Hug of War.

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-30-2003
Hug of War.
5
Tue, 04-20-2010 - 1:45pm
The Supreme Court considers the risks and rewards of forced association



Today's oral argument tests whether a college anti-discrimination policy trumps a campus religious group's right to exclude members who are either gay or not Christian. Christian Legal Society—the student group bringing today's challenge against U.C. Hastings—is represented by Stanford Law School's Michael W. McConnell, a former federal appeals court judge, one of the most country's foremost thinkers on matters of church and state. In 2004, when it affiliated with the national CLS group, the U.C. Hastings branch changed its bylaws to require voting members and officers to sign a statement of faith that precludes "unrepentant participation in or advocacy of a sexually immoral lifestyle" and to pledge "to live their lives accordingly." Hastings advised CLS that because its ban on gay and nonbelieving leaders and officers violated the school's nondiscrimination policy, the group could still operate but would not be treated as one of about 70 registered student organizations, with access to school funding, facilities, e-mail, and bulletin boards. CLS sued, Hastings won in the lower federal court and again at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit.



Anne

I have no need for anger
With intimate strangers
And I got nothing to hide


- Amy Ray

I have no need for anger
With intimate strangers
And I got nothing to hide


- Amy Ray

iVillage Member
Registered: 04-18-2006
In reply to: zabugle
Tue, 04-20-2010 - 2:51pm

IMO, if you want to perks of being affiliated with the university you have to abide by their dictates.

This group has this ungrounded fear that rabid anti-Christians are plotting to take over the group eventually and they must have their line in the sand now. Same crazed thinking I see in the anti-gay marriage crowd.

Photobucket
My Two Monsters!

"Reality has a well known liberal bias" - Stephan Colbert

O Lord Lead me from the unreal to the real.
Lead me from the darkness to light.
Lead me from death to immortality.
May there be peace, peace, and perfect peace.
Brihadaranyaka Upanishads (1.3.28)
Photobucket
iVillage Member
Registered: 11-11-1999
In reply to: zabugle
Tue, 04-20-2010 - 6:03pm
What I find interesting about this is that they ignore divorce. The bible has about 10 times as much to say about divorce, including words from Jesus condemning it, yet this group and the churches are silent on that and yet vocal on homosexuality.

Interesting how easy it is to ignore that things that might potentially have an affect on the followers at some point, and how easy it is to condemn that which may never impact them.

dablacksox


Cynic: a blackguard whose faulty vision sees things as they are, not as they ought to be.---Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary.

dablacksox


Cynic: a blackguard whose faulty vision sees things as they are, not as they ought to be.---Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary.

iVillage Member
Registered: 11-20-2008
In reply to: zabugle
Wed, 04-21-2010 - 10:04am

Yes they do. Twice divorced Newt Gingrich wrote an piece about this club (siding with the clubs "right" to discriminate)

I don't know why the RR has embraced Gingrich as one of their darlings. According to biblical law he is an unrepentent adulterer.

Also, the club would still be allowed to meet on campus, they would just have to fund their own club. Don't know why they feel entitled to be susbsidized and be given special priveledges at the same time. This group also claims they are being "singled out". Are there are other clubs on campus that recieve funding that are allowed to discriminate ?




Edited 4/21/2010 10:06 am ET by gracehill2008
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-09-2001
In reply to: zabugle
Wed, 04-21-2010 - 1:10pm
IMO, if you want to perks of being affiliated with the university you have to abide by their dictates.



I agree. And they should get NO $$$ from the university. And I bet this is *really* what it is about. They want the $$$. But, like all other organizations at the trough of slurping up public money, or university money (and a university that is perhaps subject to non-discrimination requirements), then they have to abide by those non-discriminatory policies. Shrug. I see no reason why they should get university $$$ to perpetrate themselves and their group. They aren't denied their existence on campus, correct? Than I see no reason for their bellyaching. :\\ I think they want to get access to $$$ and that is *really* what this is all about. Eyeroll.



Blessings,

Gypsy

)O(



Photobucket



Strong like a mountain,

Flowing like a river."

~~Tai Chi Chih



Photobucket





Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket Photobucket



Mika Dog




"All things share the same breath;

the beast, the tree, the man.

The Air shares its spirit with

all the life it supports."

--Chief Seattle



"If there are no dogs in Heaven,

then when I die I want to go where they went."

~Will Rogers



"The greatness of a nation and its moral progress

can be judged by the way its animals are treated."

~~Mahatma Gandhi





Photobucket Photobucket






Blessings,

Gypsy

)O(



iVillage Member
Registered: 04-03-2003
In reply to: zabugle
Wed, 04-21-2010 - 2:18pm

It seems to me that this case is really asking the Supreme Court to decide whether it's acceptable to discriminate against homosexuals. It has nothing to do with the discrimination based upon beliefs involved in the freedom of association - clearly, that is allowed, as all universities have student associations based on political ideology, major courses of study, extracurricular activities, and so on. However, no schools (that I am aware of) countenance or fund New Black Panthers groups, or Aryan Nation groups, for example, which discriminate on the basis of personal characteristics, as the Christian Legal Society is asking for the right to do.

The matter is not as nuanced as it is being made out to be. That's deliberate obfuscation, IMO. It's fairly simple: should a school group receive funding while contravening school policy? The answer is, of course, no. What the CLS is really asking is, should discrimination based on personal characteristics be protected because it's being done in the name of religion? I hope the justices have the honour and integrity to give that the resounding NO it deserves.

DD