The U.S. Supreme Court isn't yet ready to hear legal challenges to Prop 8, but how about a lawsuit from an anti-gay Christian group that insists a college doesn't have the right to discriminate against it because it hates homos? Sure!
Battling back against a federal appeals court decision, the Christian Legal Society appealed to the Supreme Court to hear its case — Christian Legal Society v. Martinez (UC Hastings) — against the University of California, Hastings College of the Law, which refused to recognize the group because it doesn't conform with the college's non-discrimination policy. And today, the justices accepted.
Founded in 1961, the Christian Legal Society maintained law student chapters across the country. Its members hold Bible study meetings and discuss ways to apply their religious faith to the practice of law.
The chapter initially was open to all students, but in 2004 it began requiring members to endorse a statement of faith and barred anyone who engaged in "unrepentant sexual conduct." The law school withdrew official recognition, but allowed the group to still meet on campus.
A federal judge and then a U.S. appeals court ruled for the law school, holding that its policy was reasonable and "viewpoint neutral" and that it did not violate the rights of the Christian group.
But another federal appeals court, in Chicago, had ruled the other way in 2006 in a case involving a chapter of the Christian Legal Society and the Southern Illinois University School of Law.
By agreeing the hear the case, the Supreme Court is expected to resolve the conflicting rulings. The justices are expected to hear arguments in the case in March, with a decision likely by the end of June.
Should We Fault Dan Choi For Earning Some Cash For Being An Activist? (33)
· Kyle says: Good for you Dan. I support ANY gay person who has suffered directly for being gay and is... »
· Jeffree says: AndrewW & his sockpuppets are certainly busy tonight! With better than 82%... »
Why Are Hollywood’s Black Gay Characters on the Downlow? (28)
· ran says: »
Rep. Aaron Schock: ‘Wow, There’s a Lot On That Stick. I Really Enjoyed That’ (25)
· Michael says: @Carl: He also happens to be an anti-gay politician. »
Anne Rice Ditches Christianity Because, Have You Heard, It’s So Anti-Gay? (27)
· M says: religion has been responsible for inequality, injustice and unfairness for LGBT and so long... »
· Chris says: Simple. Religious people: prove religion exists. It’s crazy to me something... »
· Ian Jay says: Welcome to the logical side, Miss Rice. Where humanity, respect and kindness does not... »
Bothersome Gay Activists Didn’t Make Obama’s ‘Worst Parts of Presidency’ List (19)
· Ryan says: Hilarious, B. Obama is against DOMA and for EDNA in name only. He knows he would have to... »
What NOM’s Logo Would Look Like If Its Own Supporters Designed It (13)
· Jeffree says: Well, I’m gonna tell some comedy secrets here. If your act doesn’ t work... »
YouTube Can’t Handle It When The Double Rainbow Becomes a Double Standard (8)
· Jeffree says: sebastian = jason »
All the members are getting tired of meeting at the
local cruise areas where they all get barebacked on a
regular basis. They are looking for a meeting place
with toilet facilities other than their mouths………
"The chapter initially was open to all students, but in 2004 it began requiring members to endorse a statement of faith and barred anyone who engaged in 'unrepentant sexual conduct.'" …. so how is this anti-gay? All they seem to require of a sexually active, unmarried or philandering member, whether gay or straight, is to say, "I've been a very bad boy." (Maybe even "I've been a very bad boy and need to be punished, sir" while naked and tied up in one of those bondage gizmos.)
Now, if the group's policy is to "look the other way" for heterosexual "sinners" and castigate gay ones, that would be a different situation and the group could be banned, if not for discrimination, at least for false advertising.
Just to add a more seriously-worded comment, what UC Hastings should do IMHO is to add a policy that a group that the law school recognizes must state any membership requirements accurately. If the Supreme Court rules that this Christian group can discriminate for religious reasons, and "unrepentant sexual conduct" is a de facto code word for "homosexual sexual conduct", then one can argue that the group is misleading potential members and should not be recognized on that basis.
As a law school, there is a legitimate reason to require that recognized groups conform to the sort of ethical requirements that practicing attorneys would be expected to follow, including avoiding an appearance of impropriety by misrepresenting a group's requirements. Of course, certain homophobic religious groups would hate this idea as they want to give their prejudices a cloak of respectability. So let's not let them have it – parade them around stark naked (figuratively speaking).
As a government agent, the school is prohibited from discrimination. As a private club, the club members have freedom of speech and association. The club members may choose to set their membership criteria. However, the government (the school) may only support (with money, meeting rooms, etc.) clubs that do not discriminate. If the club chooses to discriminate, they make themselves ineligible to receive support from the school. That is their choice.
There were several similar cases involving the Boy Scouts (BSA) and various public school districts about a decade ago. In each case, the result was similar: The BSA has a right to set its own membership criteria; And, the public school "may not" support or sponsor any BSA troops with public funds.
The constitution guarantees freedom of speech and freedom of association. It does NOT say that the government must provide a a microphone, amplifier, lectern, stage, or meeting room.