all black people, all women, all handicapped persons, whatever other form of discrimination a group wants to practice, that a school has to accept that group and recognize it, give it funds and otherwise lend it space?"
McConnell explains that school groups that discriminate on the basis of status, race, or gender may not be constitutionally protected but that it's clearly unconstitutional for the university to punish groups that discriminate on the basis of "belief." He adds that the whole point of the university policy "is to promote a diversity of viewpoints among registered student organizations. If the student organizations are not allowed to have a coherent set of beliefs, there can be no diversity among them." When Sotomayor points out that perhaps the university's goal is just to have students who don't discriminate, McConnell warns that an all-comers policy would mean that "an NAACP chapter would have to allow a racist skinhead to sit in on its planning meetings."
Kennedy again shows unease with the CLS position when he says, "Your argument at its most fundamental level is that religious organizations are different because religion is all about belief. But at that point don't we also have a tradition of separation? That's the whole reason why church and state for many purposes are kept separate, so that states are not implicated with religious beliefs."
Sotomayor adds, "You keep talking about being forced to let people in. ... But your group is not being excluded or ostracized completely from the school. Presumably you can meet in the cafeteria, you can meet in open spaces. ..."
Breyer, echoing Kennedy, seems to be sufficiently bothered by the lack of a clear factual record that he wants to pitch the case as "improvidently granted."
Former U.S. Solicitor General Gregory G. Garre represents Hastings, and he's only about a minute into his presentation when the chief justice stops him to ask about the written policy and the policy he's describing. Scalia jumps in to ask whether the written policy is no longer operative. Garre starts to say, "No," but Scalia cuts him off: "No, what? No, it's not operative or no, you are not telling me that?" Alito jumps in to ask, "Do you think this case deserved a two-sentence decision in the 9th Circuit?" Alito then answers his own question: "The answer is yes, this case, which has produced hundreds and hundreds of pages of amicus briefs, deserved two sentences in the court of appeals?"
Scalia says that Hastings hasn't applied its all-comers policy to all student organizations, and Roberts notes that other groups have bylaws that restrict membership to those who "can't join unless they sign on the dotted line that they believe in the objectives of the organization."
Garre: "There is a fundamental difference between a group that says people of a particular sexual orientation are not allowed to become members—"
Roberts: "It has nothing to with sexual—"
Scalia: "They don't say that. ..."
When Garre asks whether he should answer Scalia or Roberts first, Roberts grins: "No, start with mine." But when Garre starts, Roberts shuts him down: "It seems to me that your position is continually evolving, wherever the First Amendment pressure comes."
Scalia observes that the alleged Hastings all-comers policy is bizarre: "It is so weird to require the—the campus Republican club to admit Democrats, not just to membership, but to officership. To require this Christian society to allow atheists not just to join, but to conduct Bible classes, right? That's crazy." Then Alito asks what happens if a small Muslim group that has 10 students is required to accept anybody, so that "50 students who hate Muslims show up and they want to take over that group?" After a long back and forth among Alito, Roberts, and Garre, Alito concludes: "So, if—if hostile members take over, former members of CLS can just form CLS 2?"
Garre keeps trying to reboot. In his view this case has nothing to do with the possibility that campus groups may be overrun with their enemies since there is no evidence that this has ever happened. He says that "CLS's position depends on the dark notion that students who would not have any interest in joining a group with different viewpoints on certain issues except to disrupt that group. And I think that greatly undersells the intellectual curiosity of students. It greatly undersells the fact that groups have many different interests and perspectives."
But even the court's last California hippie, Breyer, isn't sure he quite buys the idea of a campus policy requiring every student group to take in anyone who professes interest. He says: "You can imagine a school in the '60s that said that we think the way to advance learning is everyone gets together in a nice discussion group and hugs each other and talks. Now that's a possible educational theory. ... But what do I do with this case? How can I say whether this, 'hug your neighbor policy' is—how do I evaluate that?"
It's clear from today's argument that exposure to radically different viewpoints doesn't always result in greater mutual understanding. Watching the court work today, it seems maybe forced exposure to people unlike us promotes even more fear and resentment. Maybe Garre is right, and students will still find a way to associate with people who hold very divergent beliefs and not just because they seek to overwhelm and destroy them. But it's difficult to see how that can happen on college campuses when it's happening less and less often at the Supreme Court.
It strikes me as very weird to see Scalia rushing to strike down a law because it is "silly."
Oh, and one more thought. In FAIR v. Rumsfeld, The Christian Legal Society filed an amicus brief where it expressed support for the government's power to deny funding to schools that wouldn't allow recruiters on the law school campus because of a compelling state interest.
It seems to me if you're willing to argue that a law school should be denied funding because of who it chooses to exclude, there's no reason not to say an organization at a law school can't be denied funding in defense of a compelling state interest.
Quote from: Faeelin on April 20, 2010, 02:30:35 PM
It strikes me as very weird to see Scalia rushing to strike down a law because it is "silly."
Oh, and one more thought. In FAIR v. Rumsfeld, The Christian Legal Society filed an amicus brief where it expressed support for the government's power to deny funding to schools that wouldn't allow recruiters on the law school campus because of a compelling state interest.
It seems to me if you're willing to argue that a law school should be denied funding because of who it chooses to exclude, there's no reason not to say an organization at a law school can't be denied funding in defense of a compelling state interest.
I can see a compelling government interest in allowing military recruiters onto school campuses. I don't see a compelling state interest in forcing Christian organizations to admit gay members.
Quote from: dps on April 20, 2010, 06:06:50 PM
I can see a compelling government interest in allowing military recruiters onto school campuses. I don't see a compelling state interest in forcing Christian organizations to admit gay members.
I can see no compelling state interest in giving university support and funds to clubs that don't allow students to join. No one, of course, is arguing for anyone forcing any club to admit anyone the club doesn't want to - that argument is obviously a red herring. The issue is whether or not the club will be sponsored by the university (the club continued to thrive for some time after it lost its university sponsorship).
Quote from: dps on April 20, 2010, 06:06:50 PM
I can see a compelling government interest in allowing military recruiters onto school campuses. I don't see a compelling state interest in forcing Christian organizations to admit gay members.
California's legislature disagreed as did this school when it saw a compelling interest in banning discrimination based on sexual orientation in the workplace and at the law school. The Court's recognized a compelling state interest in combatting discrimination in the past; it did so in
Roberts v. Jaycees, for instance (which entailed a Minnesota statute banning discrimination based on gender). And there's no restriction on the organization's speech, where is where the Court's traditionally far more protective.
You could argue this is a stupid policy, and I'd probably agree. But I see no right to public sponsorship and funding.
Quote from: dps on April 20, 2010, 06:06:50 PM
I don't see a compelling state interest in forcing Christian organizations to admit gay members.
Only that this is not about "forcing Christian organizations to admit gay members" but about "forcing a university to fund an organization that refuses to admit a portion of the students at that university".
These are not the gay students sueing the Christian organization to let them in but the Christian bigots sueing the university for money.
I think a lot of people seem to miss this rather important distinction. Since I am feeling charitable, I'm going to blame it on stupidity rather than homophobia. :)
Can't one be an unrepentant sodomite and still be a Christian?
Quote from: garbon on April 21, 2010, 02:22:58 AM
Can't one be an unrepentant sodomite and still be a Christian?
That was one of my first posts. Just look at the catholic church.
Quote from: Martinus on April 21, 2010, 02:27:04 AM
That was one of my first posts. Just look at the catholic church.
I try not to read your posts unless I've nothing better to do. :blush:
Quote from: garbon on April 21, 2010, 02:28:38 AM
Quote from: Martinus on April 21, 2010, 02:27:04 AM
That was one of my first posts. Just look at the catholic church.
I try not to read your posts unless I've nothing better to do. :blush:
*pulls garbon onto his lap*
:)
Quote from: The Brain on April 21, 2010, 03:00:55 AM
Feeling a bit uppity today, are we?
I still need to get to bed, racist.
Quote from: The Brain on April 21, 2010, 03:12:04 AM
I love Indians. :(
I'm sure you have many Indian friends.
Taken by who? ! :angry:
Quote from: The Brain on April 21, 2010, 03:17:03 AM
I don't wanna be friends.
We could write a bad romance.
Quote from: Jaron on April 21, 2010, 03:20:45 AM
Taken by who? ! :angry:
A man with a job. :mellow:
Honest answer. ^_^
Quote from: dps on April 20, 2010, 06:06:50 PM
I can see a compelling government interest in allowing military recruiters onto school campuses. I don't see a compelling state interest in forcing Christian organizations to admit gay members.
The opposite is closer to the truth. Preventing discrimination on the basis of religious belief is definitely a compelling state interest - there is a huge line of case law that so holds. Ability to recruit on campus OTOH is a convenience but not a necessity - there are many alternate means to recruit students effectively.