Supremes say college Christian groups must admit non-Christians

A strange ruling from the Supreme Court:

The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that a public university can refuse to officially recognize a Christian student group that bars membership to those who violate its beliefs.

In a 5-4 decision split along ideological lines, the high court agreed with a decision by the University of California Hastings College of the Law in San Francisco to refuse to grant a campus chapter of the Christian Legal Society because it expressly barred gays and non-Christians.

Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen G. Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, John Paul Stevens and Anthony M. Kennedy, the court’s frequent swing vote, agreed with the school. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Samuel A. Alito Jr., Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas sided with the Christian group.

The school said the group’s membership requirements violated the university’s anti-discrimination policies, which require groups on campus to allow members regardless of sexual orientation or religion. The group claimed that the school’s policies violated its First Amendment rights to free speech and freedom of religion.

A federal district court and federal appeals court previously sided with the school against the Christian students.

Writing for the majority, Justice Ginsburg said the First Amendment shielded the Christian Legal Society from discrimination at the hands of the state-run university, but it did not give the Christian group the right to exclude people while receiving the benefits of the university’s resources.

“Exclusion, after all, has two sides,” she wrote. “Hastings, caught in the crossfire between a groups desire to exclude and students demand for equal access, may reasonably draw a line in the sand permitting all organizations to express what they wish but no group to discriminate in membership.”

via Supreme Court rules against group that bans gays – Washington Times.

Set aside the gay issue.  A Christian group must admit non-Christians?  Does that mean a liberal group must admit conservatives?  Do Marxist groups have to admit Capitalists who in sufficient numbers might then vote to change the group’s mission?  What does “group” mean if it has no collective identity or membership boundaries?

(The solution for affected Christian groups:  Don’t take college money.)

About Gene Veith

Professor of Literature at Patrick Henry College, the Director of the Cranach Institute at Concordia Theological Seminary, a columnist for World Magazine and TableTalk, and the author of 18 books on different facets of Christianity & Culture.

  • Winston Smith

    The ruling makes a travesty of the right of free assocation, because — as noted — groups by definition must have the right to define themselves. (One wonders if the decision would have gone the same way had it been, say, evangelical students trying to join the Hindu Students Association, or muslims complaining about being barred from the campus chapter of B’nai B’rith.)

    However, Christians may have to get used to being the odd man out, in the sense that we have higher standards than the world. Maybe the campus Republican, Democrat or Marxist organizations (it that two groups or three?) group are able to admit practicing homosexuals; the Christian group, if it is to remain true to its principles, cannot. If the world hated Him, it will hate us, too.

    Dr. Veith’s solution is the right one: don’t take Caesar’s money, which comes with strings attached.

  • Winston Smith

    The ruling makes a travesty of the right of free assocation, because — as noted — groups by definition must have the right to define themselves. (One wonders if the decision would have gone the same way had it been, say, evangelical students trying to join the Hindu Students Association, or muslims complaining about being barred from the campus chapter of B’nai B’rith.)

    However, Christians may have to get used to being the odd man out, in the sense that we have higher standards than the world. Maybe the campus Republican, Democrat or Marxist organizations (it that two groups or three?) group are able to admit practicing homosexuals; the Christian group, if it is to remain true to its principles, cannot. If the world hated Him, it will hate us, too.

    Dr. Veith’s solution is the right one: don’t take Caesar’s money, which comes with strings attached.

  • Peter Leavitt

    Justice Ginsburg’s argument accepts the view that as a matter of civil rights gay”people are on the same discriminatory plane as black people. Once that logic is accepted it will be difficult, indeed dangerous, for those with principled views based on natural-law reasoning and biblical literature to criticize homosexual behavior as a disordered and sinful.

    This decision, along with the growing piety that those who oppose the gay “rights” agenda are involved in bigoted homophobia, augurs serious danger for orthodox Christians.

    Hadley Arkes over at First Things has written an insightful article on this decision Vast Dangers—Confirmed.
    Jun 29, 2010.

  • Peter Leavitt

    Justice Ginsburg’s argument accepts the view that as a matter of civil rights gay”people are on the same discriminatory plane as black people. Once that logic is accepted it will be difficult, indeed dangerous, for those with principled views based on natural-law reasoning and biblical literature to criticize homosexual behavior as a disordered and sinful.

    This decision, along with the growing piety that those who oppose the gay “rights” agenda are involved in bigoted homophobia, augurs serious danger for orthodox Christians.

    Hadley Arkes over at First Things has written an insightful article on this decision Vast Dangers—Confirmed.
    Jun 29, 2010.

  • Joe

    I have not had a chance to read the entire opinion but two observations:
    1. the court did not disband the group (i.e. these kids are still free to associate on whatever terms they like), and
    2. the court said only that if the group wants to be an officially recognized group (i.e. if it wants funding and the ability to use school facilities) it must have an “all comers” admission policy

    From my point of view, I would rather that the Christian school groups not be officially recognized. Taking state money always leads to gov’t interference with the group at some level.

    I am all for freedom of speech and freedom of association but I don’t see anywhere in the constitution where it says the taxpayers are required to subsidize it.

  • Joe

    I have not had a chance to read the entire opinion but two observations:
    1. the court did not disband the group (i.e. these kids are still free to associate on whatever terms they like), and
    2. the court said only that if the group wants to be an officially recognized group (i.e. if it wants funding and the ability to use school facilities) it must have an “all comers” admission policy

    From my point of view, I would rather that the Christian school groups not be officially recognized. Taking state money always leads to gov’t interference with the group at some level.

    I am all for freedom of speech and freedom of association but I don’t see anywhere in the constitution where it says the taxpayers are required to subsidize it.

  • EricM

    I think the court decided correctly here. I rarely agree with the liberal side of the court but in this case the school set its requirements (groups must accept all comers) and CLS does not. It seems cut and dry to me.

    Should CLS accept all comers? That is a different question and one the group needs to answer. I think as Christians we certainly accept all sinners (i.e. everyone) into our churchs but we do expect them to at least listen politely and not try to change the theology of the church.

  • EricM

    I think the court decided correctly here. I rarely agree with the liberal side of the court but in this case the school set its requirements (groups must accept all comers) and CLS does not. It seems cut and dry to me.

    Should CLS accept all comers? That is a different question and one the group needs to answer. I think as Christians we certainly accept all sinners (i.e. everyone) into our churchs but we do expect them to at least listen politely and not try to change the theology of the church.

  • EricM

    BTW – just to be clear…I am not equating CLS with the Church or even a church.

  • EricM

    BTW – just to be clear…I am not equating CLS with the Church or even a church.

  • Dennis Peskey

    There are two distinct solutions to this situation.

    The first, and easiest solution would be for the Christian group to disassociate themselves from the subside level; i.e., get your fingers out of the public trough for that food is unholy. Align the group with a local church (or two) and you are back in business.

    Second – this is a golden opportunity for outreach to souls who desperately are in need. These lost souls are literally storming your doors seeking entry – they’ve gone way beyond knocking. Since the societies’ indentity is inherently Christian, I believe it safe to presume Christ’s teachings are fundamental to the fabric of the organization. As lawyers, they should be capable of drafting a constitutional framework requiring faithful adherence to Christian doctrine (Matthew 28 comes to mind) and establish this as an “essential” component to the structure of the organization.

    For guidance in a proper application of Christian doctrine, I highly suggest the Book of Concord which is sufficiently detailed to ensure a proper understanding – given a quia subscription to the contents. Add in a study of CPH’s newest release of C.F.W. Walther’s “Law and Gospel” (a fitting undertaking for beginning law students) and a few social outreaches programs for their neighbors with a mercy emphasis and you’ll have a fine Christian group.

    Then I propose you change your introduction to “The Christian Legal Society – for Sinners Only.” Open wide your doors and welcome each and every sinner for our Lord Christ came for the sinners, not the righteous. Rejoice in the gift the Lord has given you.
    Peace,
    Dennis

  • Dennis Peskey

    There are two distinct solutions to this situation.

    The first, and easiest solution would be for the Christian group to disassociate themselves from the subside level; i.e., get your fingers out of the public trough for that food is unholy. Align the group with a local church (or two) and you are back in business.

    Second – this is a golden opportunity for outreach to souls who desperately are in need. These lost souls are literally storming your doors seeking entry – they’ve gone way beyond knocking. Since the societies’ indentity is inherently Christian, I believe it safe to presume Christ’s teachings are fundamental to the fabric of the organization. As lawyers, they should be capable of drafting a constitutional framework requiring faithful adherence to Christian doctrine (Matthew 28 comes to mind) and establish this as an “essential” component to the structure of the organization.

    For guidance in a proper application of Christian doctrine, I highly suggest the Book of Concord which is sufficiently detailed to ensure a proper understanding – given a quia subscription to the contents. Add in a study of CPH’s newest release of C.F.W. Walther’s “Law and Gospel” (a fitting undertaking for beginning law students) and a few social outreaches programs for their neighbors with a mercy emphasis and you’ll have a fine Christian group.

    Then I propose you change your introduction to “The Christian Legal Society – for Sinners Only.” Open wide your doors and welcome each and every sinner for our Lord Christ came for the sinners, not the righteous. Rejoice in the gift the Lord has given you.
    Peace,
    Dennis

  • Cincinnatus

    There’s really nothing controversial about this decision. Per precedent–specifically, Rosenberger v. UVA–a public entity can place whatever restrictions and conditions it wants upon receipt of public funds. If the University wishes to create a “limited public forum,” it is free to determine the purpose and nature of that forum.

    In Rosenberger, UVA was forced to grant funds and benefits to an exclusively Christian club because the university had not specified non-discrimination requirements, and because it is unconstitutional to target groups based upon their viewpoint alone. In this case, nothing of the kind seems to be occurring: the law school had clearly delineated the requirements for receiving public benefits. The CLS is free to refuse those requirements–and it is also free to forfeit public benefits.

  • Cincinnatus

    There’s really nothing controversial about this decision. Per precedent–specifically, Rosenberger v. UVA–a public entity can place whatever restrictions and conditions it wants upon receipt of public funds. If the University wishes to create a “limited public forum,” it is free to determine the purpose and nature of that forum.

    In Rosenberger, UVA was forced to grant funds and benefits to an exclusively Christian club because the university had not specified non-discrimination requirements, and because it is unconstitutional to target groups based upon their viewpoint alone. In this case, nothing of the kind seems to be occurring: the law school had clearly delineated the requirements for receiving public benefits. The CLS is free to refuse those requirements–and it is also free to forfeit public benefits.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Veith asked, “A Christian group must admit non-Christians? Does that mean a liberal group must admit conservatives? Do Marxist groups have to admit Capitalists who in sufficient numbers might then vote to change the group’s mission?” At Hastings, yes. That is the university’s policy. It is not the policy at most universities, however, that I know of.

    So, yes, don’t take money from groups you disagree with. And/or don’t seek to be officially recognized by groups you disagree with. And/or don’t attend universities with policies you disagree with.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Veith asked, “A Christian group must admit non-Christians? Does that mean a liberal group must admit conservatives? Do Marxist groups have to admit Capitalists who in sufficient numbers might then vote to change the group’s mission?” At Hastings, yes. That is the university’s policy. It is not the policy at most universities, however, that I know of.

    So, yes, don’t take money from groups you disagree with. And/or don’t seek to be officially recognized by groups you disagree with. And/or don’t attend universities with policies you disagree with.

  • JoeS

    I find it interesting that the main point of the Washington Times headline is that the group bans gays. Maybe that was a major factor in the suit, but hardy the main point of the entire case.

    While I agree that they don’t need public money, to say they cannot meet on campus could be read as “you are not welcome.”

  • JoeS

    I find it interesting that the main point of the Washington Times headline is that the group bans gays. Maybe that was a major factor in the suit, but hardy the main point of the entire case.

    While I agree that they don’t need public money, to say they cannot meet on campus could be read as “you are not welcome.”

  • fws

    This site is a fitting example of what things COULD be like. Dr Vieth welcomes everyone here with open arms. He doesn´t even need to insist on rules of etiquette like some sites do. Somehow, the respect he has for the opinions of others pretty much manages to make this site self moderating. I cannot ever remember our good doctor having to edit/delete/eliminate a post.

    The Holy Gospel would be more salt and yeast if we would simply trust God in our vocations and let our salt and yeast penetrate and savor and enlarge the dough that we are here to serve precisely by being invisible (staying out of the way by mortifying our egos and sense of being necessary in any of this) and in faith.

    I say: take the money. Let whoever wants to be a part. Establish a strong christian identity in the mission statement and then have a raging debate over that. If eventually a majority of the members manages to change the charter for the group, nothing has really been lost. We are all clay in the good Potter´s hands. The wind has it´s effect even if it passes. Candles burn brightest that exhaust the wick and wax.

    Here is the main takehome point for ALL this. It is about the proper dividing of Law and Gospel. So we Lutherans need to speak up here:

    This group is NOT a church. It is about vocation. Vocation is ALL about that God-pleasing earthly righteousness that will all perish with the earth, along with those who think they will find something eternal in that kind of right-eousness or moral goodness. (cf romans 8) . Our task as christian brothers and sisters is precisely to assist others in internalizing the fact that everything visible we do there is earthly, perishable and transitory righteousness. It is the manger holding the Babe in that case. Being a pastor or christian visibly is also vocation. There is nothing eternal or uniquely holy about doing any of that.

    Fact: there is NOTHING we can do here or leave undone that will have any eternal consequences or result in heaven or hell. Nothing. We call this “faith alone, by grace alone, by Christ alone”.

    Whatever they or we do here on earth that is about TRUE right-eousness is like st james says.: “see, you are justified [here on earth] by what you do and not by faith”. Potential attorneys need to learn that fact. They cannot plead faith in any god-pleasing court of law. God demands that lady justice to be blind and hold a scale! He will force this right-eousness to happen if we don´t do it willingly!

    So let those hot braless wiccan lesbian law students in. and let the trangender wo-men in too. Engage them. Love them. Like them. Serve them. And just maybe, they will catch that other kind of Righteousness that will never perish from the earth. This is the only kind of Righteousness that makes one Just and that the Just will live by forever.

    This invisible, and heavenly Righteousness is meaningless here on earth except to God and to troubled consciences. I do pray then that everyone admitted to that group experiences a troubled conscience!

  • fws

    This site is a fitting example of what things COULD be like. Dr Vieth welcomes everyone here with open arms. He doesn´t even need to insist on rules of etiquette like some sites do. Somehow, the respect he has for the opinions of others pretty much manages to make this site self moderating. I cannot ever remember our good doctor having to edit/delete/eliminate a post.

    The Holy Gospel would be more salt and yeast if we would simply trust God in our vocations and let our salt and yeast penetrate and savor and enlarge the dough that we are here to serve precisely by being invisible (staying out of the way by mortifying our egos and sense of being necessary in any of this) and in faith.

    I say: take the money. Let whoever wants to be a part. Establish a strong christian identity in the mission statement and then have a raging debate over that. If eventually a majority of the members manages to change the charter for the group, nothing has really been lost. We are all clay in the good Potter´s hands. The wind has it´s effect even if it passes. Candles burn brightest that exhaust the wick and wax.

    Here is the main takehome point for ALL this. It is about the proper dividing of Law and Gospel. So we Lutherans need to speak up here:

    This group is NOT a church. It is about vocation. Vocation is ALL about that God-pleasing earthly righteousness that will all perish with the earth, along with those who think they will find something eternal in that kind of right-eousness or moral goodness. (cf romans 8) . Our task as christian brothers and sisters is precisely to assist others in internalizing the fact that everything visible we do there is earthly, perishable and transitory righteousness. It is the manger holding the Babe in that case. Being a pastor or christian visibly is also vocation. There is nothing eternal or uniquely holy about doing any of that.

    Fact: there is NOTHING we can do here or leave undone that will have any eternal consequences or result in heaven or hell. Nothing. We call this “faith alone, by grace alone, by Christ alone”.

    Whatever they or we do here on earth that is about TRUE right-eousness is like st james says.: “see, you are justified [here on earth] by what you do and not by faith”. Potential attorneys need to learn that fact. They cannot plead faith in any god-pleasing court of law. God demands that lady justice to be blind and hold a scale! He will force this right-eousness to happen if we don´t do it willingly!

    So let those hot braless wiccan lesbian law students in. and let the trangender wo-men in too. Engage them. Love them. Like them. Serve them. And just maybe, they will catch that other kind of Righteousness that will never perish from the earth. This is the only kind of Righteousness that makes one Just and that the Just will live by forever.

    This invisible, and heavenly Righteousness is meaningless here on earth except to God and to troubled consciences. I do pray then that everyone admitted to that group experiences a troubled conscience!

  • http://facebook.com/mesamike Mike Westfall

    I’m not so sure the university has a “you must accept all comers” policy, but rather a “you must not discriminate against individuals who are members of certain protected classes” policy.

    So… I’m guessing that the Marxist club can in fact bar membership to capitalists, since capitalists are not one of the protected classes.

    On the other hand, seems to me that the GLBT club will now have to accept “straights” because sexual orientation (even straight) is a protected class.

  • http://facebook.com/mesamike Mike Westfall

    I’m not so sure the university has a “you must accept all comers” policy, but rather a “you must not discriminate against individuals who are members of certain protected classes” policy.

    So… I’m guessing that the Marxist club can in fact bar membership to capitalists, since capitalists are not one of the protected classes.

    On the other hand, seems to me that the GLBT club will now have to accept “straights” because sexual orientation (even straight) is a protected class.

  • fws

    Mike @ 11

    Great point. I cannot imagine ANY christian group that welcomes gays as full members restricting straight students from also being members. Can you Mike? Isn´t that cool?

    What a fine example those groups present for anyone, pagan or christian, who sincerely seeks to be right-eous. If there is any take home example in the parables, it is that God will beat the bushes to find the lost, the last, the least, and the unlovable to invite them to his Great Feast.

    On the contrary, those who seek admission to the party by qualifying somehow by anything they can do or leave undone will be met by christ saying, as he did to the 10 wise virgins who felt they needed oil: “Who are you? You won´t be let in to spoil the mirth of our party!”

  • fws

    Mike @ 11

    Great point. I cannot imagine ANY christian group that welcomes gays as full members restricting straight students from also being members. Can you Mike? Isn´t that cool?

    What a fine example those groups present for anyone, pagan or christian, who sincerely seeks to be right-eous. If there is any take home example in the parables, it is that God will beat the bushes to find the lost, the last, the least, and the unlovable to invite them to his Great Feast.

    On the contrary, those who seek admission to the party by qualifying somehow by anything they can do or leave undone will be met by christ saying, as he did to the 10 wise virgins who felt they needed oil: “Who are you? You won´t be let in to spoil the mirth of our party!”

  • CRB

    Seems to me that our Lord’s directive in Matthew 10:16 would apply to this group, eh?

  • CRB

    Seems to me that our Lord’s directive in Matthew 10:16 would apply to this group, eh?

  • fws

    crb 13

    matt 10:16 This does not seem so much a directive as an observation…

    “16 “Behold, I send you out as sheep in the midst of wolves; so be wise as serpents and innocent as doves. 17 Beware of men; for they will deliver you up to councils, and flog you in their synagogues, 18 and you will be dragged before governors and kings for my sake, to bear testimony before them and the Gentiles. 19 When they deliver you up, do not be anxious how you are to speak or what you are to say; for what you are to say will be given to you in that hour; 20 for it is not you who speak, but the Spirit of your Father speaking through you. 21 Brother will deliver up brother to death, and the father his child, and children will rise against parents and have them put to death; 22 and you will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But he who endures to the end will be saved. ”

    Now CRB. This all applies to the believer/christian in any vocation. Plumber, housewife, janitor.

    Here is the point I think:

    Our lives in our Old Adams are the disposable paper plates upon which God serves, even to all the wicked, the good creaturely earthly fleshly things God wants us all to have and enjoy. These things will all perish with the earth. If not sooner!

    The just shall live by faith.

  • fws

    crb 13

    matt 10:16 This does not seem so much a directive as an observation…

    “16 “Behold, I send you out as sheep in the midst of wolves; so be wise as serpents and innocent as doves. 17 Beware of men; for they will deliver you up to councils, and flog you in their synagogues, 18 and you will be dragged before governors and kings for my sake, to bear testimony before them and the Gentiles. 19 When they deliver you up, do not be anxious how you are to speak or what you are to say; for what you are to say will be given to you in that hour; 20 for it is not you who speak, but the Spirit of your Father speaking through you. 21 Brother will deliver up brother to death, and the father his child, and children will rise against parents and have them put to death; 22 and you will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But he who endures to the end will be saved. ”

    Now CRB. This all applies to the believer/christian in any vocation. Plumber, housewife, janitor.

    Here is the point I think:

    Our lives in our Old Adams are the disposable paper plates upon which God serves, even to all the wicked, the good creaturely earthly fleshly things God wants us all to have and enjoy. These things will all perish with the earth. If not sooner!

    The just shall live by faith.

  • http://www.spaceagelutheran.blogspot.com/ SAL

    It seems that a lot of Universities are encouraging intellectual uniformity and conformity.

    Mobs often descend on speakers that dissent from the liberal orthodoxy. At my old university a liberal group broke crosses that were displayed during the anniversary of Roe vs. Wade. We also had students that were singled out for punishment by professors because they didn’t participate in off campus events promoting liberal political causes.

    As unofficial intimidation grows on campus it’s going to be the unwelcome minority that is silenced or punished. On most campuses that unwelcome minority is conservative and/or Christian. Actions like this don’t occur in a vacuum. They will be seen as encouragement by a segment of college liberals to continue to intimidate and punish dissenters.

    While this act itself is only mildly discriminatory, it will encourage a climate at Hasting that is even more hostile and threatening to dissenters.

  • http://www.spaceagelutheran.blogspot.com/ SAL

    It seems that a lot of Universities are encouraging intellectual uniformity and conformity.

    Mobs often descend on speakers that dissent from the liberal orthodoxy. At my old university a liberal group broke crosses that were displayed during the anniversary of Roe vs. Wade. We also had students that were singled out for punishment by professors because they didn’t participate in off campus events promoting liberal political causes.

    As unofficial intimidation grows on campus it’s going to be the unwelcome minority that is silenced or punished. On most campuses that unwelcome minority is conservative and/or Christian. Actions like this don’t occur in a vacuum. They will be seen as encouragement by a segment of college liberals to continue to intimidate and punish dissenters.

    While this act itself is only mildly discriminatory, it will encourage a climate at Hasting that is even more hostile and threatening to dissenters.

  • fws

    sal @15

    your error is to say that any of what you say is unique to pagans, christians, liberals or conservatives. Congressmen are discontinuing town hall meetings because of hecklers mostly from the right. and what you say about liberal students hecking the sarah palins and conservatives of the world is also true.

    What is lacking here and deteriorating is a general lack of civility and respect for others. Christians, especially conservative ones sadly often do not stand out as any exception to this trend.

  • fws

    sal @15

    your error is to say that any of what you say is unique to pagans, christians, liberals or conservatives. Congressmen are discontinuing town hall meetings because of hecklers mostly from the right. and what you say about liberal students hecking the sarah palins and conservatives of the world is also true.

    What is lacking here and deteriorating is a general lack of civility and respect for others. Christians, especially conservative ones sadly often do not stand out as any exception to this trend.

  • http://lutherama.blogspot.com Dr. Luther in 21st Century

    One thing I would like to interject, being recognized as a an official student group is not all about funding. It is also about the ability to use campus facilities and the ability to advertise on campuses. As a general rule, universities only allow official student groups to do either. Effectively, this ruling completely kicks this Christian group of the university campus. Its impact is not limited to funding.

  • http://lutherama.blogspot.com Dr. Luther in 21st Century

    One thing I would like to interject, being recognized as a an official student group is not all about funding. It is also about the ability to use campus facilities and the ability to advertise on campuses. As a general rule, universities only allow official student groups to do either. Effectively, this ruling completely kicks this Christian group of the university campus. Its impact is not limited to funding.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Remember back when Christians used to rejoice because they had been counted worthy of suffering disgrace for the Name? Yeah, those were the days.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Remember back when Christians used to rejoice because they had been counted worthy of suffering disgrace for the Name? Yeah, those were the days.

  • Peter Leavitt

    The GLBT people would be would be loathe to welcome orthodox Christians to their group.Sensible Christians, of course, would not to want to join such a group.

    What’s going on here is that the politically correct phalanx at Hastings and most other cool schools resent the very existence of orthodox Christian groups.The money issue is minor. The GLBT group at Hastings in winning this decision has handed the Christian Legal Society a defeat of its right to stand as a fully legitimate group in the society of the school.

    The gay militants win another battle, while Christians including Todd stand around befuddled mouthing empty platitudes. Gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered people are involved in a disorder of nature that when acted upon is a grave sin. While Christians have an obligation to be compassionate and gracious toward these people, they have no obligation to admit these disruptive actors into seriously Christian groups. Sure, they can find catacombs off campus to repair to, though this is rather small comfort in the overall picture.

    The Christian Legal Society in taking on Hastings College of Law was making a very important point. Too bad they lost this point by a 5-4 decision.

  • Peter Leavitt

    The GLBT people would be would be loathe to welcome orthodox Christians to their group.Sensible Christians, of course, would not to want to join such a group.

    What’s going on here is that the politically correct phalanx at Hastings and most other cool schools resent the very existence of orthodox Christian groups.The money issue is minor. The GLBT group at Hastings in winning this decision has handed the Christian Legal Society a defeat of its right to stand as a fully legitimate group in the society of the school.

    The gay militants win another battle, while Christians including Todd stand around befuddled mouthing empty platitudes. Gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered people are involved in a disorder of nature that when acted upon is a grave sin. While Christians have an obligation to be compassionate and gracious toward these people, they have no obligation to admit these disruptive actors into seriously Christian groups. Sure, they can find catacombs off campus to repair to, though this is rather small comfort in the overall picture.

    The Christian Legal Society in taking on Hastings College of Law was making a very important point. Too bad they lost this point by a 5-4 decision.

  • kerner

    Never mind liberals or conservatives for a moment; what about other religions? Will a Muslim Legal Society have to admit Christians and gays…or feminists? Will any of these have the stuff to try to join a Muslim Legal Society?

    Or more to the point, will the atheists and gays who want to “join” the CLS really come to the meetings and prayer vigils and so on? Or were they just doing this to irritate the Christians, which everyone else seems to want to do?

  • kerner

    Never mind liberals or conservatives for a moment; what about other religions? Will a Muslim Legal Society have to admit Christians and gays…or feminists? Will any of these have the stuff to try to join a Muslim Legal Society?

    Or more to the point, will the atheists and gays who want to “join” the CLS really come to the meetings and prayer vigils and so on? Or were they just doing this to irritate the Christians, which everyone else seems to want to do?

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Mike said, “I’m not so sure the university has a ‘you must accept all comers’ policy, but rather a ‘you must not discriminate against individuals who are members of certain protected classes’ policy.” But here’s what the “syllabus” section of the decision says about Hastings (emphasis mine):

    All RSOs [Registered Student Organizations] must comply with the school’s Nondiscrimination Policy, which tracks state law barring discrimination on a number of bases, including religion and sexual orientation. Hastings interprets this policy, as it relates to the RSO program, to mandate acceptance of all comers: RSOs must allow any student to participate, become a member, orseek leadership positions, regardless of her status or beliefs.

    So, to answer Kerner’s question (@20) of “Will a Muslim Legal Society have to admit Christians and gays…or feminists?” appears to be: Yes. Of course, I’m not a lawyer, and I couldn’t find Hastings’ policy on their site, so maybe the syllabus is mistaken. Still, that’s what I’m basing my conclusions on.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Mike said, “I’m not so sure the university has a ‘you must accept all comers’ policy, but rather a ‘you must not discriminate against individuals who are members of certain protected classes’ policy.” But here’s what the “syllabus” section of the decision says about Hastings (emphasis mine):

    All RSOs [Registered Student Organizations] must comply with the school’s Nondiscrimination Policy, which tracks state law barring discrimination on a number of bases, including religion and sexual orientation. Hastings interprets this policy, as it relates to the RSO program, to mandate acceptance of all comers: RSOs must allow any student to participate, become a member, orseek leadership positions, regardless of her status or beliefs.

    So, to answer Kerner’s question (@20) of “Will a Muslim Legal Society have to admit Christians and gays…or feminists?” appears to be: Yes. Of course, I’m not a lawyer, and I couldn’t find Hastings’ policy on their site, so maybe the syllabus is mistaken. Still, that’s what I’m basing my conclusions on.

  • SAL

    FWS: “your error is to say that any of what you say is unique to pagans, christians, liberals or conservatives.”

    I made no such error and you’re being rather arrogant and deceptive to state that I did.

    This post refers to a college setting of the state-funded academia which is nearly uniformly liberal. That being the case I must portray this as one-sided because it is in the state-funded academic setting.

  • SAL

    FWS: “your error is to say that any of what you say is unique to pagans, christians, liberals or conservatives.”

    I made no such error and you’re being rather arrogant and deceptive to state that I did.

    This post refers to a college setting of the state-funded academia which is nearly uniformly liberal. That being the case I must portray this as one-sided because it is in the state-funded academic setting.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Peter (@19), you said, “The GLBT people would be would be loathe to welcome orthodox Christians to their group.” Would they? Did they tell you this? Do you know GLBT people at Hastings? Or is this just another one of those instances where you assume something and state it as fact? Not that I’d blame them if they did feel that way, given the way Christians often treat GLBT people as uniquely terrible sinners.

    “Sensible Christians, of course, would not to want to join such a group.” Of course. Wouldn’t want to be seen with sinners, after all. No, really, is it wrong for Christians to talk to and associate with GLBT people? Are you assuming that joining a group is tantamount to subscribing to its beliefs? It doesn’t appear that GLBT at Hastings share your assumption.

    “Christians including Todd stand around befuddled mouthing empty platitudes.” “Befuddled”? The only thing I’m befuddled by is your ability to make nonsense up and instantly believe it. Where, before this comment, did I express befuddlement? As for “empty platitudes”, hey, I’m not the one going on about “the politically correct phalanx” that “resents the very existence of orthodox Christian groups.”

    “While Christians have an obligation to be compassionate and gracious toward these people…” Though, it should be noted, not all of them appear to fulfill that obligation. Cough.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Peter (@19), you said, “The GLBT people would be would be loathe to welcome orthodox Christians to their group.” Would they? Did they tell you this? Do you know GLBT people at Hastings? Or is this just another one of those instances where you assume something and state it as fact? Not that I’d blame them if they did feel that way, given the way Christians often treat GLBT people as uniquely terrible sinners.

    “Sensible Christians, of course, would not to want to join such a group.” Of course. Wouldn’t want to be seen with sinners, after all. No, really, is it wrong for Christians to talk to and associate with GLBT people? Are you assuming that joining a group is tantamount to subscribing to its beliefs? It doesn’t appear that GLBT at Hastings share your assumption.

    “Christians including Todd stand around befuddled mouthing empty platitudes.” “Befuddled”? The only thing I’m befuddled by is your ability to make nonsense up and instantly believe it. Where, before this comment, did I express befuddlement? As for “empty platitudes”, hey, I’m not the one going on about “the politically correct phalanx” that “resents the very existence of orthodox Christian groups.”

    “While Christians have an obligation to be compassionate and gracious toward these people…” Though, it should be noted, not all of them appear to fulfill that obligation. Cough.

  • Joe

    tODD – You are correct, it is an all comers policy that requires any group to admit any student. Word of caution re: the syllabus. Its not part of the opinion, can’t be cited and is written by an editor – not the court.

    Also, it should be noted that Hastings let the CLS use meeting rooms, post information on campus bulletin boards, hold lectures on campus and generally do anything an RSO could do except get funding.

  • Joe

    tODD – You are correct, it is an all comers policy that requires any group to admit any student. Word of caution re: the syllabus. Its not part of the opinion, can’t be cited and is written by an editor – not the court.

    Also, it should be noted that Hastings let the CLS use meeting rooms, post information on campus bulletin boards, hold lectures on campus and generally do anything an RSO could do except get funding.

  • SAL

    TODD “So, yes, don’t take money from groups you disagree with. And/or don’t seek to be officially recognized by groups you disagree with. And/or don’t attend universities with policies you disagree with.”

    I understand your sentiment, but this is a government-run university, it’s constitutionally problematic to suggest they should be permitted to fund some religious or political groups and not others whatever the stipulations.

  • SAL

    TODD “So, yes, don’t take money from groups you disagree with. And/or don’t seek to be officially recognized by groups you disagree with. And/or don’t attend universities with policies you disagree with.”

    I understand your sentiment, but this is a government-run university, it’s constitutionally problematic to suggest they should be permitted to fund some religious or political groups and not others whatever the stipulations.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    SAL (@25), no, it’s not “constitutionally problematic” because their decision to fund or not was not based on the religious or political nature of the group at all. It was based on their adherence to a pre-existing policy on recognized student groups. Had the CLS adhered to that policy, Hastings would have been required to fund them.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    SAL (@25), no, it’s not “constitutionally problematic” because their decision to fund or not was not based on the religious or political nature of the group at all. It was based on their adherence to a pre-existing policy on recognized student groups. Had the CLS adhered to that policy, Hastings would have been required to fund them.

  • Peter Leavitt

    Todd, at 21, on the “all comers” issue Justice Alito in his dissent skewers its substance as follows:

    In response to the argument that the accept-all-comers-policy would permit a small and unpopular group to be taken over by students who wish to silence its message, the Court states that the policy would permit a registered group to impose membership requirements “designed to ensure that students join because of their commitment to a group’s vitality, not its demise.” … With this concession, the Court tacitly recognizes that Hastings does not really have an accept-all-comers policy—it has an accept-some-dissident-comers policy—and the line between members who merely seek to change a group’s message (who apparently must be admitted) and those who seek a group’s “demise” (who may be kept out) is hopelessly vague.”

    Todd, at 23: Where, before this comment, did I express befuddlement?

    Well, at 18, you remarked Remember back when Christians used to rejoice because they had been counted worthy of suffering disgrace for the Name? Yeah, those were the days.

    So, in the face of a militant gay legal attack on the right of the Christian Legal society at the Hastings College of Law to reject committed gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered radicals, you wish to stand by and
    talk of Christians gladly and idly suffering disgrace, as if the Christianity that effectively displaced the paganism of the ancient world
    lacks the strength and will to defend its position. Frankly, that’s the sort of Christian defeatism that at present allows the gay militants and secular modernists to dominate the heights of the contemporary West.

    You and your Christian liberal cohorts indeed stand by befuddled mouthing empty platitudes and hurling assorted anathema at Christian conservatives.

  • Peter Leavitt

    Todd, at 21, on the “all comers” issue Justice Alito in his dissent skewers its substance as follows:

    In response to the argument that the accept-all-comers-policy would permit a small and unpopular group to be taken over by students who wish to silence its message, the Court states that the policy would permit a registered group to impose membership requirements “designed to ensure that students join because of their commitment to a group’s vitality, not its demise.” … With this concession, the Court tacitly recognizes that Hastings does not really have an accept-all-comers policy—it has an accept-some-dissident-comers policy—and the line between members who merely seek to change a group’s message (who apparently must be admitted) and those who seek a group’s “demise” (who may be kept out) is hopelessly vague.”

    Todd, at 23: Where, before this comment, did I express befuddlement?

    Well, at 18, you remarked Remember back when Christians used to rejoice because they had been counted worthy of suffering disgrace for the Name? Yeah, those were the days.

    So, in the face of a militant gay legal attack on the right of the Christian Legal society at the Hastings College of Law to reject committed gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered radicals, you wish to stand by and
    talk of Christians gladly and idly suffering disgrace, as if the Christianity that effectively displaced the paganism of the ancient world
    lacks the strength and will to defend its position. Frankly, that’s the sort of Christian defeatism that at present allows the gay militants and secular modernists to dominate the heights of the contemporary West.

    You and your Christian liberal cohorts indeed stand by befuddled mouthing empty platitudes and hurling assorted anathema at Christian conservatives.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Peter (@27), ah, I see the problem now. What you mistook for “befuddlement” was actually my making a rhetorical point by referring to a Bible passage. Perhaps you were the befuddled one?

    Anyhow, the main threat to Christianity today (at least in America) isn’t from “militant gays” or whatever bugaboo may be conjured up by culture warriors — it is, as always, from inside Christianity itself, as Christians put aside humbly trusting in God and instead come to rely on political power and influence. In short, culture warriors are part of the problem, not part of the solution.

    The Bible is full of examples of culture warriors that expected Jesus to set up an earthly kingdom and fight the evil “others”. But they do not receive Jesus’ praise, and in the end, they were sorely disappointed.

    And you may, as is your wont, grasp at any number of perjorative straws and attempt to throw them at me to see if any stick. I don’t care. But I take comfort in the fact that the godly men of the Bible didn’t worry about the powers of this world. They weren’t concerned with “strength” as the world judges it, but took comfort in the strength that only God provides. They were not concerned with the cultural battles for the “heights” of this world, they were concerned with the spiritual battles.

    Myself, I take as an example Daniel the prophet, though I can only pray to live life as he did. He didn’t go to his death whining about how unfair everything was, about how he was being singled out for being a true believer. He didn’t attempt to battle the authorities that did him wrong. No, he trusted in his God, even as he was lead to his death. And, what do you know, his God came through, which is more than you can say about the god of the culture warriors who willed him dead.

    If you understand Christianity, you will know that there is no such thing as “Christian defeatism”, because the battle has already been won by Jesus. A Christian is only defeated if he gives up his faith and relies on his own strength.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Peter (@27), ah, I see the problem now. What you mistook for “befuddlement” was actually my making a rhetorical point by referring to a Bible passage. Perhaps you were the befuddled one?

    Anyhow, the main threat to Christianity today (at least in America) isn’t from “militant gays” or whatever bugaboo may be conjured up by culture warriors — it is, as always, from inside Christianity itself, as Christians put aside humbly trusting in God and instead come to rely on political power and influence. In short, culture warriors are part of the problem, not part of the solution.

    The Bible is full of examples of culture warriors that expected Jesus to set up an earthly kingdom and fight the evil “others”. But they do not receive Jesus’ praise, and in the end, they were sorely disappointed.

    And you may, as is your wont, grasp at any number of perjorative straws and attempt to throw them at me to see if any stick. I don’t care. But I take comfort in the fact that the godly men of the Bible didn’t worry about the powers of this world. They weren’t concerned with “strength” as the world judges it, but took comfort in the strength that only God provides. They were not concerned with the cultural battles for the “heights” of this world, they were concerned with the spiritual battles.

    Myself, I take as an example Daniel the prophet, though I can only pray to live life as he did. He didn’t go to his death whining about how unfair everything was, about how he was being singled out for being a true believer. He didn’t attempt to battle the authorities that did him wrong. No, he trusted in his God, even as he was lead to his death. And, what do you know, his God came through, which is more than you can say about the god of the culture warriors who willed him dead.

    If you understand Christianity, you will know that there is no such thing as “Christian defeatism”, because the battle has already been won by Jesus. A Christian is only defeated if he gives up his faith and relies on his own strength.

  • SAL

    #26 “no, it’s not “constitutionally problematic” because their decision to fund or not was not based on the religious or political nature of the group at all.”

    Are you suggesting the government can prefer some religious groups (as a whole) over others if they can determine a non-religious criteria to discriminate between them?

    If so I think your statement is a bit troubling. It suggests religious discrimination is fine as long as a government is clever enough.

  • SAL

    #26 “no, it’s not “constitutionally problematic” because their decision to fund or not was not based on the religious or political nature of the group at all.”

    Are you suggesting the government can prefer some religious groups (as a whole) over others if they can determine a non-religious criteria to discriminate between them?

    If so I think your statement is a bit troubling. It suggests religious discrimination is fine as long as a government is clever enough.

  • Peter Leavitt

    Todd, I quite understand that Christ hardly sought an earthly kingdom. Yet, Christians are faced with many real opponents including the gay militants. The Hastings College of Law Christian Legal Society students stood up to a dubious policy that sought to allow GLBT radicals membership in their orthodox Christian organization.

    Your exemplar, Daniel, actually stood up to Nebubuchadnezzar with great courage and suffered death. Refusing to do wrong, especially under threat takes tremendous courage. In their own way the Hastings College Law students stood up to college authority and suffered defeat. That’s better than your easy prattling about Christians suffering disgrace, which in a modern context costs little or nothing.

    The argument that Christ has already won the battle and Christians have no need to manfully stand up to their militant opponents is absurd. Christ and his greatest followers for millennia have fought the cultured and Pharasaic despisers of His message.

    Christians of deep faith, like the Hastings College of Law students, need to stand up and manfully fight for what they believe.

  • Peter Leavitt

    Todd, I quite understand that Christ hardly sought an earthly kingdom. Yet, Christians are faced with many real opponents including the gay militants. The Hastings College of Law Christian Legal Society students stood up to a dubious policy that sought to allow GLBT radicals membership in their orthodox Christian organization.

    Your exemplar, Daniel, actually stood up to Nebubuchadnezzar with great courage and suffered death. Refusing to do wrong, especially under threat takes tremendous courage. In their own way the Hastings College Law students stood up to college authority and suffered defeat. That’s better than your easy prattling about Christians suffering disgrace, which in a modern context costs little or nothing.

    The argument that Christ has already won the battle and Christians have no need to manfully stand up to their militant opponents is absurd. Christ and his greatest followers for millennia have fought the cultured and Pharasaic despisers of His message.

    Christians of deep faith, like the Hastings College of Law students, need to stand up and manfully fight for what they believe.

  • DonS

    The problem with this case is that it was not well litigated. Arguments at the appellate level were directed to the fact that Hastings was not consistently enforcing the “All Comers” policy, but CLS had stipulated to the policy as fact at the trial level. This is the primary reason that CLS lost Kennedy’s vote, and thus the case.

    For Christian groups, the “all comers” policy is fine for attenders, but you really can’t have non-Christians taking leadership roles. Yet, this is what Hastings’ policy requires. So, essentially, the decision forces Christian groups off campus. While this may not seem like a big deal to many, with limited transportation and other facility alternatives, not being able to count on meeting on campus is a deterrent to having a successful on-campus club.

    While the funding is “public” in a sense, it really comes from mandatory student activity fees. These fees have grown over the years until they have come to be a significant amount out of a student’s limited budget — typically several hundred dollars per year. Yet only those groups that don’t really care about the ideology of their leadership can benefit from those funds under the “all comers” policy.

    Here is a suggestion — ban student activity fees. Each public university can then rent out meeting rooms for a fee t whatever student organization wants to pay the fee. If the students are not being reamed for student activity fees, they should have some money to pay dues to the group so it can pay the rental fee. At least that way, everything is fair and the university can stay out of the viewpoint discrimination business.

  • DonS

    The problem with this case is that it was not well litigated. Arguments at the appellate level were directed to the fact that Hastings was not consistently enforcing the “All Comers” policy, but CLS had stipulated to the policy as fact at the trial level. This is the primary reason that CLS lost Kennedy’s vote, and thus the case.

    For Christian groups, the “all comers” policy is fine for attenders, but you really can’t have non-Christians taking leadership roles. Yet, this is what Hastings’ policy requires. So, essentially, the decision forces Christian groups off campus. While this may not seem like a big deal to many, with limited transportation and other facility alternatives, not being able to count on meeting on campus is a deterrent to having a successful on-campus club.

    While the funding is “public” in a sense, it really comes from mandatory student activity fees. These fees have grown over the years until they have come to be a significant amount out of a student’s limited budget — typically several hundred dollars per year. Yet only those groups that don’t really care about the ideology of their leadership can benefit from those funds under the “all comers” policy.

    Here is a suggestion — ban student activity fees. Each public university can then rent out meeting rooms for a fee t whatever student organization wants to pay the fee. If the students are not being reamed for student activity fees, they should have some money to pay dues to the group so it can pay the rental fee. At least that way, everything is fair and the university can stay out of the viewpoint discrimination business.

  • Peter Leavitt

    Don, according to Hadley Arkes, the Christian Legal Society case was argued very well at the Supreme Court level by Michael Mc Connell, a former federal circuit court judge and highly respected constitutional lawyer and legal scholar. He is presently head of the Constitutional Law Center at Stanford.

  • Peter Leavitt

    Don, according to Hadley Arkes, the Christian Legal Society case was argued very well at the Supreme Court level by Michael Mc Connell, a former federal circuit court judge and highly respected constitutional lawyer and legal scholar. He is presently head of the Constitutional Law Center at Stanford.

  • Joe

    Peter – Don’s point was that it was badly litigated at the trial court level. The stipulation they made that the all-comers policy was consistently enforced was made at the trial court level and that stipulation is why they lost the case. McConnell is a great appellate lawyer but there is nothing you can do to change that stipulation once you are on appeal. McConnell was arguing with out the benefit of the strongest argument. Indeed, it the policy was not uniformly enforced, then I would side with the CLS and claim it was discriminatory. But accepting that stipulation as part of the undisputed factual record (as an appellate court must) this is a fairly easy case. The dissent (who is full of jurists that I generally agree with) seems to try to ignore the stipulation, which is just not proper.

    Don said “So, essentially, the decision forces Christian groups off campus.” Don, based on the facts recited in the opinion, that is just not accurate. In fact, Hastings allowed the CLS to use meeting rooms, hold public lectures and debates, advertise and do anything else a RSO could do except get the money.

  • Joe

    Peter – Don’s point was that it was badly litigated at the trial court level. The stipulation they made that the all-comers policy was consistently enforced was made at the trial court level and that stipulation is why they lost the case. McConnell is a great appellate lawyer but there is nothing you can do to change that stipulation once you are on appeal. McConnell was arguing with out the benefit of the strongest argument. Indeed, it the policy was not uniformly enforced, then I would side with the CLS and claim it was discriminatory. But accepting that stipulation as part of the undisputed factual record (as an appellate court must) this is a fairly easy case. The dissent (who is full of jurists that I generally agree with) seems to try to ignore the stipulation, which is just not proper.

    Don said “So, essentially, the decision forces Christian groups off campus.” Don, based on the facts recited in the opinion, that is just not accurate. In fact, Hastings allowed the CLS to use meeting rooms, hold public lectures and debates, advertise and do anything else a RSO could do except get the money.

  • sg

    The problem with Christians separating from the world is that they quickly become so prosperous that the world follows them.

    The world always wants to tax prosperity for, uh, other ends.

  • sg

    The problem with Christians separating from the world is that they quickly become so prosperous that the world follows them.

    The world always wants to tax prosperity for, uh, other ends.

  • DonS

    Joe @ 33: Thanks for clarifying my point with Peter. Yes, Peter, I was not saying that the case was poorly argued at the appellate level, but rather that the factual stipulation was unfortunate.

    Joe, I understand that, apparently, the CLS was still allowed to meet on campus, but officially that was not policy. Unrecognized groups are not guaranteed on-campus meeting space, and the decision does not require schools to accommodate unrecognized groups on campus. Nor are they guaranteed access to offical campus communication systems, as are recognized groups, such as bulletin boards and student email blast lists. So the privilege CLS apparently enjoyed could be revoked at any time, or not included in another school’s “all comers” policy.

  • DonS

    Joe @ 33: Thanks for clarifying my point with Peter. Yes, Peter, I was not saying that the case was poorly argued at the appellate level, but rather that the factual stipulation was unfortunate.

    Joe, I understand that, apparently, the CLS was still allowed to meet on campus, but officially that was not policy. Unrecognized groups are not guaranteed on-campus meeting space, and the decision does not require schools to accommodate unrecognized groups on campus. Nor are they guaranteed access to offical campus communication systems, as are recognized groups, such as bulletin boards and student email blast lists. So the privilege CLS apparently enjoyed could be revoked at any time, or not included in another school’s “all comers” policy.

  • Peter Leavitt

    Thanks, Joe. That makes sense. I understand the case was also remanded back to the circuit court to determine whether Hastings applied the all-comers rule selectively against CLS, while leaving other students groups (like La Raza, or Muslim student groups) to discriminate. Judging from Justice Scalia’s dissent, there is plenty of such evidence.

    McConnell has stated that he intends to rigorously continue to pursue this case as soon as possible at the appellate level. Michael McConnell is both a devout Christian and a distinguished lawyer.
    He for one is a Christian that is appalled that a group such as the Christian legal Society is refused official recognition as a group in a California university well known for its radical left groups.

    Justice Alito’s opinion is well worth reading. He is eloquent in stating that this decision is a defeat for the fundamental right of association and a victory for the forces of political correctness that essentially deny First Amendment rights. Christians would do well to be rather concerned about this issue.

  • Peter Leavitt

    Thanks, Joe. That makes sense. I understand the case was also remanded back to the circuit court to determine whether Hastings applied the all-comers rule selectively against CLS, while leaving other students groups (like La Raza, or Muslim student groups) to discriminate. Judging from Justice Scalia’s dissent, there is plenty of such evidence.

    McConnell has stated that he intends to rigorously continue to pursue this case as soon as possible at the appellate level. Michael McConnell is both a devout Christian and a distinguished lawyer.
    He for one is a Christian that is appalled that a group such as the Christian legal Society is refused official recognition as a group in a California university well known for its radical left groups.

    Justice Alito’s opinion is well worth reading. He is eloquent in stating that this decision is a defeat for the fundamental right of association and a victory for the forces of political correctness that essentially deny First Amendment rights. Christians would do well to be rather concerned about this issue.

  • –helen

    I was wondering when someone would mention the fact that, while being denied funding for their group, the Christians are nevertheless being asked to support other groups they would not support if they had a choice.
    I agree, stop collecting “student activity fees” except for items which benefit all students.

  • –helen

    I was wondering when someone would mention the fact that, while being denied funding for their group, the Christians are nevertheless being asked to support other groups they would not support if they had a choice.
    I agree, stop collecting “student activity fees” except for items which benefit all students.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X