Court: Christian Group Can't Bar Gays, Get Funding

[kpete]

Source: abc

Court: Christian Group Can't Bar Gays, Get Funding
By JESSE J. HOLLAND Associated Press Writer
Updated 44 min ago

An ideologically split Supreme Court ruled Monday that a law school can legally deny recognition to a Christian student group that won't let gays join.

The court turned away an appeal from the Christian Legal Society, which sued to get funding and recognition from the University of California's Hastings College of the Law.

The CLS requires that voting members sign a statement of faith and regards "unrepentant participation in or advocacy of a sexually immoral lifestyle" as being inconsistent with that faith.

But Hastings said no recognized campus groups may exclude people due to religious belief or sexual orientation.

Read more: http://abcnews.go.com/m/screen?id=11033294

[msongs]

1. so they don't let trained killers from the military join either, right? 10 commandments and all nt

[rasputin1952]

2. And one brick of the wall comes loose ands falls to the ground...

Score one for those that will not back bigotry w/Federal funds.

:patriot:

[sulphurdunn]

3. Fascists always believe

that and form of equality discriminates against them and their beliefs. And they're right. :smoke:

[Bill McBlueState]

4. another 5-4 judgment

While I agree with the court in this case, I wonder if the framers of the Constitution really intended for so many fundamental questions to be decided by one-vote SC majorities.

[krabigirl]

15. i was thinking the same thing. I am also uncomfortable with this.

A band of nine people, politically polaraized, deciding everyone's fate.

[Dappleganger]

23. This is how Bushie was forced upon us.

[LiberalFighter]

17. If they had wanted something else they would had done so.

Just as they required both chambers of Congress needing 2/3 vote to reject the President's veto.

But it doesn't look like the Constitutional Convention decided the number of Justices or the procedure they would operate under. That appears to have been decided by the Congress in 1789.

[defendandprotect]

19. Excellent point . . . 310 million Americans and 5-4 means that ONE vote decides for us all...!!

[Princess Turandot]

30. Of the 80 opinions issued thru 6/26, only 15% went 5-4..

59 of them (74%) had a split of 7-2 or less, including 38 which were unanimous. They agree far more than they disagree.

You may find this interesting: http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/Preliminary-Stats-OT09_062610.pdf

Adding: I don't believe the last two cases have been added to the stats yet.

[Stargazer09]

5. Alito's statement made no sense to me

The group is still entitled to meet, so their free speech rights have not been violated. They just aren't allowed to get recognition and funding from the college, which they don't deserve because of their discriminatory practices.

[Mz Pip]

8. I don't get it either.

Why should this group be required to get money in order to meet or express themselves? The group is not being banned or silenced.

This is a public school and the funding comes from my tax dollars so why should my tax dollars go to support the groups discriminatory views?

[appal_jack]

10. Scam-y'all Scalito is a moron with a far-right agenda

Expecting a moron to make sense will often result in disappointment or confusion.

-app

[defendandprotect]

20. Agree .... rather they will often try to hide their agenda . ..

[patrice]

6. Good News!

[MountainLaurel]

7. That surprises me

Not that I'm not very happy about that decision.

[Bluenorthwest]

9. Good for Hastings.

And so sad for the Christians who will not be allowed to discriminate. What will they ever do to prove their goddishness? Will they be driven to feeding the poor that fill the streets around their campus? We shall see.

[happyslug]

11. Actual Court Opinion

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1371.pdf

[great white snark]

12. Thank you for this

Ugh, decisions on this matter should not be this close.

[defendandprotect]

21. Think we need something a little briefer . . . no summation of majority/minority opinions?

I'm having trouble finding the "dissent" in the gun ruling --

[BolivarianHero]

13. A noble decision...

The state must never bind free men and free women to the cross of another's ignorance and reactionary moral hygiene.

[Scurrilous]

14. K & R

:thumbsup:

[Moonwalk]

16. The dissenting opinion bugs the fuck out of me! Here is--

The pro argument, nicely put by Ginsberg:

"CLS, it bears emphasis, seeks not parity with other organizations, but a preferential exemption from Hastings' policy."

Here is Justice Samuel Alito dissent for the court's conservatives: "a serious setback for freedom of expression in this country....Our proudest boast of our free speech jurisprudence is that we protect the freedom of express 'the thought that we hate,'" Alito said. "Today's decision rests on a very different principle: no freedom of expression that offends prevailing standards of political correctness in our country's institutions of higher learning."

:banghead: I really hate that conservatives keep shouting that old saying about "hating" what a person says, but defending their right to say it. First, they don't defend anyone's right to say it if THEY hate it. But when it comes to someone else's hatred of what they're saying, they always bring up that old saw. And they totally ignore that the right to say it IS defended. This group isn't being prevented from saying whatever the fuck they want. They're being prevented from being given the funding to discriminate. The group can stay on campus and say whatever it likes. But the school doesn't have to fun them because, as said, the club is asking for preferential exemption--they don't want to follow the rules for funding. So they don't get it. That doesn't mean they can't go on preaching whatever hateful things they want to preach. Their freedom of expression has not been abused--and "political correctness" has nothing to do with this. Political correctness would have said they couldn't say it--not that they could, they just won't be funded.

But you can bet, conservatives will use this example to run screaming around, scared to death that, "They're trying to take away our freedom of speech and religion!" :mad:

[defendandprotect]

22. Completely agree with your summation . . ..

and notice the reference to "prevailing standards of political correctness in our country's

institutions of higher learning."

Sounds like he'd enjoy a new McCarthy Era?

:)

[Manifestor_of_Light]

24. They don't know about the sodomy decision from Texas?

I think it was styled Lawrence v. Texas, out of Houston. Supremes said that homosexual conduct was not illegal.

The term they should have used is "legal conduct", not "politically correct".

:grr:

[Ed Barrow]

27. Here's what Alito is REALLY saying.

I've read his entire dissent. First of all, he says that since the amount of funding in question was very small the Court should consider the funding issue to be completely irrelevant. He then goes on to say that condemnation of "immoral sexual practices" is fundamental to the Christian faith. Therefore, if you refuse to embrace their discriminatory practices toward gays you are, in fact, discriminating against Christians. It matters not that their freedom of expression remains unimpeded. Alito is saying that the law school should be required to embrace the practices of this group and grant it every privilege available. Otherwise, your violating the first amendment rights of Christians. I know this turns logic completely on its head but we have four Supreme Court saying exactly that to the nation.

[Moonwalk]

29. How can condemnation be "fundamental" to the Christian faith--

If there are Christian churches and sects that do NOT condemn "immoral" sexual conduct (i.e. Christian churches that embrace gays, lesbians, etc.)--and we know that Episcopalian does, and that's no small cult there!--then it can't be fundamental to the faith. Believing in Christ is fundamental--every Christian would agree you can't be one without a belief in Christ. Condemning immoral sexual practices is not--not every Christian would agree with that. So the logic doesn't hold up that discriminating against those who hold gays as "immoral" is equal to discriminating against Christians.

On the other hand, discriminating against gay sex is discriminating against gays--as what else makes them gay if not the desire to have sex with their own gender? As that is fundamental to being gay, this group is clearly discriminating if they tell gays that in order to belong to this group they have to promise not to have sex...while heteros can.

And amount of funding is immaterial. The rule of law applies even if it was only a dollar. Besides, if it's that small as to not matter, why did it go all the way to the Supreme Court? Obviously it did matter.

And yeah, it makes very little sense to tell the law school to embrace discrimination in order not to discriminate.

[RainDog]

31. Alito's opinion only confirms his own homophobia and hatred

and displays a shocking stupidity about non-fundamentalist and right wing catholicism. -- or rather, his admission that he only views christianity as a right wing phenomena.

which means he's fucking stupid.

[defendandprotect]

18. One positive decision . . .

[happyslug]

28. I dislike this decision, I tend to agree with Alito, but the Majority also have a point

Remember the holding is that the Law School requires EVERY organization to have an "all comers" policy. i.e. that any student in the law school can join that student organization. The Majority bases its whole decision on the grounds both sides stipulated to this being a dispute as to the fairness "all comers" policy instead of a no discrimination policy (i.e. this is a ruling on the "all Comers" Policy NOT anything else). The dissent claims the stipulation is NOT that broad and in the Answer to the Complaint, the School clearly admitted its policy was NOT "All Comers" when it denied recognition of the Christian group but a non-discrimination policy and that policy should be the one being reviewed by the court NOT the "All Comers" policy.

The whole dispute between what was stipulated and what was not is a sign of how divided this court is. In many ways the court does NOT need another expert on the law, but a politician who can get all of the members to be on the same page as much as possible (This is what Warren, Burger and Rehnquist were known for). Why this big dispute as to what are the facts of the case? The Majority holds that a stipulation was entered and can NOT be varied from, the dissent agrees a stipulation was entered but then cite the Trial Judge that the stipulation was NOT as broad as the Majority claims it was (And what the Ninth Circuit held the stipulation to be). This is not a left-right dispute as to policy, but a clear sign that both sides have become so antagonistic that they can NOT even agrees on the basic issue being reviewed. That is bad, we need a Politician on the Court just to get the people talking to each other NOT past each other.

Now, having reviewed the Majority and the dissent, the Majority makes the case that if the Collage has a "all Comers" Policy, then the restrictions imposed by the Christian group were in violation of that policy and as such could NOT be an acceptable group. The Scary part I can see the dissent acceptable that position if you can get over the hurtle of how do you protect minorities? All the Majority has to do to shut down any minority group is join up and then out vote the founders of that group. In simple terms this is Tyranny of the Majority. Dissents are not possible for any dissent are quashed by Majority rule. No minority group could survive any concentrated attack on any organization of the Minority by the Majority.

The majority claims that such a concern in minor, the Minorities can still form groups but not have first claims on any resource of the Law school (Such as a class room for meetings etc). The minorities can still meet and speak but not get the same access to school resources as minorities that agree to the terms set by the School. Furthermore the School resources being provided is quite limited, class rooms, access to computers and the school network etc. These can easily be done without being a recognized school group. Thus in the view of the Majority the policy adopted by the School meet Constitutional muster.

Now, one aspects NOT mentioned by either side is the Schools policy as to Homosexuals. The Christian groups rejection of Homosexuals seems to have been the real reason for the rejection of the Christian Group, but the School realized that would NOT meet constitutional muster so adopted the "All Comers" Rule. The dissent makes a good argument that the "All Comers" Rule was adopted AFTER this litigation started, but the Majority ruled that its decision is based on the "All Comers" Rule.

In my opinion, this case will result in nothing. The problems with an "All Comers" rule was clearly made by the dissent and someone will use the "All Comers" rule to repress some minority and the courts will have to reverse this decision or permit such repression (And such repression will NOT be tolerated). This rule is not usable in the long term. Hated Minorities are the minorities that need to be protected and in this case the rejection of Homosexuality by the Christian Group was the object of the School hatred and rejection. The Majority does as good as case as it can to say a School does NOT have to support group it and its students oppose but then offers no cut off to such tyranny by the majority. Alito citing of the case involving the Students for Democratic Action (SDS) was a good cite, the SDS was denied student recognition for it refused to agree to terms set by the School as to its core beliefs. Alito uses that opinion to state the same in this case, just because the school rejects the core belief of a group does NOT give the school the right to discriminate against that group. I can see why the Majority ruled as it did.

The real dispute here is how best to protect minority rights. The Majority says the School can discriminate against Minorities (This fundamentalist Christian Group) if that is to protect other minorities (homosexuals). The dissent holds that such discrimination can lead to tyranny of the majority for it permit favored groups of the school to gain up and grab controls of groups the school opposes. I would like to say one side or the other is correct, but I see both being wrong and a politician on the Supreme Court, one who can get the ALL members to work together, could fashion a decision acceptable to both sides and such a decision would be more clear and workable then the adopted and the one the dissent advocated.

[onehandle]

25. K&R. nt

[GlennWRECK]

26. By no means a poor decision