Supreme Court sharply divided on Christian student group case

Christian Science Monitor ^ | 4/19/2010 | Warren Richey

[markomalley]

A sharply divided US Supreme Court heard oral arguments on Monday in a case examining whether a California law school can refuse to officially recognize a Christian student group that requires its members to embrace biblical passages denouncing homosexuality.

Officials at the University of California’s Hastings College of Law in San Francisco said the group’s stance violates the school’s antidiscrimination policy – including bans on discrimination based on religious belief or sexual orientation.

[Buckeye McFrog]

WWWLD?

[Oldpuppymax]

The Supreme Court is ALWAYS divided on issue such as these. The 4 leftists will ignore the Constitution—as usual—and decide based upon their political agenda.

[SnakeDoctor]

So the school chose to not recognize a religious group because of the school’s policy against discriminating based on religion?

That’s pretty tortured logic ... even for a California law school.

SnakeDoc

[EagleUSA]

Gee, if group policies do not matter, then why can’t Russian soldiers join the U.S. Navy???

[Mrs. Don-o]

World Wide Wookiee Life Day?

[Clock King]

Justice Anthony Kennedy, who may wield the deciding vote in the case, suggested that the school’s policy is unnecessary. “Doesn’t this all just work out?” he asked.

Can't we all just,.. get along?

Justice Kennedy said that Democrats wouldn’t want to attend Republican Club meetings and serve as officers.

Yes they would, just to destroy the group. That's happened throughout human history.

[circlecity]

Looks like it will be up to Justice Kennedy to determine whether the “free exercise” clause of the first amendment exists anymore or whether it will be interpreted out of the constitution just as the “public use” clause was in the Kehlo decision.

[a fool in paradise]

a case examining whether a California law school can refuse to officially recognize a Christian student group that requires its members to embrace biblical passages denouncing homosexuality.

If someone wants to reject 3 of the 10 commandments, would the court still be hearing this case?

The answer depends on whether a religion is permitted to define what IS and IS NOT "sinful" in the eyes of the followers of that religion based on ancient texts, not contemporary cultural experiments.

[a fool in paradise]

As California is in no place to prohibit the free exercise thereof of religion, it isn’t their place to decide whether the State agrees with the standing of what IS or IS NOT a sin.

We are ALL sinners. But you cannot force political reeducation to declare something is no longer a sin because the STATE says so.

If non-followers of a faith are permitted to dictate to the followers what the beliefs now are, it would be like letting muslims or athesits become ordained ministers in a Christian church.

Muslims and atheists and agnostics and wandering Christians can all ENTER a church, but you have to be in agreement to lead it.

[Mrs. Don-o]

It seems to me that if the ruling is against CLS and in favor of an all-comers policy, it would be a single semester's work to invade, outnumber and destroy all interest-based student groups, like so

• Mob of People of Pallor invades the African-American Studies Forum and, upon achieving a majority, votes to disband the group
• Mob of checkers-players joins the campus' Chess Club and then votes to disband the club
• Mob of infidels joins the Muslim Students group, and then vote to disband
• Mob of antifeminists joins the Student Feminist Alliance group, and thens vote to disband
• Repeat 200 times, or as necessary.

Voila. No student group exists which has any right to associate using campus e-mail, campus bulletin-boards, or campus meeting rooms.

Not an enriching student experience, but at least everything would be equally uniform, mediocre, socially isolated and boring...

[a fool in paradise]

Michael Moore plotted a strategy to do the same to the NRA with thousands of libs paying in dues to become voting members...

[OldDeckHand]

Of course, this could cut both ways. Because of this policy, there would be nothing keeping the black student union from being overwhelmed by white kids, voting themselves into the union’s position of leadership. Christians could also do the same to the Jewish and Muslim campus groups, as well as the Homosexual groups. You could have white, male Christians as president of every student organization on campus. Has the school considered that?

[rmlew]

I am neither a lawyer nor judge and demand the right to sit on the Supreme Court.

[OB1kNOb]

I am neither a lawyer nor judge and demand the right to sit on the Supreme Court.

Sorry....you're over qualified. ;-)

[Above My Pay Grade]

>>>Hastings’ lawyer, former Solicitor General Gregory Garre, countered that the school’s policy requires every student organization to allow any student to become a voting member and potential leader. Even students who disagree with the fundamental goals and beliefs of a group must be allowed to join, vote, and potentially serve as a leader of the group, he said<<<

So, I suppose masses of Christian students could join the Gay and Lesbian organizations and outnumber the homosexuals. Then, they could change the focus of these organizations from promoting “gay rights” and the homosexual lifestyle, to a mission of converting homosexuals to heterosexuality and Christianity.

Of course, the homosexuals would freak out, if Christians were allowed to hi-jack their student groups, and rightfully so. So, why should those who oppose the teachings of Christianity be allowed to hi-jack Christian groups?

[Burkean]

Can’t they just say that the members must embrace the Bible as the Word of God? Why nitpick with this verse and that verse? Just embrace them all!