Court upholds CSU's refusal to fund Christian groups

San Francisco Chronicle ^ | 3/19/12 | Bob Egelko, Chronicle Staff Writer

[SmithL]

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday turned down an appeal from a Christian sorority and fraternity challenging California State University's refusal to provide funding and other campus benefits to student groups that exclude members of other religions.

CSU denies official recognition and funding to student organizations that discriminate on the basis of race, religion, gender, national origin and sexual orientation.

The Christian groups at San Diego State argued that the policy itself was discriminatory for two reasons: The ban on gender-based admissions doesn't apply to sororities and fraternities, and secular organizations are allowed to make viewpoint-based distinctions - an immigrants'-rights group, for example, can exclude opponents of immigrants' rights and still receive funding.

"The university did not tell the Democratic club it must be led by a Republican, or the vegetarian club it must be led by a meat-eater, but it did tell Christian groups that they must allow themselves to be led by atheists," David Cortman of the Alliance Defense Fund, a lawyer for the religious groups, said Monday.

As a result of the court ruling, he said, "the supposed marketplace of ideas at San Diego State University will remain a stronghold for censorship."

[SoldierDad]

So, if I, a white male, wish to join a fraternity for Black’s, the fraternity would have to accept my application? Not only that, but, they would not be able to engage in any untoward behavior towards me during the initiation period?? Yeah, I’ll hold my breath for that to happen.

[Fred Hayek]

Does CSU’s position also exclude groups associated with the “Religion of Peace” (Moon God Death Cult)?

[GeronL]

Student activity fees should be optional then.

[Westbrook]

So, can a Christian join the Moslem clubs on campus and preach Christ there?

I didn’t think so.

Hypocrites.

[muawiyah]

The court will continue to turn down appeals until the argument is changed to the one where you demonstrate that the state itself discriminates on the basis of preferring one type of speech over another (without reference to religion).

After all, the Constitution clearly provides that the State of California and its agencies have NO POWER to even determine what is or is not correct religious speech, or if it is religious speech at all.

The court has always ruled in favor of plaintiffs who argue that the state is making the distinction in violation of the Constitution.

There's another approach to this ~ eliminate the Student Funds operation at the state universities. There's no reason for them. Most of them involve little more than taking money from financially hard pressed students and giving it to elitist "clubs" where the dillittantes with money, boredom and nothing to do spend it on wasteful ideas.

[doc1019]

Which proves the point that it was done to challenge normal conventions. As a white person, would I want to join a black fraternity, if I were black, would I wan to join a white fraternity? So, if I’m an atheist, why would I want to join a Christian fraternity ... just to stir up crap. Can’t believe the SCOUS didn’t see through this scam.

[353FMG]

http://web.gbtv.com/media/video.jsp?content_id=20177695

[onedoug]

"Madness. Madness!" Bridge On The River Kwai