Posted on 06/28/2010 12:26:32 PM PDT by Nachum
A university can legally deny recognition to a Christian student group that bars gays and nonbelievers, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Monday in a case that pitted anti-discrimination principles against religious freedom.
Such official recognition qualifies campus groups for funding and other benefits.
By a 5-4 vote, the justices upheld a U.S. appeals court ruling in favor of the University of California's Hastings College of the Law. It denied recognition to the group because of a school policy that membership should be open to all.
The high court's ruling was a defeat for the Christian Legal Society. It argued the U.S. Constitution does not allow a school to deny recognition to a religious student group which insists its members agree with its core views.
(Excerpt) Read more at reuters.com ...
Turn it around. Straights need to invade gay groups.
Congressional black caucus need to have some milk in it.
This is incomprehensible.
conservatives should join those muslim, african-american, and lesbian groups, then vote accordingly there. should be fun..for example, Schools Muslim Student Group (infiltrated by conservatives) issues strong condemdation of Hamas and supports jewish issues..
Lesbian group would send all its money to pro-life ads.
(This tactic is what leftists will surely do)
We ought to also invade Dhimmirat primaries as well..
Another liberal attack on Constitutional freedom.
This is part of the moral decay of our nation, goes along with destroying the family as we know it. It will work to a point, but only to a point. One mocks God only so long and then retribution settles in, one way or another.
Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito dissented.
Off hand, I would say that commercial agreements (i.e. school policy obedience) are trumped by taxpayer monies to that school, which would require all said school policies obey Constitutional protections or be vitiated.
Of course, if the Constitution itself is then trumped by 14th Amendment denial of rights in favor of corporate privileges, the the fact that the school is incorporated would allow 14th Amendment restrictions based on Generally-Acknowledged-As-Allowable corporate denial of rights.
And as everyone knows, no rights stand against the special privileges accorded to gays.
At least the judges I respect stood strong.
1. Christians and Christian groups should welcome sinners, even homosexuals. 2. Christians should not in any way condone homosexual behavior any more than they should condone murder or theft, but they should reach out to those tempted in the direction of homosexuality, just as they reach out to those tempted toward adultery,
It does not stop them from addresses the issue of homosexuality as sin. Who knows maybe they can help some of them who are gay to go straight or at least not act on their homosexuality.
The problem with that is that most of the groups that will be affected by this -- Christians, conservatives, etc. -- are actually tolerant of others. The homosexual group on the other side of this case wanted membership only to be able to destroy the Christian organization from within because of the homosexual group's absolute intolerance of those who do not conform to their viewpoint.
Additionally, Christians have an obligation to reach out to others and share the gospel of Christ with the lost, including those who are trapped in sexual immorality like homosexual behavior. This acts as an immediate check on the impulse to retaliate against infiltrators. On the other hand, the group-mob mentality that infects the left has no problem against vicious retaliation against non-conformists.
Really, this one is in God's hands. OTOH, I'd prefer to be on God's side.
No, it makes fine logical sense. Remove emotional reactions and look at the facts.
This is a STATE institution, a college in this case. The college takes tax money from the taxpayers, without regard to their race, creed, sexual orientation, religon or any other standard. Thus, EVERYONE is equal under the eye's of the state.
You are asking the state, to recognize a group that limit's it's membership to a select few (ok, most eveyone - but NOT everyone). This is a double-standard.
Thus, it makes perfect sense. No state instutution should advocate any particular religon or sexual identification - if it takes funds from the public at large. Now, if you have a private college or institution (Church seminary, Christian college, Boy Scouts) - then you are free to associate as you wish). But when you forcibly take money from the public - you must make yourself absolutely neutral when dealing with the public. I would be interested in what groups this college currently recognizes, and see if this level of standards is consistent across each group.
But what about when the gays join and get offended by the other members viewpoints? A university in Baltimore City actually shut down a fraternity for having a party theme that was considered insensitive to a certain group. At the same time the university shut down the fraternity for insensitive speech, they re-affirmed their commitment to protecting ‘free speech’.
I suppose.
About 30 guys from ROTC or a fraternity pledge class could completely invade and destroy any given liberal group.
Wasn’t Hilldale involved in a similar law suit and gave up federal funding to avoid the issue? I could be wrong.
I think Christians ARE free to stop donations to any university that fails to recognize their organization. Or they can move the organizations off campus and tell the university to —— off.
“”And it came to pass, that, as Jesus sat at meat in his house”
Bad analogy. A better analogy would be Caesar requiring the disciples to accept a practicing homosexual into the group of 12 or face eradication.
“A university can legally deny recognition to a Christian student group that bars gays and nonbelievers....”
.
Does this mean that the USSC has given themselves the moral authority to establish their own religion?
Does it also mean that a Jewish student group will have to accept Muslims as its members? And what about Muslim student groups — will they have to accept Christian and Jewish membership?
Congressional black caucus need to have some milk in it.
It doesn't work that way.
Trying to eliminate racism is racist. Trying to eliminate special treatment for homosexuals is homophobic. Trying to eliminate freedom of association for Christians is patriotic.
I sure hope Jesus comes back soon. I am really tired of the nightmare we're all having, and I'd appreciate it if he's come in and wake us up.
“But when you forcibly take money from the public - you must make yourself absolutely neutral when dealing with the public.”
There is a problem with your view here, you see they did not take “money” from the school, they only used a portion of the school grounds - posting notices, receiving office and meeting space.
With this ruling, the Boy Scouts can be kicked out of “public” office space because they do not accept gays as leaders.
I disagree because I do not think that just because you accept public money you must give up your 1st Amendment right to “free exercise thereof!” I think our courts have leaned too hard on the “establishment” portion of that amendment and completely IGNORED the “free exercise thereof” portion! I think this is a gross miscarriage of justice.
“About 30 guys from ROTC or a fraternity pledge class could completely invade and destroy any given liberal group.”
And a similar number of liberal students can join the Campus Pro Life Group and vote to change the mission of the Pro Life Group.
the problem is that many of these organisations, in order to hold meetings on the university grounds, they must be an accredited organisation. They don’t have a choice here, and this is a restriction of their 1st amendment rights.
If the school did not require ‘recognition’, what you said would make sense. However, private organisations are not given access to university facilities, (such as a room to meet in).
This is why this is a huge victory for the forces arrayed against Christian campus groups. now they have a choice. Abandon their witness, or get kicked out of club facilities.
Indeed. But ROTC and Fraternities are pre-organized.
Freedom of association includes freedom of disassociation to have any meaning.
Let it descend into chaos.
Which will be the first thing that happens.
The universities will bar prolife clubs based on this. Instantaneously.
And then Jesus and/or his disciples would cast the demons out of them! Jesus 1, Caesar 0.
This should be fair warning to everyone who things MacDonald v. Chicago was a victory. America is “one conservative heartbeat away” from having a liberal Supreme Court that would have gutted our gun rights. And the moment liberals dominate, you can bet they will overturn MacDonald. And a host of other civil rights, on behalf of their leftist religion.
This cannot be addressed in elections, because even a Republican president and senate can make a mistake and accidentally appoint a liberal Supreme Court justice. It has happened before, to our detriment.
Anthony Kennedy, who joined with the liberals on this issue, was appointed by Ronald Reagan. The most liberal justice, John Paul Stevens, just retiring, was appointed by Gerald Ford.
The liberals do not make such mistakes. When they appoint a liberal justice, they are hardcore liberal, and never vote conservatively, or with regard to original intent.
But the way to solve this problem is with a constitutional convention, with the individual States reaffirming what is *not* federal authority, and what is reserved for the States, and for the people. Such a convention can sweep away a hundred years or more of efforts and judicial precedent that undermine our rights and liberties.
Yet another reason for the States to have a constitutional convention.
Asian Jewish Lesbian Bowhunters, sign me up!
Sorry, I was unclear.
When a STATE ran organization forcibly takes money from the taxpayers - the STATE ran institution has a duty to make sure that it provides services to groups that do not prohibit any taxpayers from joining. Such as the KKK, Black Panthers, Neo-Nazi Party - ect.
The Young Democrats/Republicans are two such groups that ANYONE can join (whether you would want to sully your conscious and reputation by attending a Young Democrats meetins is your decision).
However, when a group such as the Boy Scouts or a Christian organization does this - they are excluding taxpayers; and thus are themselves excluded from taxpayer sponsored assets.
Homosexuality is a behavior. It is also a mental disorder. What it is not, is an identity.
We need, for example, straights going into gay clubs and saying that their feelings must be heard and recognized.
The same freedom that gives each group the right to define who its members are gives those granting aid and support the freedom to decide who is elligible to receive it. The SCOTUS got this one right.
The same freedom that gives each group the right to define who its members are gives those granting aid and support the freedom to decide who is elligible to receive it. The SCOTUS got this one right.
The same freedom that gives each group the right to define who its members are gives those granting aid and support the freedom to decide who is elligible to receive it. The SCOTUS got this one right.
So, using this logic - the school would have to entertain any group of crackpots that has a crowd. We could have the Neo-Nazi's holding "How to torture a Jew" meetings, the Black Panthers, KKK or any group using taxpayer paid property to spread and organize thier version of segregation, discrimination or abuse.
Anyone can join the Young Democrats or Young Republicans - whether you want to join or not is YOUR choice. They cannot prevent you from joining - thus because they allow any taxpayer to join their group; they can enjoy the benefits provided by the taxpayers. Same thing with a Chess Club, Karate Club, Bicycling club, or Poker Club.
If you opt to have a group that excludes a segment of society (no girls, no gays, no non-Christian); then your group does not serve the taxpayer's best interest. Do I like this law? Not particularily - personally I would have made a different decision, and would have offered them the use of my home .... but in the case of a taxpayer fianced building, they made the only decision they legally could.
Now if you are talking about witnessing to the lost, of course we must do that, but that does not excuse or even remotely approve the sinful behavior. If a homosexual wanted to join the Christian Legal Society and committed to obeying God's laws...then by all means accept him if the person abstains from the sinful behavior. But if a person openly and without remorse lives in defiant sin against the Word of God, then you should separate yourself from them until such time that the person reconciles themselves with God.
The university and the court were wrong, of course, but the Christian group was wrong too. As Mark wrote: “And it came to pass, that, as Jesus sat at meat in his house, many publicans and sinners sat also together with Jesus and his disciples: for there were many, and they followed him. And when the scribes and Pharisees saw him eat with publicans and sinners, they said unto his disciples, ‘How is it that he eateth and drinketh with publicans and sinners? When Jesus heard it, he saith unto them, They that are whole have no need of the physician, but they that are sick: I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.’”
1. Christians and Christian groups should welcome sinners, even homosexuals. 2. Christians should not in any way condone homosexual behavior any more than they should condone murder or theft, but they should reach out to those tempted in the direction of homosexuality, just as they reach out to those tempted toward adultery,
That’a ridiculous. I desire any and everyone to come to my church. I show kindness to any and everyone no matter what their persuasion or preference. However, in an expressly CHRISTIAN organization or fellowship, by it’s very nature one must profess to live by the precepts and principles upon which it is built.
Homosexuality — or those engaged in other lifestyles that are openly at odds with the Christian Scriptures — must then be excluded from membership in such an organization, and certainly from it’s membership.
As another poster suggested, it is now time for Christians to “invade” the recognized “homosexual” organizations on campus and “demand” membership. And for those of “majority” racial groups to attend “minority” organizations represented on campus and “demand” membership in their organizations. And when denied — Sue. Sue all the way to the Supreme Court. And keep suing. Clog the sorry, biased, worthless Federal Courts and FORCE them to face their hypocrisy if they won’t do anything else.
THEN — show it to the WORLD. MAKE IT PLAIN — they are hypocrites. They have the rights, YOU don’t. They make the rules for YOU, the rules DON’T apply to THEM. Make it CLEAR. Spread the word.
The difference is we don’t want to be in the gay groups, even to disrupt them. That’s not a conservative tactic. And besides, in this case, it would be opening yourself to potentially medically dangerous STDs and God knows what else.
Plus being around all that lisping and phony bitch talking would be unendurably brain-popping.
Oh, please, read the rest of your Bible. On second thought, read what you cut and pasted. He calls them to repent, to turn from their ways. He didn’t invite them into His home, He went to them and told them to stop sinning before something worse happened to them. He was in the face of sinners, every time, whether rich or poor, man or woman, normal or homosexual.
Wrong. The church was ordered and is still obligated to practice exclusion *from the church* of those who claim to be believers yet whose lives are marred by open sin:
1 Cor 5:11 “But now I have written to you not to keep company with anyone named a brother, who is sexually immoral, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or an extortioner—not even to eat with such a person.”
Now, a law school student organization is not a church, so the student organization cannot strictly claim it has lost anything with respect to the free exercise of religion. Any Christian students can remain practicing Christians who are free to attend church somewhere.
The real problem is one of dual vision. In the civil religion of modern liberalism, there really is no such thing as sexual immorality, and treating people differently based on such things really looks like bias to the adherents of that civil religion, in this case, the liberal drafters of the law school policy.
From a Christian perspective (and other religions as well), sexual immorality is a real quantity, and differences in treatment are not only logical and fair, but required by Scripture, and therefore not rooted in personal animus. Dismissal of those differences as if they were nothing is rightly seen as a direct attack on core tenets of the faith.
While common ground can be found on many basic issues (we may all agree that murder, theft, etc., are in some shared sense evil), there are other areas where the church should not be surprised to find some irreconcilable differences. These differences can be met with persuasion, combat, truce, retreat, etc.
In the case of the law school, reversing the field and engaging in open infiltration of other groups would be fun, but the Christian organization should instead probably opt for purity and forego the recognition and its benefits, seeking only facility use under fair terms. But what would be even better is to vote with one’s feet, to find law schools whose policies are more amenable to retaining a group’s identity-integrity, and spend one’s tuition money where Christians, as Christians, are welcome.
I guess the Nazis just got the “all clear” to join Jewish religious groups. Now can communist idiots join the Supreme Court?
I suppose the correct answer here depends upon the exact nature of the group and the nature of the welcome extended to gay members, as well as the intent of those gay “members”. My experience has been that we back too far away from gays, leaving them without the guidance that they need and unaware that they need that guidance. An uncompromisingly Christian but thoughtful and loving outreach would do more for them (and I suspect for us) than pure exclusion from our presence and from God’s Word. We should no more ignore open violations of this rule than we do any other rules that God commands us to follow, but neither should we ignore those in need of spiritual guidance merely because they are tempted in this direction.
The groups generally believe in ministry without counting openly unrepentant sinners as members. This position comports well with that passage.
Nobody says you have to fark with the gays....
No but you may be involuntarily exposed to bodily fluids.
Let them come in and evangelize them. Christians can now also flood gay groups. Go for it.
except for the fact that these are public universities. ;)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.