Jump to content

Supreme Court Ruling Against Excluding Homosexuals


Recommended Posts

Because this is over a year old, some of you might have heard about this case. I had not and I was curious about my fellow free jingerites thoughts.

A University of California law school's refusal to give official student group status to a Christian society that excluded gays was a reasonable application of the school's nondiscrimination policy, the Supreme Court said Monday in a 5-4 ruling.

The Christian Legal Society chapter had sued UC Hastings College of the Law, arguing that denial of school recognition and of access to state funding and facilities violated the group's 1st and 14th Amendment rights to free speech, expressive association and the free exercise of religion.

The society chapter, formed at the San Francisco law school in 2004, required members to forswear "unrepentant participation in or advocacy of a sexually immoral lifestyle," which it defined as sex outside of heterosexual marriage.

The court's opinion, written by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, said the law school's decision was reasonable in that the state-funded university requires all groups wearing its endorsement to be nondiscriminatory.

"Hastings, through its [Registered Student Organization] program, is dangling the carrot of subsidy, not wielding the stick of prohibition," Ginsburg wrote in the opinion, joined by Justices John Paul Stevens, Anthony M. Kennedy, Stephen G. Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor.

The majority noted that the court was ruling only on the constitutionality of the school's requirement that groups accept "all comers," not on broader challenges to the nondiscrimination tenets.

Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. wrote in dissent that the majority ruling amounted to "no freedom for expression that offends prevailing standards of political correctness in our country's institutions of higher learning."

Alito, joined by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, noted that Hastings has more than 60 registered student groups and that in its entire history has denied registration to "exactly one: the Christian Legal Society." Alito said the majority gave public educational institutions "a handy weapon for suppressing the speech of unpopular groups."

Hastings Dean Leo Martinez, who was the defendant in the case, cheered the high court's decision.

"The college's intent has always been to ensure the leadership, educational and social opportunities afforded by officially recognized student organizations are available to all students attending public institutions," Martinez said. "The court's ruling validates our policy, which is rooted in equity and fairness."

The Anti-Defamation League hailed the decision as "a ringing affirmation that public universities have the right to implement and enforce policies that reject discrimination by school clubs."

A lawyer for the Christian group, however, noted that the Supreme Court ruling was focused on the narrow question of Hastings' all-comers policy, while at least two broader challenges are still making their way through the courts.

"The court did not adjudicate whether the application of nondiscrimination policies to a religious student group is constitutional," said Gregory S. Baylor, senior legal counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund, a Christian legal organization.

http://articles.latimes.com/2010/jun/29 ... s-20100629

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This has recently come up at my school as well. Basically the elected treasurer of the Intervarsity Fellowship was pressured to resign because he was gay. Those involved in the pressuring claim it was because he didn't agree to their statement of faith which included the bible being inerrant and they took to mean homosexuality was a sin. When it became public, there was a lot of outrage and the university suspended the group's charter and cancelled all their activities. As far as I can tell, the majority of students agree with the University's decision but some of the members of the group are pretty upset.

http://blog.christianitytoday.com/ctliv ... r_col.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"A University of California law school's refusal to give official student group status to a Christian society that excluded gays was a reasonable application of the school's nondiscrimination policy, the Supreme Court said Monday in a 5-4 ruling."

Gee. If this "Christian society" wants recognition and use of buildings and property, they can either ask their church for use of its TAX-FREE landholdings, or start their own school. This is a public institution and thus its assets do not exist to further a collection of nutjobs' religious kookery. If they're there to go to law school, they should be focusing their attention on getting their degree, not seeing how far they can take their court case accusing a public school of "discrimination." What a bunch of jackasses, as usual, wasting taxpayer dollars.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.