Today the Supreme Court heard oral arguments regarding the issue of whether a public university's anti-discrimination policy is in fact a violation of the First Amendment right to freedom of religion. The Hastings College of Law has a nondiscrimination policy that requires official student groups to admit any Hastings student who wants to join the organization. However, the student-led Christian Legal Society on campus contends that by requiring it to allow gay students and nonbelievers into its leadership would force the group members to renounce their core beliefs and that "the policy violates the Constitution's guarantees of free speech, association with like-minded individuals and exercise of religion." The student group is suing the Law School because it wants access to various benefits and the student activity fees that go along with official sanction by the University. However, it does not want to adopt the University's nondiscrimination policy that applies to all other student groups.
After reading the article linked below, how do you think the Supreme Court should decide this case? And in your opinion, is this case more about civil liberties and freedom of religion and association, or, is this really a civil rights case about discrimination against gay students?
http://www.startribune.com/nation/91517219.html?page=3&c=y
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
52 comments:
Number one! I believe that if a student group wants to receive funding that they have to play by the rules and accept all people interested in joining. I believe that the Supreme Court should decide that the anti-discimination policy does not violate first amendment rights. That being said, I don't believe groups should exist representing any "anti" movement. If the group wants to focus on being straight and having faith, then they should make that clause clear up front. From the article, it seems like this case is more about not letting gay students in than freedom of religion.
I agree with what Sammy said that the article appears to be more about the not letting gay students in than freedom of religion. Also i don't see why this isn't a slam dunk case. It seems stupid to me that the student group thinks its their right to pick and choose which rules they want to follow. If they want to practice this belief, more power to them but then they shouldn't get funding from the school because they don't follow the rules. That would be like me saying that i wanted to start a neo-Nazi student group but i was mad because i didn't get money for it. In my opinion this has nothing to do with religion. If this passes then i think i should be allowed to not go to school but still get all A's because my religion says i can abide but whatever rules i want yet still have the same benefits as those who follow rules.
Although I can see where y'all are coming from, I have to disagree. If a University has said that it will provide funding, etc to any student organization, then it must do so. If it had stipulated in that announcement that student groups which discriminate would not be given funding, then it would be totally ok. The problem here, at least for me, isn't the morality of the issue. The problem is that the University said that it would support student organizations, and then decides that it will only support some student organizations. (Those which adhere to the same beliefs as the University). Considering it pretty much says in the Bible that it is wrong to be gay, any University should not be surprised when one of their sanctioned Christian groups refuses to admit gays. Just think. It's not exactly radical for them to do this.
I definitely agree with Sammy on this one. It doesn't really seem like the students who are involved with this group are concerned with whether or not the students are a believer or not, but rather an issue of discriminating against gay students. I feel as if they're using the freedom of religion as a cover up to avoid letting any gay students join the Christian Legal Society. If the student group wishes to receive funding from the school then they must abide by all the rules that the school has put in place. They don't have the right to pick and choose which rules they wish to follow. I think that the Supreme Court should rule in favor of The Hastings College.
I agree with Sammy that if the students want to get financial support from the University then it must follow their rules. It is their money and they are giving it out and so they have control over it. However I do think that the group has the right to limit the group to the people who share the beliefs. The group was created for people with the same beliefs so it would make sense that it remained that way.
If the group is getting money from the government then they need to accept everyone. It's not fair to discriminate against people because they don't fit the groups idea of "christian." The chances of a whole bunch of hooligans coming in to ruin the group and to take over are incredibly slim. I've never heard of that happening in a school group. They say that to be in a group a person needs to have knowledge of the Bible. What happens if a gay student who knows the Bible wants to join? What will they do? They should except everyone because of money reasons, but mostly because of basic human rights.
I think I agree with Remi on this one. The University didn't specifically set goals for the student groups to follow -it simply stated that any student organization would be funded. I feel that it wouldn't be fair to the student's Christian group to not receive funding because the University decided to become more choosy. And like Remi mentioned before the problem between gays and Christians is pretty much inevitable as well as a touchy subject.
I agree with sammy and kyle, this group should not receive funding from the school. What it looks like to me (and I understand that this isn't necessarily true) is that the group is taking advantage of the university's promise to provide funding. If they want to be exclusive based on sexual orientation, I don't care if it's a touchy subject, they shouldn't receive funding.
I agree with both Kyle and Sammy, if the student group wants funding why are they not following the rules? If they did then there would be no question about whether or not they would get funding. These silly kids think they are above it and that they can decide when they want to follow rules and when they don't want to. Meanwhile, they expect the same privileges as the student groups that follow the rules. This is nonsense! If the Supreme Court cannot decide this case in little time our country has become more inefficient then it used to be.
I agree with Sammy and everyone else that has said that the group should not receive funding from the school. If they want to exist as a group, that is fine, but they can't just pick and choose the rules that they play by. I also agree that they are using religion to mask discrimination against gays. I agree with Kyle that I don't even understand why this is such a heated debate; play by the rules or don't get funding, it's as simple as that.
I don't think it should matter that Christians usually have problems with homosexuals because if the University had conditions to funding the clubs why do they think they would ever get away with their random rule following.
I'm also surprised that this case is taking longer than expected. I would think that the Supreme Court would realize that its the basic fact that this group is simply not following the rules that should prohibit them from receiving funding.
I see where both sides are coming from but i think that a student member brings up a thought provoking question when he say: "there is a small Muslim group; it has 10 students. If the group is required to accept anybody who applies for membership, and 50 students who hate Muslims show up and they want to take over that group, you say First Amendment allows that?" Although this might not exactly be the case with gay students trying to join - i do believe that on some level he brings up a good point.
I agree with Paige, that student brings up a good point. I feel that in order for student orgranizations to maintain their beliefs that they were founded on, they have to be selective with membership at times. Because the University didn't say that they wouldn't provide funding to a group with selective memberhsip like Remi said, they can't be that surprised that this particular group doesn't allow certain members.
I agree with everyone who has said that the group should not get funding. It's the colleges money and every group needs to abide by the same rules to receive funding. This group shouldn't be able to use the freedom of religion argument to discriminate against gay students. The Supreme Court shouldn't need to take this long to make an easy decision.
Another thought i had about this was to use the lemon test because although it isn't funding for parochial schools its basically the same thing. If you think about it, this is no way shape or form passes the lemon test so they shouldn't receive funding just like how teachers weren't allowed to receive government funding for their salaries. Also to what Remy said i disagree. The issue isn't that the university isn't following their own rules, its that the student group isn't following the universities rules. The university has a right to deny funding to any group that doesn't fit the criteria and this religious group shouldn't get any special exceptions from this rule.
I definitely agree with Remi and Page on this one. Although I can see where the other side is coming from. But like Remi said, it is in the Bible that it's against Christianity to be gay, it's completely clear, and the University absolutely shouldn't be surprised by the fact that this Christian group isn't allowing homosexual people into their group, seeing as it is against their beliefs. Just like the article said, you wouldn't think it's practical for an atheist to try to lead a Christian Bible Study, that would be absurd. The fact is that the University didn't specify that they would basically only fund organizations that fit with the school's beliefs, so I think they should still be able to get funding.
I completely agree with everyone who has said that the group should not get funding. I especially liked what Claire said about how students are students first, and members of the Christian Legal Society second. This case seems to be more about gay rights than freedom of speech/religion, and I think it's ridiculous that a group should be able to deny other students' membership just because of their sexual orientation. In my eyes that's exactly the same as saying that someone can't join because of their race or their gender--it's absurd.
I believe that the school should have the right to discriminate because it is a religious group that shouldn’t be forced to accept non-believers just because the college has a non-discriminatory policy. This is one of the few cases were not discriminating could cause the group to be full of non-believers thus defeating the purpose of the group in the first place. At the same time though allowing one group to slide past the rules would create an influx of other cases that have would also want to discriminate for more cynical reasons.
Also, in response to Remi and Paige and others saying that the University should fund the group because it said it would support student organizations, it specifically says in the prompt, "The Hastings College of Law has a nondiscrimination policy that requires official student groups to admit any Hastings student who wants to join the organization." I think that this would make it clear enough that student groups practicing discrimination won't get funding. I don't think the university is picking and choosing which groups to fund based on "those which adhere to the same beliefs as the University" as Remi claimed..that's a bit far-fetched as well as unfounded. As to the quote about the Muslim group and people who hate Muslims taking over the group...that's also a little out there. As the man says, that's never happened before, and I honestly think it's highly unlikely. I don't think many students in law school would have the time to spend a couple hours a week just to sabotage another group. If this did become a problem, however, then the group should be able to kick out members that are being disruptive. But denying someone right off the bat because of their sexual preference or personal beliefs is wrong.
I would have to agree with most people who are siding with the University in this case. Public institutions should not be supporting groups that are clearly discriminatory. This case does appear to be more about limiting the rights of individuals based on sexual orientation rather than protecting freedom of religion.
In my opinion, I think that the group should have two options, either they can take public funding but must allow everyone or they can choose to be selective but forfeit the option for public funding. The Christian Group should have a right to its beliefs but it shouldn't get public funding if it wants to exclude certain people.
I believe that the CLS has to accept everyone here if they want public money. If the university were to give them money while allowing them to be a purely Christian organization would this not cause excessive entanglement? would it not then fail the lemon test? There are other things CLS can do such as require knowledge of the bible to join, this is no longer discrimination but requires merit to join which is perfectly reasonable. Also their claim that people would join the outnumber and destroy their leadership is ridiculous. I personally do not like overly religious people very much and would not want to spend more time with them by joining such a organization.
I mostly agree with what Irini has to say, that these students cannot expect to receive funding which has rules attached and ignore the rules but i do not believe we need to say our country is falling apart if the supreme court deliberates on this. Furthermore I do not believe the main focus of this case is in anyway based on discrimination of homosexuals more on religious entanglement with a public institution.
I'm obviously struggling with this topic, but isn't deciding who you want and don't want in your "club" the same thing as free speech? If you walk into a park and shout, "I hate gays! They are all going to hell and should die", is that any better than politely not allowing them into your group because it is against what the group stands for?
Now I realize that the main issue here is whether or not they should receive public funds. All University clubs, as far as I'm aware, are entitled to at least some funding from the University. In addition to that, I doubt the University has any rules that say groups that discriminate get no funding. If they do, then I'm sorry and the group should be abolished, but if not, then they have all the rights in the world to receive equal funding and respect as other groups. If the gays and nonbelievers don't like it, then they can go start a gay nonbelievers that hate on orthodox Christians group. I would love to see it.
I think the main problem here, however, is that these specific gays and nonbelivers are big enough %^#$s to try and join a group that they neither belong in, nor should have any interest in belonging to. It's like me joining a traditionally all-girls make-up-your-Barby group just to spite them.
I'm gonna agree with Kyle on this one. It seems as though the group isn't abiding by the university's rules, so it has the right to deny them funding. Also, I think the Lemon Test idea is a good one. It's been shown that private religious groups shouldn't get funding from the government, so they shouldn't get funding from a school that gets money from the government either.
I am also suprised that this case has such discrepinsy. Honestly it's not just free speech that's going on here, it's obviosly part of a anit movement against the gay community. Everyone is free to believe in what they want to but that also doesn't give them the right to discriminate against anyone who differs from them.
I completely agree with jess and remi. The university never had any rule that a group would not receive funding if it discriminated. The university can't just deny money to the christian group because they don't allow gays to be members. There was never a rule saying that they would not get money if they did this and the rules can't just change now. Furthermore, it is difficult for me to understand why a gay would want to join a christian group, when it is clear that being gay is against the christian beliefs and values. The group is only discriminating because it is completely against their values to be gay. I don't see how this group is any different from an all girls group discriminating against boys. Its the same thing and no one seems to be upset about that.
I like what Mary said about this being the same kind of situation with an all girls group descriminating against boys. Its the same thing. Like Remi, Paige, Mary and I have all stated,its against Christianity to be gay, so why would gays want to join that group, knowing that in the Bible, in numerous places it says that being gay is a sin against God.
I agree with the idea that all student groups who wish receive funding cannot be exclusionary groups. There is no question that school financial support of an exclusionary group translates into support of a specific religion, which goes against the establishment clause regarding religion in the first Amendment.
I also agree with kyle in that students do not have the right to pick and choose which rules they wish to follow. Thats just stupid.
Let me expand on my earlier comment. Although exclusionary student groups shouldn't be able to receive school funding, I think it is very important to keep in mind reverse discrimination. Student groups should also have the right to be exclusionary, with the knowledge that they give up school funding. Although this may seem a bit harsh, our right to assembly is protected by the first amendment, and this includes the right of who we want to be in our assembly. While the Supreme Court does a good job in protecting the minority interests, they haven't had a great track record until recently in balancing that with a healthy awareness of reverse discrimination.
I agree with what Sammy said. The student groups has to accept two options: either they can take funding but then must take anyone that wants to join, or they can choose to refuse funds and select who they want to have join. However, it seems that a bit of what of Remington said is right. It seems like nowadays, a lot of the people who bring these suits don't really have any other interest in joining these groups other than to just mess with the group leaders. They should have some understanding about what the groups believe before trying to join.
On this issue I find myself coming down on the side of not funding the student group, although not exactly for the same reasons as everyone else. I personally think that issues such as this one, where the people are forced to fund something that could be accomplished without coercion and doesnt benefit everyone in the country, that social issues arise in a way they never would in a more free market society. What I'm saying is, not only do I not beleive the student group should be funded, but I dont beleive the university should be funded at all, and I see this case as an oppurtunity to point out a benefit of not funding it. Were it a private university, this would be completely clear cut; the university would be completely free to allow or disallow the group, depending on their specific knowledge of the student body and how their customers wouild react. Additionally, a publicly funded service that can only be accessed by certain members of society is just as discriminatory as a publicly funded school group that can only be accessed by certain people (something which many of you decried). In conclusion, when a government limits itself to only providing services that directly protect its citizens life, liberty and property from coercion and violence, it is able to circumvent any danger of grey area discriminatory services.
I agree with Lizzi if the group does not want to follow the rules of the University then they cannot receive funding and deal with it. Again its university's money and they have the say on the rules and requirements for each group to receive it.
I dont think that this group has to accept everyone that wants to join. they made this group so they could be with people who feel the same ways about religion as they do. it was a common point of interest and important for them to have people to talk about it with. If a gay person were to be let into the christian group, the group would no longer all share the same religious beliefs. It should be a safe place where they can enjoy the company of people who share similar beliefs, and adding a gay person would change the group completely.
Yep. I agree with what's been said before. I think it's unfair to ask for funding and not play ball. If I was a parent of a gay student, contributed money to the school, only to have my money go towards an organization that my offspring can't join... To put it basically, I'd be mad. I also don't believe in funding organizations whose beliefs exclude others. It's funding discrimination which isn't what this country stands for.
I really don't see why this case is taking so long to decide. I still stand by my original belief that the group has to follow the rules in order to receive funding. I understand that their may be some issues between Christians and homosexuals, but they still need to allow them to join the group if they wish to continue to get funding.
So I did some research, and since Hastings College of Law is a branch of the University of California, I looked up the U's rules on ethical conduct. Here's what I found:
"The University prohibits discrimination and harassment and provides equal opportunities for all community members and applicants regardless of race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity...sexual orientation..."
Now I might be wrong here, but if the Hastings College of Law is a branch off of the University of California, doesn't it abide by the same rules? If so, then the CLS was in fact breaking the rules, and therefore shouldn't recieve the school's funding. No student organization should get benefits from the school if they are breaking the standards that they agreed to follow when they signed up.
Its pretty clear, based on the rules teddy discovered, that the group is in fact explicitly breaking the rules they chose to follow when they decided to attend the college. Obviously I have no problem with private groups choosing who can join, after all we have freedom of association in this country, but they should really not be asking for public funding.
A lot of people have been saying that the group needs to "follow the rules" in order to recieve funding, but, correct me if im wrong, nowhere does it say that the group could not discriminate against people who do not share the same beliefs as the group in order to recieve funding. it just seems silly to me that people get so worked up and overly sensitive. it is a CHRISTIAN group, therefore only those with CHRISTIAN values and beliefs can be in it. I dont see what is so hard about that. They should still be able to recieve funding because they are just like any varsity sport, for example, in that only those who know how to play and have the ability to play can play. If one doesnt meet these criteria, just as a gay would not meet Christian criteria, then the group has every right to not make them members.
I see there I a point about discrimination in this case but I don't think it is necessarily bad. I think if a Christian against gay couples wanted to join a club about being gay, that they would be turned down because they didn't share the same beliefs. People should be able to gather with others where they feel free and comfortable. If havoc a gay person join the Christian group makes then feel uncomfortable I don't think they hve to do it. Mary makes a great point, this person just doesn't qualify for this group.
Now I accept that my research may be flawed, but even if that ethical code of conduct DOESN'T apply to the Hasting's College of Law, I still side with the University.
Don't get me wrong: I think that everyone is entitled to their beliefs, regardless of whether or not I agree with them. Furthermore, I am Roman Catholic, so I do not discriminate against the CLS or (for the most part) what they stand for. But one of the lines I draw is the exclusion of gay members.
I know those of you siding with the group stated that the excluded seemed to be trying to join the CLS just to bring charges. Admittedly, I don't know why anyone would want to join a group that goes at such lengths to exclude them. However, contrary to what you may believe, there ARE indeed gay Christians in the world. Are they not also entitled to celebrate their faith? As for any nonbelievers who might want to join, we can't assume it's for critical reasons. Maybe they are interested in religion and want to discuss it with others rather than read a book about it. If an athiest wanted to learn more about Christianity, what better way is there than to study it with actual Christians?
I understand the worry that the CLS would have to accept jerks who'd join just to bring the group down. But when has anyone ever heard of that happening? Seriously, other than having gay people interested in joining, did the CLS experience ANYTHING like that? The point about the "haters joining the Musilm group" has some merit, but I think that everyone should be given a chance, and if they don't take it seriously or just cause trouble, then and only then does the group have the right to ask them to leave. But this is clearly not the case.
Really, at the end of the day, the student group is in the wrong. I respect their beliefs, but we can't assume that everyone who wants to join is going to sabotage the group. If the rules state that there should be no discrimination, then the CLS should abide by the rules if they want the school's aid.
I know that they have the right to not want gays in their group, but then so do KKK members and neo-Nazis. If it's okay for the CLS to do this, then why shouldn't other groups discriminate based off of race or gender? A line must be drawn, especially when it is in a government funded place of learning.
Paige brought up a valid point with the student quote about the Muslim group, but that hypothetical and this actual situation are quite different. In the hypothetical, the students joining the group would be doing it out of hate; they would purposely be trying to defeat the group. In this situation, the gay students could totally support most Christian values and be trying to contribute to the group in a positive manner.
I agree with multiple people, in that i believe if a group wants funding it must follow the rules. I do understand however the concern of the group because it does make sense to me to have only Christians in a Christian group. There is a point to made that they can make more regulations for joining the group that are not directly based on religious discrimination such as having to know things about the bible for example.
I agree with Alex that this case seems to be more about discrimination against gays than anything else. The students' claims simply dont seem valid in my opinion. And I also agree that this situation is different than the Muslim group example because there is no evidence that the gay students have anti-Christian beliefs. Given all of these factors, it seems clear that the students are in the wrong in this case.
I believe that discrimination is bad, but in some rare cases it is not used to hurt another individual bit to unite a a group of people with common beliefs. With a case like this one the groups uniting force would be dissolved by forcing them to accept any nonbelieving individual, so they should be allowed to discriminate!
I believe that discrimination is bad, but in some rare cases it is not used to hurt another individual bit to unite a a group of people with common beliefs. With a case like this one the groups uniting force would be dissolved by forcing them to accept any nonbelieving individual, so they should be allowed to discriminate!
Alex makes a valid point that the example of the Muslim student group and the christian group are not quite the same. From my understanding, the gay students would not be joining the group to destroy it, so i don't see why it would be such a big deal to let them join.
I agree with justin in the sense that this form of discrimination isn't meant to hurt people, but unite a group with shared beliefs. Overall I think that the students had good intentions, but with a issue like religion it gets more complicated.
Post a Comment