In a 5-4 ruling, the Supreme Court says the University of California’s Hastings College of the Law can continue denying the Christian Legal Society as an official student group, thus denying funding, because since 2004 its required members to sign a “statement of faith” and prohibited anyone engaged in “unrepentant participation in or advocacy of a sexually immoral lifestyle” from joining. UC-Hastings still allows the group to meet on campus, which is nice of them, but not required: In deciding Christian Legal Society v. Martinez today, the justices say the school’s policy does not violate CLS’ First Amendment rights.
PLAYS WELL WITH OTHERS
One would think that these little legal geniuses who are “studying” law in the United States may have some idea about a little matter called separation of church and state. Ya know one of the founding principals of our country and its legal doctrines……….
Goes to show just how fcuking vile these strhaters are, screw the rule of law, which they supposdly desire to learn about and advance their hatred of others……..pathetic losers
cr8nguy
Justice Kennedy concurred. Wonder if this bodes well for Perry v Schwarzenegger….
slobone
@cr8nguy: That’s a good question. Kennedy in fact filed a concurring opinion in this case, which I’ve just read (it’s short).
Unfortunately, there’s nothing in his opinion to suggest that he sees this as a gay rights issue. Rather he talks about the fact that it’s legitimate for the law school to disallow (subsidized) student organizations from prying into the opinions or outside behavior of students who wish to join them. He says “the era of loyalty oaths is behind us”.
He also talks about the general benefit in law schools of free-ranging discussion among students. Basically the justices (including the dissenting opinion by Alito) see this as more of a free speech case than an equal rights case.
B
No. 3 · slobone wrote, “Unfortunately, there’s nothing in his opinion to suggest that he sees this as a gay rights issue.”
Well, it really isn’t a gay rights issue as it would apply to any type of discrimination (gender, race, etc.)
The scary thing is that it passed by a 5-4 vote. That’s one reason we need to keep Republicans out of the White House. If McCain had been in, the decision could have ended up going the other way due to him making more conservative appointments.
TheGayLawBlog
I tend to agree that this isn’t really the case that will forecast any Prop 8 decisions from the Supreme Court (particularly as we don’t really know for sure where Kagan, if confirmed, will line up, although her view on DADT would seem to be it would be for equality).
What I’m most concerned about is where Justice Kennedy ended up in the Second Amendment case, McDonald v. City of Chicago. There he ended up in the majority with Alito, in an opinion that stressed that for substantive due process rights to be recognized, they must be deeply rooted in American history and tradition.
That makes me a little uneasy, but Justice Kennedy found a substantive due process right to sodomy in Lawrence v Texas, so I’m not entirely sure what to make of it.
I blogged about this potential issue here:
http://thegaylawblog.blogspot.com/2010/06/supreme-court-rules-in-christian-legal.html
Flex
This presents an opportunity for the christianists to evolve, and show that they’re relevant. They need to shed their discriminatory practices, and operate like everyone else.
If they can do this, the world could experience a truly joyful celebration of harmony. They’re so close. The choice is theirs!
Terry
Thank you for not butchering the ruling in your title as so many other outlets have, including the SF Chronicle (“Court: Christian group can’t bar gays, get funding”) and Huff-n-Puff Post (“Christian Group Can’t Bar Gays, Get Funding At Hastings College, Court Says”)!
It was about the University’s right to discriminate against CLS, not CLS against gays. I suspect Kennedy would have swung the other way had it been as those titles would have you believe.
jonah
CLS is insane, if you read other blogs that try to defend CLS, its a case study in psychology to try and understand their twisted arguments. CLS violates a non-discrimination “all comers” policy and THEY sue for discrimination. Why? Because their reasons is religion and that is exempt? Un-frigin-believable.
Unfortunately, this was still only a 5-4 decision (and if CLS hadn’t made those stipulations, who knows what the result woudl have been). We think we’ve come so far, but this close call shows how precarious our rights are. We’re just one Republican administration away from the new Christian Taliban sweeping over the country and turning the US into a theocracy that condones discrimination against gays.
Something must be done, GET INVOLVED!!!
jonah
Here is an interesting article for those interested in a real legal analysis (and don’t want to wade through the lengthy opinion)
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/hamilton/20100701.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+FindLawWrit+(FindLaw%27s+Writ+-+Legal+Commentary)