A split Supreme Court ruled in Christian Legal Society v. Martinez that the University of California's Hastings College of the Law can legally deny recognition and funding to a Christian student group that will not let gays join [clarification: would not let non-celibate gays be voting members or voted into leadership positions]. Neal McCluskey writes on the Cato Institute blog, in his post Having Public Colleges Means Limiting Freedom, that "Quite simply, when public universities decide which groups do or do not get taxpayer funds, and which professors are or are not hired, government is deciding those things, and that is ultimately incompatible with both free inquiry and, more importantly, a free society." Kind of like the endless pro-big government "progressive" narrative on government-funded PBS.
If Hastings were a private college, there would (ideally) be no issue with its deciding which groups to fund or not fund. A conservative religious school would chose to fund the conservative Christian group, and a liberal college wouldn't. With public institutions, or private institutions receiving government funding, the state gets to decide. Sometimes you and/or I will agree with those decisions, and sometimes we won't. But that's politics (i.e., who has got the power of the state behind them, at this time).
More. Justice Samuel Alito's dissent cites an amicus curiae brief filed in opposition to Hastings College of Law by Gays and Lesbians for Individual Liberty (GLIL). The dissent can be read here. GLIL is mentioned on page 29:
...the Court argues that the accept-all-comers policy, by bringing together students with diverse views, encourages tolerance, cooperation, learning, and the development of conflict-resolution skills. ... These are obviously commendable goals, but they are not undermined by permitting a religious group to restrict membership to persons who share the group's faith. Many religious groups impose such restrictions. ... Our country as a whole, no less than the Hastings College of Law, values tolerance, cooperation, learning, and the amicable resolution of conflicts. But we seek to achieve those goals through "[a] confident pluralism that conduces to civil peace and advances democratic consensus-building," not by abridging First Amendment rights. Brief for Gays and Lesbians for Individual Liberty as Amicus Curiae 35.
Furthermore. Cathy Young writes in "A Dangerous Precedent" at Reason.com: "How would people feel if, at a public university that happened to be dominated by religious conservatives, a gay-rights group was denied recognition because it refused membership to people who openly espouse anti-gay views?"
119 Comments for “Government Isn’t Neutral”
posted by Arthur on
Once an organization/club receives tax dollars on a the state’s secular campus, that organization/club cannot discriminate against a taxpayer. With all the state moneys flowing to religiously affiliated campuses, if one needs that experience and setting, get thee to a nunnery.
posted by Throbert McGee on
Arthur, that sword cuts both ways. Should a gay student organization at a California state school be able to exclude supporters of Prop 8 (i.e., opponents of same-sex marriage) from being voting members of the organization, or from officer positions in the organization?
While I personally don’t think that gay groups OUGHT to make a litmus test out of the same-sex-marriage issue, I think that if a gay student group WANTS to make a litmus test out of it (i.e., “no one who opposes same-sex marriage is eligible to vote or be an officer in the Poopsburg College Queer Alliance”), they should have a right to do so. And by the same token, if a student group wants to exclude openly gay people from voting membership or from being officers, they should also have the right to do so.
Note: Stephen Miller’s summary of the case isn’t quite accurate. He refers to “a Christian student group that will not let gays join.” But to more more precise, this particular Christian organization at Hastings College did not assert a right to ban gays from attending and participating in meetings of the group, but only a right to ban non-celibate gays from being officers and/or voting members of the group.
posted by Bobby on
So when the drama club holds auditions, should they give parts to people who can’t act? Should the school’s football team let people who can’t play do? Should fat cheerleaders be hired? Give me a break! What part of “freedom of association” does the supreme court not understand?
Oh well, at least they get it when it comes to the second amendment. I’m glad that a 78 year old black man in Chicago will finally be able to buy a handgun and keep it at home legally. Of course, Sotomayor ruled against him, big surprise, I guess our “wise latina” doesn’t give a shit about poor old black men who live in crime-infested neighborhoods. Frankly, I’d like to see Richard Daley move to the ghetto, let’s see how quickly hsi views against the second-amendment change in that environment.
posted by Jimmy on
“Should a gay student organization at a California state school be able to exclude supporters of Prop 8 (i.e., opponents of same-sex marriage) from being voting members of the organization, or from officer positions in the organization?”
No, and the SCOTUS just said so. It comes down to exclusionary policies being at odds with a public institution. If you want to engage in exclusionary behavior on a college campus, go to an institution that is willing to entertain you.
I wonder if this decision is regarded as judicial activism, or was the Chicago gun ban decision legislation from the bench?
posted by Tom on
As it should, if equal means equal. If the rule is that government-funded groups should be open to all, then then all government-funded groups should be open to all.
I believe in equal treatment for gays and lesbians, however that plays out.
I don’t think that either straights or gays and lesbians should be protected with special rights or privileges.
If a government-funded anti-gay/lesbian student organization is required to admit gay and lesbian students to the group on an equal footing, then a government-funded gay/lesbian student organization should be required to do likewise with anti-gay students.
Where I have a problem is when the government treats either gays and lesbians or straights as distinct classes and grants special rights to one or the other. And it does, all the time it seems.
Historically, of course, the government has granted almost all the special rights to straights — straights in the military can disclose their sexual orientation, but gays and lesbians in the military can’t; straights can marry but gays and lesbians can’t; and so on — but the government has also granted special rights to gays and lesbians at times, as well — Wisconsin’s Domestic Partnership law is limited to same-sex couples, for example, and should not be.
Either way, it is an abuse of government power to set up distinct classes of citizens and grant special rights to of the classes, in my view, unless the government has a clear and compelling reason to create the classes and grant the special rights.
posted by Arthur on
I’m always confused when conservative groups complain they are not getting enough government funding.
posted by BobN on
The “clarification” is actually a further distortion.
The CLS requires voting members and leadership to uphold traditional marriage as they stated in their 1996 addition to the their statement of faith (which is really hard to find, almost as if they’re ashamed of it). You could be gay and celibate and you still will not qualify if you believe in anything which support any situation in which sex outside marriage is allowed or encouraged. Obviously no same-sex marriage. Also no CUs, no DPs, no nothing. And if you’re heterosexual and support gay rights, you’re out too.
People ignore that this is really a fight about Freedom of Religion, not the group’s freedom, but the freedom of individual students at Hastings to join a group despite not having the same religious views. CLS, before it ever submitted an application for recognition, asked the university for a blanket exemption for all student religious groups from the anti-discrimination requirements.
posted by Jorge on
At least it was a 5-4 decision. I don’t mean I hope it’s overturned, I mean it’s a legitimately divisive issue that can still be resolved either way.
I remember arguing very strongly against Hastings College’s policy when this was discussed before, but to be honest I think the historical evidence that strict nondiscrimination policies work without harming people is too strong. However I think this could be changing. I don’t think people care about respect diversity of opinion in the same way anymore.
This isn’t over yet, I promise you.
I’d be interested if someone could explain to me whether yesterday’s gun law decision is likely to mean I can get a license to carry a concealed weapon in NYC.
posted by Jorge on
People ignore that this is really a fight about Freedom of Religion, not the group’s freedom, but the freedom of individual students at Hastings to join a group despite not having the same religious views. CLS, before it ever submitted an application for recognition, asked the university for a blanket exemption for all student religious groups from the anti-discrimination requirements.
So much for the group seeking a special exemption only for themselves.
Still, they obviously have not proven that the rules cannot be applied fairly to them. The CLS must now make a good faith effort to both stand by its mission (whatever it is) and to conform to the college’s nondiscrimination policy. They’ll need to stand on practice instead of principle now.
posted by Throbert McGee on
Money quote from the CATO Institute:
Attention, BobN and Jimmy: This is really the crux of the matter. If a student organization is not allowed to define what it stands for, and what it does not stand for, and in which directions it intends to push or not push, then there really is no value in having student organizations at all.
posted by Tom on
In a word, no. The case has been remanded to trial court so that Chicago can bring its handgun ordinance into compliance with the decision. This is going to take a while to settle out.
The decision is significant, through, because it affects the ability of states [and through powers delegated by the states, local governments] to regulate the possession of handguns according to local conditions.
Because the decision limits the power of states, it is likely to have its greatest long-term effect on the balance of power between state and federal governments, strengthening the power of the federal government vis a vis the states. It is just another chink out of the wall of reserved powers as far as I am concerned.
posted by Throbert McGee on
And what exactly is wrong with that, BobN?
Mind you, it doesn’t sound like a group that I’d personally want to hang out with on a regular basis, but as long as I’m allowed to form my own student club that totally disagrees with their principles, why should it bother me in the least if they’ve got a different worldview than I do?
posted by Throbert McGee on
Prediction: Come September, LGBT Student Associations on campuses across the country will be flooded with Christian conservatives asserting their right to become voting members and run for office.
posted by Bobby on
Equal under the law was not meant for private student organizations. I went to college, the LGBT Group expelled me because they did not like my speech. Should I have sued the bastards? I don’t think so. IF the LGBT community has taught me anything is that you’re always better off hanging out with your own kind, which in my case it isn’t always easy to figure out who that is, but I know one thing, I don’t go where I’m not wanted and neither should gay Christians.
posted by Tom on
Remind me after Thanksgiving, Throbert, and I’ll check the colleges and universities in Wisconsin. My guess is that the number nationwide will be but a handful, although I admit that a remarkable number of Christian conservatives have an unhealthy obsession with homosexuality, so you could be right.
posted by Bobby on
Tom, maybe some Christian conservatives do have an unhealthy obsession with homosexuality, but I’d like you to explain to me why do some gays have an unhealthy obsession with going to where they’re not wanted? Gays fought to join the Boy Scouts, they also fight to join Christian groups that don’t approve of them, why?
Gays should stick to what they do best, hairdressing, ballet, advertising, glee club, and maybe the military if they’re butch. There is no need for gays to join Christian groups that don’t like homosexuality, no need at all.
I would never fight to join any group that doesn’t want me, I didn’t even join the NRA until they told me it was ok for gays to join. Why? Because unlike those crazy gay Christians I have pride.
People simply have no common sense anymore, yesterday I saw a story of a child molester who wants to go to church but can’t because his probation won’t allow him to be near children. If it was up to me, I’d put him back in prison, there are no kids there.
posted by Tom on
I suspect that, for the most part, gays who want to join the Boy Scouts want to join the Boy Scouts because they wanted to be Boy Scouts. Boy Scouts of America et al. v. Dale, 530 U.S. 640 (2000) involved an Eagle Scout who was kicked out because he was gay, not a gay trying to become a Boy Scout.
And I suspect that it is the same with gays who want to join Christian organizations. I know a lot of gays who are Christians, as you may, too, for all I know. All of them are misguided, in my view, but that is for religious reasons, not because they want to join Christian groups.
In any event, if you are looking for someone to explain why anyone, let a alone someone who is gay, would want to be either a Boy Scout or a Christian, you are asking the wrong person. I was a farm kid and never had any interest in the Boy Scouts. And I certainly never had any interest in any of the Christian denominations, other than to stay out of the way around Good Friday, when they got around to thinking about Jews.
Well, I’m with Mark Twain on this question. I wouldn’t join any group that does want me.
Bobby, this is without exception the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard you say. And you’ve come up with some doozies.
posted by Jimmy on
I agree Throbert, there is no NEED to have these student organizations. And, last time I checked, attendance is not compulsory in a group, or at the whole damned institution for that matter.
If the club does not adhere to the policies of the institution form the get-go, best no to bother. All parties are still free to carry on with that awareness.
posted by Debrah on
“Gays should stick to what they do best, hairdressing, ballet, advertising, glee club, and maybe the military if they’re butch.”
************************************************
Bobby, like Throbert, you often overstate—by accident or by design—because both of you are so damned comfortable in your own skins and perhaps more naturally masculine than the average gay man…….
…….but when you state a fact, you state a fact.
Although, most wish to pretend that your comment isn’t as truthful as it actually is.
Just give a glance through the roster of something as mundane as HGTV………then move on to runway courtier…..and on and on.
Shabby chic to high end……..
…….men who abound are gay men.
Pure and simple.
posted by Lymis on
“So when the drama club holds auditions, should they give parts to people who can’t act? Should the school’s football team let people who can’t play do? Should fat cheerleaders be hired? Give me a break! What part of “freedom of association” does the supreme court not understand?”
The case hinged on allowing people to be members of the club. So any student would be free to join the Drama Club. That doesn’t guarantee them a role in a play, and nobody said it should.
The Muslim, Jewish, Feminist, and LGBT clubs at Hastings all have bylaws specifically stating that all students were welcome as members. That doesn’t give them the right to disrupt meetings, make fun of other members, or otherwise compromise the group (any more than Muslim, Jewish, Feminist, or LGBT students would be allowed to). But they are free to join.
The presumption is that the club has something to offer students who want to attend. Who says that a Muslim student seeking to understand more about Christianity wouldn’t participate in an appropriate manner without disrupting things? Or a gay student?
The club is free to restrict its membership and forfeit funding and formal recognition. It isn’t free to be recognized and funded by the school if it won’t allow all the students to join.
People are saying that this is based on gay rights or liberal bias. But the LGBT group wouldn’t be allowed to exclude students who are conservative Christians, either.
posted by Jorge on
In a word, no. The case has been remanded to trial court so that Chicago can bring its handgun ordinance into compliance with the decision. This is going to take a while to settle out.
All right, would I win the lawsuit, then?
Prediction: Come September, LGBT Student Associations on campuses across the country will be flooded with Christian conservatives asserting their right to become voting members and run for office.
Christian conservative rabble-rousers? So much for turn the other cheek. Seriously, I think that kind of backlash is more likely to come from primarily a political rather than religious direction.
…but I’d like you to explain to me why do some gays have an unhealthy obsession with going to where they’re not wanted?….
…Gays should stick to what they do best… maybe the military if they’re butch. There is no need for gays to join Christian groups that don’t like homosexuality, no need at all.
Hmm.
Help me out here, Bobby: what do you think gays should do when “what they do best”, as you so crudely put it, is not welcome?
posted by Debrah on
Just so there’s no misunderstanding, that’s “couturier”.
LIS!
posted by Jimmy on
“Just give a glance through the roster of something as mundane as HGTV………then move on to runway courtier…..and on and on.
Shabby chic to high end……..
…….men who abound are gay men.
Pure and simple.”
And doing it better than most of the tacky broads who try to ‘out fabulous’ Faaaaabulous, Inc.
posted by Throbert McGee on
Hey, Debrah! You know how you’re always saying that I should post at the “Throbert” blog at least maybe once per fiscal quarter? Well, TA-DA!
posted by Debrah on
Fantastic, Throbert dah-ling!
Simply stellar.
The IGF commentariat should be compelled to make their way through the Throbert gates of wit and wisdom……..into Caligula’s veils.
posted by John on
This to me is the crux of the matter for all such groups – including LGBT ones. As the old saying goes “If you take the King’s shilling and you are liable to do the King’s bidding”. I fully support the right of CLS to set it’s membership policies as it sees fit, but do not recognize a right to public funding.
posted by Debrah on
By the way, Throbert.
You need to make your pic a bit larger.
Very cute animation and strategy, but when you’ve got it, flaunt it.
GIS!
posted by Throbert McGee on
Hey, show of hands — who here has actually read Justice Alito’s dissent?
In my opinion, it makes mincemeat of the majority’s reasoning, but you can judge for yourselves AFTER reading it.
posted by Throbert McGee on
Which picture are you talking about, Deb?
posted by Throbert McGee on
Money quote from Alito:
posted by Debrah on
Throbert–
The one at the top of the page in a “cameo” setting.
In your underwear!
posted by Tom on
I don’t know.
Concealed carry is a different question than the question presented by the Chicago case, which involved a total ban on handgun ownership. The court cases to date have generally supported state and local licensing of handguns and reasonable restrictions on handgun use, including restrictions on concealed carry.
The wild card in the MacDonald decision is that it might be read — Justice Thomas’ concurrence in particular — as weakening or overruling the Slaughterhouse cases to the point where state and local governments have no power to license or regulate handguns.
The MacDonald decision will no doubt spawn challenges to the power of state and local governments to enact handgun regulation laws and ordinances of any kind. If the challenges are successful, then all manner of regulation might be swept away.
We’ll know more in a few years as other cases clarify the impact of MacDonald, Jorge.
Concealed carry, in my view, is vastly overrated. What happens in concealed carry jurisdictions, by and large, is that private businesses and organizations start banning handguns, making concealed carry impractical for self-defense.
I suppose that there is some marginal value to being able to carry concealed on the street, though, although I would argue that open carry is a better deterrent.
posted by Bobby on
“I suspect that, for the most part, gays who want to join the Boy Scouts want to join the Boy Scouts because they wanted to be Boy Scouts.”
—Yes well, long ago I was majoring in religious studies and wanted to be a religious teacher. When I found out that gays who teach religion either stay in the closet or get fired, I switched majors. So if gays want to join the Boy Scouts, they should forget about it and join a militia or any organization that wants them. We need to stop being so desperate.
“And I suspect that it is the same with gays who want to join Christian organizations. I know a lot of gays who are Christians, as you may, too, for all I know.”
—Yes well, they’re wasting their time going to places where homosexuality is frowned upon.
“Bobby, this is without exception the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard you say. And you’ve come up with some doozies.”
—Debrah doesn’t think so. Besides, the exception doesn’t make the rule. I think most gay men are drawn to professions where they are welcomed with open arms. Why be a football player when you can be a wedding coordinator? Why be a welder or electrician when you have have a successful career doing some kind of gay job.
True, I use stereotypes, but let’s face it, stereotypes are based on truths, things people see. If MIT didn’t have so many Asians then nobody would be saying that Asians are good at math! The same with gays, I read somewhere that 50% of male ballet dancers are gay. So, instead of suing to join the Boy Scouts or some Christian group, they should just stick to the ballet or whatever industry is gay friendly and leave the homophobes to their own devices.
posted by Jorge on
Hey, show of hands — who here has actually read Justice Alito’s dissent?
I haven’t read one word of the entire case. If I had, maybe I’d say more about it. I’ll read it later but I won’t be commenting on it anytime soon.
I only read or at least skim all of the opinions or none at all.
posted by Tom on
Debrah says she loses respect for anyone she thought was straight and then finds out is gay. She presumably thought they were straight because, as she suggests all the time, she thinks that gay men are pansies. Given that, do you really trust her judgment about whether gays should confine themselves to stereotypical professions?
Why? A gay man who wants to can have a successful career as a football player or a welder or an electrician. Many do. Why should a gay man give up doing what he wants to do just because it isn’t a “gay job”?
And, for that matter, what is a “gay job”?
The gay men I know around this area include several farmers, three business owners, a half dozen equipment operators (forklifts, construction equipment, and so on), a machinist, an accountant, two truck drivers, a bank manager, a zipline “Sky Ranger”, a tool and die maker, a social worker, a campground owner/operator, two teachers, a doctor, two lawyers, a librarian, three middle managers in business or government jobs, a butcher, a florist, a mechanic, an “outdoor adventure” guide, a couple of techies, a home builder, and a co-op manager, to name a few just from this area. If I count my friends from Chicago, the list of jobs that gay men are doing pretty much approximates the list of jobs available to be done, period.
The whole idea of “gay job” and “straight job” is ridiculous. And here’s why:
While its probably true that 50% of male ballet dancers are gay, and 75% of the folks who think that “upscale” actually means something might be gay, and 100% of male hairdressers are gay, only a tiny fraction of gay men are ballet dancers or advertising guys or hairdressers. Most do the same jobs as everyone else.
I probably shouldn’t have come right out and said that your idea that “Gays should stick to what they do best, hairdressing, ballet, advertising, glee club, and maybe the military if they’re butch …“, was “the dumbest thing I’ve ever heard you say”, but I do think that …
And it fits a pattern. In another thread, you said:
That may be how things are, but most gay men don’t live in the ghetto. As you well know, if you read the news, a lot — probably most — gays and lesbians are out in the real world, living and working at all sorts of jobs, raising our families and doing all the things that people do. We are no longer in a world where it makes any sense at all to try to stay in a confined “comfort zone”, be it a gay ghetto or a “gay job” ghetto.
Out in the real world, we sometimes have to push things a bit to live the way we want to live. I pushed hard at times as a partner in a large law firm, and that made some of my partners distinctly nervous. But that law firm, which would have had a “0” HRC rating when I started as a young associate, now has a “100%” HRC rating thanks to my efforts and the efforts of other gays and lesbians in the firm, as do most of the large law firms in this country. Gays and lesbians are making that happen in every industry, in every part of the country. Things are getting better because gays and lesbians push against the prejudice.
In short, gays and lesbians who will not settle for the ghetto are making the country more and more “gay friendly” as we go along, because the straight people who are our neighbors, friends, co-workers and family members are coming around, little by slowly. Screw the homophobes if that makes them uncomfortable.
posted by Jorge on
Okay, I read Stevens’ concurrence. I don’t agree with it, but I like it. I didn’t understand Kennedy’s concurrence. I read the first paragraph of Alito’s dissent. And I read the abstract (hmm).
I say let there be a backlash if any is to come. We saw what happened after the Massachussets marriage decision. Fewer people will care about this one, but there will be enough people with deep pockets who will fund these divisive organizations, and maybe people will learn.
posted by Debrah on
This is simply an excellent one from Maureen today.
A Split-Screen Tale of Two Generals
Amid the wit and verve comes this provocative morsel:
“Preening with Spartan street cred, disdaining anything too ‘Gucci,’ like restaurants with candles, McChrystal groused about having to go to some fancy dinner with a French minister — an occasion profanely mocked as ‘gay’ by one of the aides in his insolent retinue.”
Ah, such a disgruntled little Liberal he is!
posted by Debrah on
Bobby–
The vibe I have always gotten from yours and Throbert’s comments remind me a bit of this guy.
He cuts to the chase and that is often mistaken—on purpose—for intolerance.
I accidentally came upon his site the other day and some of those videos are interesting and amusing.
Of course, he’s more conservative than I; however, I cannot deny a lot of what he says about women in general.
Check out something he wrote several years ago.
I think many points that you, Throbert, and ND30 highlight are mentioned by Chapin in this article.
In any case, his point about so much being forced on others rather than just a desire for a “live and let live” approach hits the mark.
Most elements of the culture wars are pushed and shoved onto others by the Far Left “activists”…….
…….and they want their views and “tendencies” celebrated. Not just acknowledged and accepted.
This will always receive enormous push-back and as we saw in Maine last November, it will push people in the opposite direction.
posted by Jimmy on
Does there exist a principle in Freedom of Speech jurisprudence that involves considering and deciding, to whatever degree, whether one’s available avenues of expression are limited or not?
posted by JImmy on
Moretruth
posted by Jimmy on
here:
http://www.thenation.com/article/36855/chinese-arent-coming
posted by John on
Interesting and I like how he points out the inconsistencies in previous actions and testimony from Hastings. Perhaps there are grounds for a civil suit by CLS against Hastings. However, I am still not convinced that they are entitled to public funds while ignoring the anti-discrimination policies of the university.
posted by Jimmy on
“I am still not convinced that they are entitled to public funds while ignoring the anti-discrimination policies of the university.”
Especially since it can be construed that, by one’s mere acceptance of the offer of enrollment by the institution, one grants tacit approval of all therein, policy-wise.
posted by Jorge on
There is no such thing as truth.
Only the Word, everything else, and everything that comes between man’s eyes and the Word. This truth business of yours, Jimmy, is a doomed exercise from the start. Now that I’ve gotten that out of the way, that link is a good reading, but meaningless in itself and DOA in combination with anything I might add to it.
posted by Jimmy on
Jorge, you have just given a clinic on willful ignorance.
posted by Jay on
There is so much ignorance in this post and comments that one does not know what to begin. The Christian Legal Society and their funders, in an act of hubris, brought this suit all the way to the Supreme Court because they thought they have a 5 justice majority that would in effect delcare that religion could always trump sexual orientation and perhaps even race. This suit was about funding of about $85 and the use of an official seal. Otherwise, the Christian Legal Society was not in any way impeded from expressing what they wanted and associated with whom they wanting. The CLS had been successful in threatening other public universities with suits, and most of them meekly backed down letting them discriminate on the basis of religion and sexual orientation, even at liberal places like the University of North Carolina. Luckily, however, Hastings decided not to roll over. The result is a victory for the separation of church and state. In the long run, it will prove the death knell for the argument of faith-based institutions that they can contract with city and state and federal governments to provide social services while discriminating against people on the basis of sexual orientation (at least in jurisdictions that have antidiscrimination protections on the basis fo sexual orientation). This does not impede the exercise of religious freedom in any way. It does mean that all citizens are entitled not to have to fund invidious discrimination.
posted by Throbert McGee on
I say that this suit was about the freedom of officially-recognized student organizations to define their own identity and mission. As Alito perceptively put it in his dissent:
Note this point carefully: If you insist on enforcing viewpoint diversity within groups, then the viewpoint diversity among groups must tend to decline, because individual groups become less able to maintain a distinct identity.
posted by BobN on
Thanks to Jay for stating the obvious history of this litigation.
As for CLS, it was founded as a broad, big-tent organization for non-mainline Protestants, including quite a few liberal denominations, denominations which now recognize gay couples. The nightmare scenario that Alito toys with is exactly what happened to CLS, but it happened at the national leadership level some 15 years ago.
Right-wingers with an agenda, not left-wing as Alito suggests might do so, took over the board and adopted the Culture War amendment to the Statement of Faith. THEY are the ones who essentially barred fellow Christians from the organization.
The same thing happened to the Boy Scouts at about the same time.
And the Boy Scouts, Bobby, did not refuse to let gay man in, they kicked gay men out, including ones who had been in the organization since they were cub scouts.
posted by Bobby on
Hey Tom,
“That may be how things are, but most gay men don’t live in the ghetto. As you well know, if you read the news, a lot — probably most — gays and lesbians are out in the real world, living and working at all sorts of jobs, raising our families and doing all the things that people do. We are no longer in a world where it makes any sense at all to try to stay in a confined “comfort zone”, be it a gay ghetto or a “gay job” ghetto.”
—Well, a lot of gays do like the ghetto because you find unique clothing stores with tiny gay bathing-suits, leather accessories, gay sports bars, gay country bars, and a wide array of options in a confined space. Is it the best place for gays? I am not sure, I did live in the Dallas gay ghetto and the only men I met came from the Internet and street ho’s because the gays in the bars are pretty much the same no matter where you go.
However, the white-picket fence suburban lifestyle is a dangerous one for gays. Unlike living in a condominium where nobody knows you, gays in suburbia do stand out and could be victims of vandalism, arson or worst depending on the neighborhood.
“I pushed hard at times as a partner in a large law firm, and that made some of my partners distinctly nervous.”
—And I congratulate you for it, but in my world, if you push you better make sure you’re a perfect employee, otherwise it will be very easy to fire you.
Getting back to the topic, I do think it’s better for people to go where they are wanted. I agree that you can change hearts, but why bother? I see it here in the south all the time, we have yankees moving to Florida for the hideously hot weather and then they are shocked that we don’t have an income tax, that our gun laws are freedom-friendly, that we have the death penalty, that nobody speaks English (ok, I exaggerate, but Miami does feel that way, and I speak Spanish btw). So I look at them and think, “why are you here, then?”
All over America there is this trend of minorities going where they’re not wanted and demanding changes. It’s happening in California where wearing old glory on Cinco de Mayo almost became a hate crime, it also happened at the University of Mississippi where the regents (under pressure from blacks) voted to replace the Colonel Reb football mascot and in the University of Alabama where decades of the “old south” festival is becoming politically incorrect. Why? Because men and women dress like characters from Gone with the Wind, which according to the Malcom X types is an act of racism.
As a member of a minority myself, I am ashamed of what the activists are doing. Yes, I would love to live in Mississippi, Arkansas, rural Idaho, but if I went there I would not be suing people to let me join in their activities. I would go where I’m wanted and stay away from where I’m not wanted. It’s like a gun show, anyone can attend a gun show but if you start telling people that guns are evil you’re only going to create striffe and they’re going to ask you to leave.
By the same token, gay Christians have a responsibility to stay away from places that don’t welcome practicing homosexuals. I know some would argue that having different people stimulates debate, well, I don’t think every college organization is a debate club, would you like to go hunting with a bunch of animal rights activists I think not.
posted by Throbert McGee on
And at least until very recently, the non-discrimination policy at Hastings had taken into account the logical need for viewpoint-based student organizations to exclude certain viewpoints (at least from leadership and voting positions) in order to preserve their identity. For, as Alito also noted:
These clear exceptions to the supposed “accept all comers” rule existed at the time that CLS began its legal fight with Hastings, but again from Alito’s dissent:
NB: in its eagerness to prevent a group of conservative Christian students from maintaining its conservative Christian identity, Hastings was willing to tell the Hastings Democratic Caucus that it must be willing to let right-wing Republican students participate in votes on HDC policy positions (for example). So all in the name of viewpoint diversity, the Hastings Democratic Caucus potentially becomes — less Democratic, and at best centrist, if not outright GOP-ish.
Jay crows: “Luckily, however, Hastings decided not to roll over.”
And he’s right — but Hastings did force the Democratic Caucus and La Raza to roll over. Hooray.
posted by BobN on
Alito seems conveniently unaware that there is a constitutional difference between how we treat groups of ideas and positions that we call “religions” from groups of ideas and positions we call “political agendas”. One set, BY THE CONSTITUTION, must be treated differently.
What would Alito say to the student who files suit because he is not allowed to join a campus group funded by his student fees and state taxes at a PUBLIC UNIVERSITY? What in hell happened to that students Freedom of Religion?
posted by Throbert McGee on
How about, “So start your own student group, lazybones”?
Note that there is NOTHING in Hastings’ rules for registered student organizations preventing the existence of two groups for law students who believe in Jesus: one calling itself the Christian Legal Society that doesn’t allow openly gay people to be regular members or hold office, and one calling itself the Society of Christian Law Students that DOES allow gays full membership.
In other words, the CLS was not asserting the right to operate as some sort of monopoly franchise, or to obstruct a separate Christian group with viewpoints different from CLS’s from also getting funding.
posted by Throbert McGee on
Another logical outcome of the Hastings policy: if a group for gay students wishes to receive funding, it cannot prevent a coalition of self-described “ex-gays” from joining the group, voting in group elections, and potentially electing one of their “ex-gay” number to an officer position. I would argue that if a Gay Club is not allowed to exclude “ex-gays”, there is very little point in having a Gay Club at all.
Again, going back to Alito’s eloquent phrasing: Mandating ideological diversity within groups must tend to lessen ideological diversity among groups.
You might as well not have groups at all, and just do your best to find like-minded students somewhere in the undifferentiated herd, if the school is going to forbid groups from sorting on the basis of like-mindedness.
posted by Throbert McGee on
@Lymis:
Correction, Lymis: the case hinged on allowing people to be voting members of a club, and to hold officer positions in the club. In other words, the CLS was not asserting a right to prevent openly gay people from attending CLS meetings; they were asserting a right to prevent openly gay people from being (or voting for) officers of the CLS. It seems perfectly reasonable to me that CLS would not want an openly gay person to be the group’s public face, who is entrusted by the rest of the group to speak on their behalf, such as by writing a “Yes to Same-Sex Marriage” op-ed for the Hastings student newspaper, under the byline Joe Smith, Christian Legal Society President.
Just as a college pro-life group would not want to be compelled, on pain of losing funding, to elect an officer with strong pro-choice views.
posted by Throbert McGee on
All that said, I must grudgingly concede that the SCOTUS majority may have been correct on a strict rule-of-law basis. As Justice Ginsburg wrote, (paraphrasing from memory here), “the Christian Legal Society is confusing the advisability of the school’s accept-all-comers policy with its Constitutional permissibility.”
In other words, Ginsburg here appears to tacitly agree with Alito’s claim that the Hastings policy is contrary to reason, but she insists that Hastings is nonetheless Constitutionally free to maintain this policy. And in that respect, Ginsburg (and the SCOTUS majority) are probably correct.
P.S. Confidential to Debrah: in my blog logo, I’m the bunny in the green hood, not the underwear model that the bunny is fantasizing about!
posted by BobN on
How about, “So start your own student group, lazybones”?
What is most striking about Alito’s and your position is that you seem utterly ignorant of exactly how permissible exclusions have worked in this country. Alito and others can speculate all they want about how some group might get taken over or how some group might be unable to express its prejudices freely. But the reality is that that scenario has rarely, very rarely happened while widespread adoption of discriminatory membership rules has swept this country more than once. Mormons become unpopular? All of a sudden organizations change their membership rules to exclude Mormons. Catholics? Masons? Jews? Gay people? It has happened over and over.
I have little doubt that, framed differently, in a case about religion and not about gay people, the dissenters would have come to very different conclusions.
posted by Throbert McGee on
Well, maybe not totally “stay away from” — I’d say, rather, that gay Christians have a responsibility to avoid excessively close relations with groups that don’t welcome practicing homosexuals, and also have a responsibility to find and/or establish Christian groups that DO welcome practicing homosexuals.
In practical terms, if “The Society of Gay-Welcoming Christians at Podunk University” doesn’t exist, or if it exists but you as a gay Christian aren’t involved with it because you’re still in the closet, then you have a responsibility as a gay Christian to NOT affiliate with “The Podunk University Fellowship of Gay-Rejecting Christians” — lest people think that you endorse their gay-excluding message.
But you’re a card-carrying, on-the-sleeve-wearing member of the Society of Gay-Welcoming Christians at Podunk University, there’s no reason you shouldn’t occasionally show up at the meetings of the anti-gay Christian group, just to share your alternative point-of-view.
posted by Throbert McGee on
What’s most striking about your position, BobN, is that you imagine that the prevailing conditions NOW are exactly as they were waaaay back when you were a “frightened gay teen.”
posted by Jimmy on
“What’s most striking about your position…”
Not nearly as shocking as how much time you have spent shilling for the losing opinion. More evidence that conservatives think that events that occur in the Bizarro universe they inhabit actually mean the same in this reality. Up is down, loser is winner, same ol’ same ol’.
posted by Throbert McGee on
OMG, Heather, what exactly do you think is wrong or shocking about choosing the less-popular side?
posted by BobN on
You may have heard, Throbert, history has a way of repeating itself and I don’t just mean that you can be counted on to be an asshole on a regular basis.
posted by Throbert McGee on
Let me say it again, very plainly:
I support the right of CLS to exclude “insufficiently Christian” people from voting membership and still get student funds, because if I were a law student at Hastings, I would want the right to establish a Gay Student Union that excludes overtly anti-gay people from voting membership, and still get student funds.
posted by Throbert McGee on
I’m not an “asshole”; I’m a DICK.
(©2004 Team America: World Police)
posted by Jimmy on
“OMG, Heather, what exactly do you think is wrong or shocking about choosing the less-popular side?”
Not to make a federal case out of it……woof……but as it has been adjudicated, it turns out that “the less-popular side” is, in fact, wrong.
posted by Throbert McGee on
Jimmy, I’ve already conceded (at 10:53 pm) that from a strict Constitutional basis, the SCOTUS majority may have been right, and the dissent may have been wrong. (i.e., the Hastings “accept all comers” policy does seem to be Constitutionally permissible).
Now, Jimmy, are you willing to concede that the Hastings “accept all comers” policy — even if Constitutionally permissible — is nonetheless dumb?
posted by Bobby on
“La Raza limited voting membership to “students of Raza background.” App. 192. Since Hastings requires any student group applying for registration to submit a copy of its bylaws, see id., at 249–250, Hastings cannot claim that it was unaware of such provisions.”
—Isn’t it amazing? Can you imagine a group called The Race where white people got together to celebrate their heritage on campus? Can you imagine if they excluded non-whites? That’s what La Raza does! So basically, it’s ok for the University of California to have the Burrito Klan on campus (you should google “La Raza” and white or jew to see how open minded these people really are) but it’s not ok for a Christian group to deny voting rights to people who don’t want to conform to certain Christian standards.
Here’s a statement from La Raza:
”
“In the spirit of a new people that is conscious not only of its proud historical heritage but also of the brutal gringo invasion of our territories, we, the Chicano inhabitants and civilizers of the northern land of Aztlan from whence came our forefathers, reclaiming the land of their birth and consecrating the determination of our people of the sun, declare that the call of our blood is our power, our responsibility, and our inevitable destiny. … Aztlan belongs to those who plant the seeds, water the fields, and gather the crops and not to the foreign Europeans. … We are a bronze people with a bronze culture. Before the world, before all of North America, before all our brothers in the bronze continent, we are a nation, we are a union of free pueblos, we are Aztlan. For La Raza todo. Fuera de La Raza nada.”
That closing two-sentence motto is chilling to everyone who values equal rights for all. It says: “For The Race everything. Outside The Race, nothing.”
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=13863
“Racist Mexican gangs are indiscriminately targeting blacks who aren’t even involved in gang culture, as part of an orchestrated ethnic cleansing program that is forcing black people to flee Los Angeles. The culprit of the carnage is the radical Neo-Nazi liberation theology known as La Raza, which calls for the extermination of all races in America besides Latinos, and is being bankrolled by some of the biggest Globalists in the U.S.”
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/january2007/220107mexicangangs.htm
Even the liberal Anti-Defamation League has issues with them.
http://www.adl.org/learn/aztlan/Anti_SZ.asp
At least Judge Alito gets it. Freedom of association does not mean right to participation.
posted by Jimmy on
“Now, Jimmy, are you willing to concede that the Hastings “accept all comers” policy — even if Constitutionally permissible — is nonetheless dumb?”
Maybe, but getting a pouty face and saying “it’s dumb” is juvenile.
Whether it is dumb or not, everyone knows it going in and bitching about later on is even dumber.
posted by Throbert McGee on
Except this WASN’T the case, because as Justice Alito discovered, and as I quoted above, the “accept all comers to full voting membership” rule — which had purportedly been the school’s policy since time immemorial — in fact came as a complete surprise to a campus pro-life group and La Raza and the Hastings Democrats and the Hastings Republicans (and possibly to other campus groups that may have had “viewpoint requirements” for voting members — I’m just listing the ones that Alito mentioned in his dissent).
Of course, you’re right that from now forward, everyone knows what this recently-invented policy is, and will have to abide by it. But I don’t think this is an improvement, because the policy itself is an affront to reason.
posted by Jimmy on
“Of course, you’re right that from now forward, everyone knows….”
Thanks to the gravity of a Supreme Court decision. But, I never thought it unreasonable to believe that exclusionary policies of any group accepting taxpayer funding, at a public institution, were incompatible with the overlaying policies of the institution itself, an institution that everyone attends by choice. It seems to me the the personal responsibility is placed back on the individual to know that, if they want to engage in exclusionary behavior, they should look to a private, not public, institution. That’s is, to me, self evident.
Sure, we can cast about and find violations on the other side of the political hedge, but The Supremes (sans Ms. Ross) have cleared it all up for us.
posted by Debrah on
“…….. you can be counted on to be an asshole on a regular basis.”
************************************************
I am dismayed and chagrined…….
…….not to mention shocked! that anyone would venture to say such a thing to the King of Frot.
What nerve!
posted by Throbert McGee on
What “taxpayer funding”?
The school itself is taxpayer-funded, but the funds for student organizations come from the “activity fee” that students themselves pay to the school. Since the “activity fee” is mandatory, I suppose it can be likened to a tax on the students. But the students who decide to attend the school do so knowing that a small portion of this “tax” taken from them will go to fund groups that they vehemently disagree with, while a much larger portion of this “tax” will end up going to groups that they find completely uninteresting. And odds are that only a tiny fraction of any given student’s activity fee will go to subsidize those groups that he chooses to be involved with. Libertarian zealots may find this unduly burdensome and unfair, but I would argue that the burden is small and tends to be borne equally by all students, and also that the overall advantages of providing subsidies to student groups in the first place tend to outweigh this small burden.
posted by Throbert McGee on
Like the lady says, I am an asshole to no man — nor am I a pussy. I am but a humble dick.
posted by Throbert McGee on
…with a hummerable penis.
posted by Debrah on
I’m sure that the entire IGF commentariat will benefit and learn from that in-depth coverage of the Throbert essence!
Which calls for a heavenly gift of artistry.
Jean-Luc Ponty, the electric violinist, with his amazing and ungodly brilliance offers a rendition of “Renaissance” that I had not heard before.
All other versions use the piano as the third instrument instead of the bass which is used in this live performance.
Each morning, I have to turn up the volume on this one and have it blasting along with my cappuccino.
It’s almost as excellent as the original studio version.
I might go crazy just thinking about it!
posted by BobN on
I am dismayed and chagrined…….
Well, maybe the King can oblige us with some uncalled for speculation as to your childhood, preferably in the middle of an adult conversation, and we’ll see just how loyal a monarchist the Diva is.
posted by Debrah on
“Well, maybe the King can oblige us with some uncalled for speculation as to your childhood….”
********************************************
In the foreboding words of Claus Von Bulow…..
…..“You have no idea.”
BobN, it might be too much for you to take!
posted by Throbert McGee on
BobN, I could’ve sworn that you recently self-described as having been a “frightened gay teen,” but if I’ve confused you with someone else, I apologize.
posted by BobN on
Your memory is correct. That was me. I just don’t think it is relevant to our discussion and, since you don’t know much about it, I’d prefer you not speculate as to what has, and has not, changed since way back when.
Kids still commit suicide these days, so as much as things may have improved, they’re not peachy-keen enough to warrant Alito’s dismissal of the potential for religious discrimination.
People still burn down synagogues, too. I think that’s more relevant than Alito’s speculation about voting-block take-overs of student organizations.
posted by Bobby on
“The school itself is taxpayer-funded, but the funds for student organizations come from the “activity fee” that students themselves pay to the school. Since the “activity fee” is mandatory, I suppose it can be likened to a tax on the students”
—Wow Throbert, you are making great arguments, I am so jealous. I remember paying an activity fee at my private college, about $500, what a ripoff! The fees collected are administered by the student government and regardless of all this talk about equality, they are never given out equally to all groups.
In fact, wasn’t there a lawsuit by a Christians who didn’t want to pay an activity fee that was financing things they didn’t like?
Wouldn’t it be a better world if people paid for what they want? And what about students who don’t participate in anything? Why should they pay an activity fee when they’re only activity is hitting the books?
No wonder Marx said that the road to hell is paved with good intentions, and we all know progressives have the best of intentions.
posted by Debrah on
Something noteworthy:
Long Before Hastings There Was Tufts
“……..’an opinion contrary to the majority opinion at Boalt in favor of gay rights might be treated as the equivalent of racist hate speech.’ Or open debate on the subject ‘would be treated as creating a hostile work environment.’ Will the leaders of the gay-rights movement please speak a little more clearly about freedom of speech and freedom of religion?”
posted by Throbert McGee on
I agree that most of the cost for student clubs should be borne by students who choose to join a particular club. However, students who are just dabbling or exploring different clubs will — quite naturally — be reluctant to spend much money up front, before they’ve decided that taekwondo or photography or dressing up like medieval peasants is something they really want to throw themselves into. So student activity fees can help groups attract new members by subsidizing the cost of printing promotional flyers and posters, or maintaining public-use loaner equipment, or buying refreshments for an Open House at the beginning of the Fall and Spring semesters.
Even students who don’t participate in any activities or join any groups might read student-produced newspapers and magazines, or go to free movie nights at the student union building, or listen to student-run radio stations, or use a free taxi service when they come out of a bar stumbling drunk — just to name a few things that were subsidized in whole or part by student activity fees when I was at UVa.
posted by Bobby on
“I agree that most of the cost for student clubs should be borne by students who choose to join a particular club. However, students who are just dabbling or exploring different clubs will — quite naturally — be reluctant to spend much money up front, before they’ve decided that taekwondo or photography or dressing up like medieval peasants is something they really want to throw themselves into.”
—That’s not a bad argument, although in the real world before you join a gym you do get a free class, which allows you to see if this is a place for you. I also think it’s unfair that some clubs are gonna get lots of dollars while I doubt the Photography club will get the money they need to take students on a field trip. In a way it’s just like high school, there’s no money for music, art, but God forbid if the football team doesn’t get new uniforms. Yup, there’s always money for sports.
“Even students who don’t participate in any activities or join any groups might read student-produced newspapers and magazines, or go to free movie nights at the student union building, or listen to student-run radio stations, or use a free taxi service when they come out of a bar stumbling drunk — just to name a few things that were subsidized in whole or part by student activity fees when I was at UVa.”
—Well, I admit I was a DJ, opinion columnist, and participant in the LGBT group until they threw me out. But I also knew commuter students that didn’t even know there was a student newspaper.
Either way, don’t you think universities are too greedy for so-called “non-profit” institutions? You’re paying $20k to $50k in tuition a year, you’re paying for the dorm and mealplan (and freshmen often forced to stay on campus by the college), you’re paying for the books, and if that wasn’t enough, you still have to pay $300 to $600 for an activity fee?
And if that wasn’t enough, then you have institutions like Harvard getting MILLIONS of taxpayer dollars to fund research and whatnot.
Honestly, I find the whole higher education establishment to be completely crooked. I’m surprised they don’t have slot machines and black jack tables, but then again, Casinos don’t cheat on their customers, so maybe that’s not a fair comparison.
posted by Jimmy on
You’re just as free not to pay the fee as you are free not to attend the institution in the first place. Everyone is responsible for their choices.
posted by Bobby on
“You’re just as free not to pay the fee as you are free not to attend the institution in the first place. Everyone is responsible for their choices.”
—Right, and what about jobs that require a college education? Am I “free” to become a doctor without medical school? I don’t think so.
In fact, it seems to me that there’s not much freedom at these taxpayer-financed institutions. Let’s see, free speech is limited by speech codes, freshmen who HAVE to stay on campus are not allowed to smoke in their own rooms, the RA can inspect your room without cause (16th amendment, anyone?), and people like Kagan don’t want military recruiters on campus even though the government gives them money.
Perhaps it would be better to stop this charade, either public colleges learn to respect the constitution or their non-profit status should be revoked and they should be forced to pay taxes just like the rest of us.
Now, if you believe in choices, I think you should support a Christian group that only wants Christians like them to vote on elections. However, I don’t think you believe in choices unless they are progressive choices. You’re sort of like the progressive who wants to legalize pot but ban tobacco. That’s not what America is all about (and please remind Obama that it’s the statue of Liberty and not the statue of Immigration like he seems to think).
posted by Jimmy on
A rightist court actually got one right. What’s wrong, buyers remorse?
posted by John on
Wrong. CLS has every right to do both of these as well as set their own membership policies. What they are not entitled to is official recognition or public funding if they refuse to follow the anti-discrimination policies of the university. If this group adhered to the beliefs of say Christian Identity (white supremacy) I believe there would be a very different tune being sung here and by Alito et al.
posted by John on
Good. No one said the anti-discrimination policies applied solely to gays or that LGBT groups are entitled to official recognition and public funding. The whole entitlement mentality rankles me. Either play by the rules if you want public mula or go private if you prefer not to.
And this would be bad, why exactly? Let students form groups on their own time and their own dollar without demanding recognition and dollars from others who do not share their beliefs.
posted by John on
And I would strongly favor dnying official recognition and public funding for both groups. Form these clubs on your time and dime.
posted by John on
At least Judge Alito gets it. Freedom of association does not mean right to participation.
Absolutely. Yet it doesn’t entitle you to public funding or official recognition either. As for La Raza, if they refuse to change in accordance with the school’s policies than pull their funding as well.
posted by Throbert McGee on
John — well, not having subsidies for ANY student groups in the first place is certainly one way to avoid the whole mess!
posted by Bobby on
“As for La Raza, if they refuse to change in accordance with the school’s policies than pull their funding as well.”
—You really think that? For progressives it’s impossible for racial minorities and Muslims to ever be racist, yet when a republican group wants to hold an affirmative-action bake sale, that’s what they label racist.
It’s very rare when a Muslim or Hispanic extremist campus association gets sanctioned.
posted by John on
Works for me. Given all of these never-ending squabbles and that damnable entitlement mentality out there amongst the professionaly grieved, I have no problems kicking them ALL off campus and let them fund themselves on their own time. If you want officially-sanctioned and supported clubs at universities that can set their own membership policies, go to a private one.
posted by John on
Life’s unfair, get used to it or do something to spread the pain more equitably if you believe you’re being unduly discriminated against. Take a page from them and file suit for being treated unequally.
posted by Throbert McGee on
Erm, whether the school is private or public doesn’t seem necessarily relevant, since the funds we’re talking about come from students (or the parents of students) who have already opted-in to attending the school — and NOT from taxpayers at large.
posted by Throbert McGee on
To put it another way, John: if you are (for example) anti-abortion, then you can reasonably complain that you are burdened by the fact that some of your tax dollars go to pay the salaries of liberal pro-choice professors at public universities in your state. However, you don’t have the same standing to complain if a public university in your state allocates student activity funds to a pro-choice student group on campus, because those particular funds aren’t coming from YOUR wallet (unless you happen to be a student or a parent of a student at that school!)
posted by Throbert McGee on
In full disclosure, I care about this issue because I was active in three fund-receiving student organizations at UVa — and my involvement in two of these three activities was utterly transformative, giving me self-confidence I didn’t previously have, and thus significantly altering my college experience for the better. (The third organization — meh, not so much.)
These organizations were:
1. The LGB Student Union, as it was then called;
2. The Myo Sim Karate Club;
3. The Yellow Journal, a satirical magazine that published about three issues per semester (and that was mentioned in passing in the landmark Supreme Court case Rosenberger v. UVa!)
I don’t think anybody will have trouble guessing which one of the three turned out to be the least valuable for me… 😉
posted by Bobby on
“Life’s unfair, get used to it or do something to spread the pain more equitably if you believe you’re being unduly discriminated against. Take a page from them and file suit for being treated unequally.”
—I don’t get it. There are South Beach Clubs that won’t let me in because I’m not dressed the right way, I don’t have women with me, or I’m simply not their type. Remember Studio 54? Now that was an experiment in social Darwinism with Steve Rubell and his comrades deciding who gets in and who doesn’t.
Life is unfair, which is why people seek the companionship of likeminded peers. Do we not have empathy for other people? Do Christians not deserve their private spaces just like we have ours? Progressives are so selfish, they can’t tolerate Ann Coulter giving a speech on campus but God forbid some Christian organization tells some gays “sorry, our organization considers homosexuality to be a sin and since you’re gay we don’t want you to represent us.”
The same progressives who shout “hate speech is not free speech” have no problem demanding that Christianity submit itself to the progressive ideas of people who never liked religion in the first place.
People have the right to stay with their own kind, it’s the reason why we have student groups for different people. They are not mingling groups, diversity groups, let’s meet other people groups. In fact, the only time I ever participated in an event created by the Southern Baptist Union was BECAUSE non-Christians were invited. Basically, I got a free trip to Orlando, free hotel room, free activities, free lunch, and one hour of religious talk where the Christians who paid the bills spoke about their faith and gave us free bibles.
That’s the way it’s supposed to be, you go to where you’re wanted or are invited, you stay away from where you don’t belong. Gay Christians don’t belong with Christians who see them as sinners. That’s common sense.
posted by JImmy on
“Do Christians not deserve their private spaces just like we have ours?”
Yes they do. And they should pay taxes for that private space, too. No special treatment.
“God forbid some Christian organization tells some gays “sorry, our organization considers homosexuality to be a sin and since you’re gay we don’t want you to represent us.”
They’re quite free to do that on their own dime.
You takes the money, you do it with conditions, arrrr!
posted by Lymis on
“Another logical outcome of the Hastings policy: if a group for gay students wishes to receive funding, it cannot prevent a coalition of self-described “ex-gays” from joining the group, voting in group elections, and potentially electing one of their “ex-gay” number to an officer position. I would argue that if a Gay Club is not allowed to exclude “ex-gays”, there is very little point in having a Gay Club at all.”
It’s up to the students to decide whether membership in the club makes sense. You’re right that the ruling makes this possible – but I think you miss a major point: The gay student club at Hastings ALREADY lets all students join, gay, straight, or ex-gay.
I think you seriously overestimate the number of ex-gay people, their willingness to join gay groups, and the likelihood that they’ll be elected to club office.
I don’t think there’s anything in the ruling that prevents funded clubs and groups from setting rules that apply to all members that require a certain amount of participation before becoming a voting member or elected officer, if only to prevent a group of hostile people from showing up at a single meeting and disbanding the club.
People, including the CLS, are acting as though the only reason a person might want to join the club is to destroy it.
But yes, it can happen, and given the hostility to gay and lesbian people, no doubt some group of “good Christians” somewhere will do exactly that. And it will be wrong when they do. They will be small-minded, bigoted bullies. And the gay students will have to rebuild. It won’t be the first time, and it won’t be the last.
posted by John on
Actually the distinction is entirely relevant here. Taxpayers subsidize public universities through their tax dollars while private universities are on their own to raise funds. Whether one can directly trace those dollars to student activities or not doesn’t get around the fact that the public unversities’ budgets are dependent upon public funding. Since you raise the abortion debate, think of it this way: pro-lifers usually object quite strongly when tax dollars are given to pro-abortion groups like Planned Parenthood to be used for contraception only because these dollars “offset” the amount they would have spent and enable them to spend other dollars on abortion services. There is also the issue of compelling students at a public university to pay a fee for activities that do not provide equal access and opportunity. Private universities can and do in fact do this without a probelm because, well, they’re private and not sucking on the Federal or state teet.
posted by John on
In both cases I would lack standing, as you put it, mainly under First Amendment grounds. Of course this assumes that the latter example you raise is in compliance with anti-discrimination policies which CLS, and apparently other student groups at Hasting, was not.
posted by John on
Are they public institutions receiving public dollars? If not, as private groups they have the right to freedom of association which can include exclusion practices many would consider to be discriminatory. Now you might be able to make a case if they are labelled as “public accomodations” under civil rights laws, but otherwise they have the right to exclude you if they wish.
Attempting to legislate empathy is about as impractical as doing so with morality. Personal empathy for others does not automatically translate into support for public financing. Christians, progressives and everyone else you might name are do indeed “deserve their private spaces” but only those that are exactly that: PRIVATE. None of them are entitled to have these spaces on everyone else’s dime.
posted by Tom on
There is no shortage of folks, unfortunately, who seem incapable of grasping the that the First Amendment prohibits the government from curtailing free speech, but does not prohibit private individuals and groups from saying what they want to say, including claiming “foul” if they don’t like what someone else is saying.
posted by Debrah on
Double standards abound and linger without challenge.
Many go ’round and ’round in a feeble attempt to rationalize the double standards always afforded whatever passes as “progressive” with regard to any given issue.
Will someone please address these two?
Obama and the simpleton Prejean share the VERY SAME views on SSM.
It’s insane that gays cannot acknowledge that fact……and instead use people like her as a whipping post.
One: Obama On Marriage: Bigot or Liar?
Which is it?
“As Donald Trump rather pointedly noted after the Miss U.S.A. pageant, President Obama’s position on the definition of marriage is identical to the position stated by California beauty queen Carrie Prejean.”
LOL!
Two: Byrd Tributes Go Overboard
“The common interpretation is that Byrd’s is a story of redemption. A one-time Exalted Cyclops of the KKK, Byrd recruited some 150 members to the chapter he led — that’s led, not ‘joined,’ by the way. (If you doubt his commitment to the cause, try to recruit 150 people to do anything, never mind have them pay a hefty fee up front.)”
“Unlike some segregationists’, Byrd’s arguments rested less on the principle of states’ rights than on his conviction that black people were simply biologically inferior.”
Why should anyone be surprised that “gay activists” do not want other groups to have equal rights……even as they whine for “marriage equality”?
Zany and warped…..but still supported by the “progressives”!
posted by Bobby on
“Personal empathy for others does not automatically translate into support for public financing. Christians, progressives and everyone else you might name are do indeed “deserve their private spaces” but only those that are exactly that: PRIVATE. None of them are entitled to have these spaces on everyone else’s dime.”
—This ridiculous laws are affecting Charities all over the country. In Massachusetts the Catholics are getting out of the adoption business just because they don’t want to be forced to let gays adopt from the babies in their care. In a way, the government IS legislating morality, progressive and secular morality.
I also don’t see how clubs funded by private student activity fees have anything to do with taxes. I’m more outraged at the money Harvard gets from my taxes than of a small Christian group getting $500 from the student government.
Others could argue that since the Christians meet in public classrooms, anyone should be able to enter and participate. But this is not the case, at my college they had a funeral service class with dead bodies, that room was kept locked unless class was in session, and only Funeral Service majors were allowed to attend.
posted by Bobby on
“Personal empathy for others does not automatically translate into support for public financing. Christians, progressives and everyone else you might name are do indeed “deserve their private spaces” but only those that are exactly that: PRIVATE. None of them are entitled to have these spaces on everyone else’s dime.”
—This ridiculous laws are affecting Charities all over the country. In Massachusetts the Catholics are getting out of the adoption business just because they don’t want to be forced to let gays adopt from the babies in their care. In a way, the government IS legislating morality, progressive and secular morality.
I also don’t see how clubs funded by private student activity fees have anything to do with taxes. I’m more outraged at the money Harvard gets from my taxes than of a small Christian group getting $500 from the student government.
Others could argue that since the Christians meet in public classrooms, anyone should be able to enter and participate. But this is not the case, at my college they had a funeral service class with dead bodies, that room was kept locked unless class was in session, and only Funeral Service majors were allowed to attend.
posted by John on
It is the choice of these charitable groups to take public money or not. When they do take public money they have to comply with equal protection laws. That’s not legislating morality, that’s making the government neutral by requiring ALL groups to comply with the law or lose public money.
You can slap any label you please on these fees and claim they are “private” all you like but when they are levied at public universities and are requirements for attending they become anything but. I am “outraged” by this entitlement mentality you seem to buy into.
posted by Bobby on
“You can slap any label you please on these fees and claim they are “private” all you like but when they are levied at public universities and are requirements for attending they become anything but. I am “outraged” by this entitlement mentality you seem to buy into.”
—Are you saying that the student activity fee is “public” at Stamford by “private” at Harvard? And since when does entitlement have to do with a SAF fee you didn’t ask to pay? Entitlement is when you expect to get something from nothing, like when a teachers who expect to get and keep their tenure even if they compare the victims of 9/11 to Little Eichmanns.
So there’s no entitlement mentality from me. By the way, aren’t fraternities supported by the school? They keep people out. It’s funny how Christians can’t keep gays out of their clubs, but Fraternities and Sororities are notorious for keeping undesirables out of their organizations.
But hey, common sense doesn’t exist anymore. Every campus group must be open to all members, no matter how undesirable they may be for the organizations. I guess from now on we can have fat cheerleaders, klansmen at the Black Student Union, pork roasts at the vegetarian club, “Deep Throat” screenings at the chastity club, and maybe D-students can make it to the Dean’s List.
Why not? Everything must be open to everyone, we must all hold hands and sing kumbaya while our colleges are turned into Marxist experiments. I hope you enjoy this new world, perhaps Fred Phelps can be the keynote speaker at the HRC gala. Why not? It’s all about diversity, right?
posted by Rick Sincere on
Those interested in reading the friend of the court brief submitted by Gays and Lesbians for Individual Liberty can find it here:
http://tinyurl.com/y9scrnh
Additional information about GLIL can be found here:
http://gayliberty.org/glil/index.html
posted by Jerry on
What I find difficult to understand is why so many religious twits can’t seem to grasp a simple concept. If their religious persuasion can’t survive without government support, it shouldn’t survive. My suggestion to religious people is that if they want to peddle their bullshit, they can pay for it. Get their greedy hands out of my wallet.
posted by John on
Is Stamford a public university while Harvard is a private one? If so, Harvard is free to compel students to pay fees beyond tuition as it sees fit while Stamford is not.
Are you demanding that all students and taxpayers subsidize your extracurricular activities at public universities that do not comply with equal protection statutes? If so, you most certainly are suffering from an entitlement mentality.
Did you see where I gave exceptions to fraternities or sororities at public universities? No? Okay then.
You’re still having trouble with the distinction between “private” and “public” I see. As a private group if HRC wanted to invite Phelps to their shin-digs, they are free to do so but just like the Boy Scouts government cannot compel them to do so. I could care less about “diversity” when it comes to public funding. I do care about the Constitution and how public dollars are used however.
posted by Tom on
John, perhaps Bobby would have less trouble with the distinction between “government-funded” and “not government-funded”. In terms of function, that’s the distinction.
posted by Jimmy on
“It’s insane that gays cannot acknowledge that fact.”
Not true. We’re well aware of the personal (cop out)/religious (more cop out) reservations Obama has about SSM. But, will he still sign legislation should it hit his desk? That’s the difference between parties. The president can personally feel what he/she likes, but a
Democratic president would sign it, because as a party, that is what we believe in: equal protection before the law.
posted by BobN on
Rick Sincere | July 2, 2010, 12:51pm | #
Those interested in reading the friend of the court brief submitted by Gays and Lesbians for Individual Liberty can find it here:
As far as I am able to tell, Rick Sincere is GLIL. Pretty nifty getting mentioned in a SCOTUS decision when you’re a empty organization. GLIL appears to exist to lend “gay” support to anti-gay causes of a Libertarian nature. An article there, a brief here. No other tangible existence.
Just another example of tiny right-wing gay organization that gets attention WAY disproportional to its membership size or impact.
posted by Tom on
I love that “Obama and Prejean” talking point. Its just plumb ignorant.
posted by Bobby on
“Is Stamford a public university while Harvard is a private one? If so, Harvard is free to compel students to pay fees beyond tuition as it sees fit while Stamford is not.”
—No, you’re not understanding. A student activity fee doesn’t come from the government, it comes from individuals. It doesn’t matter whether it’s Stamford or Harvard, so how those funds are distributed shouldn’t matter. Only the money that the school gets from the government matters.
“Are you demanding that all students and taxpayers subsidize your extracurricular activities at public universities that do not comply with equal protection statutes? If so, you most certainly are suffering from an entitlement mentality.”
—I am not. I am simply demanding that either I don’t have to pay a student activity fee. If that’s not possible then the student activity fee should be distributed without prejudice. If it’s not ok for the Christian club to exclude gays then it’s not ok for the football team to exclude people who can’t play and it’s not ok for the Black Student Union to exclude David Duke from running for president. Either we have common sense or not.
“Did you see where I gave exceptions to fraternities or sororities at public universities? No? Okay then.”
—We both know that fraternities will always find ways to exclude people. Perhaps they should be banned, do you want that in the name of diversity? I certainly don’t.
“You’re still having trouble with the distinction between “private” and “public” I see. As a private group if HRC wanted to invite Phelps to their shin-digs, they are free to do so but just like the Boy Scouts government cannot compel them to do so. I could care less about “diversity” when it comes to public funding. I do care about the Constitution and how public dollars are used however.”
—It’s progressives who have trouble distinguishing between public and private. I’ve seen them sue The Masters for excluding women, which is funny since the masters is a private golf tournament. By the way, the NFL also excludes women, how many women quaterbacks do you know? Should the Superbowl be sued by NOW?
posted by Rick Sincere on
BobN writes “As far as I am able to tell, Rick Sincere is GLIL”
That would come as a surprise to our members around the country.
I was one of the founders of Gays and Lesbians for Individual Liberty back in 1991. I am the fourth or fifth president of the organization.
To be fair to BobN, GLIL has not been as active in recent years as it was for its first decade. (A look at the archives on our web site will show just how active we were in sponsoring lectures and debates, holding fundraisers for gay causes, and participating in gay pride celebrations.) Some of our early leaders — Joe Beard, David Morris — passed away, and others took on new responsibilities or moved out of the D.C. area, where we have been based.
In recent years, we have focused mostly on legal work — filing amicus curiae briefs in BSA v. Dale, Heller v. DC, and (most recently) CLS v. Martinez — and maintaining an online presence for educational purposes (hence our website at http://www.gayliberty.org).
To say that GLIL is a one-person operation is not only incorrect, it is an insult to our members and supporters.
posted by John on
Bobby: I realize that it’s tradition on blogs to beat the proverbial dead horse to death by repeating the sames thing over and over, accusing someone you disagree with of whatever pops into one’s mind, etc., but I see little point to it and grow weary of the game. I do not agree with you and believe the SCOTUS ruling was correct. The end. Have a nice 4th.
posted by Bobby on
Fine John, I give up. Besides, there are others that can argue my point of view better than I can.