Indeed. The Christian fraternity and the other organizations mentioned in the Glen Beck article above receive student fee money and access to facilities. They can do whatever they want, but if they don’t comply with basic nondiscrimination policies, they need to do it with their own money, not the University’s.
For the record, I was an officer of an officially recognized chapter of a nominally Christian fraternity at a major state university. We didn’t officially discriminate against anyone*, but I can virtually guarantee the membership would have voted not to accept anyone who was openly gay. We had a couple of obvious-but-not-out gay members.
Here’s the thing, though: most of us who were around at that time are ashamed of that now. The chapter today has a half-dozen openly gay members, and I feel a lot better about writing them checks.
What’s stopping you from joining the gay christian club? You enjoy the same privileges as everyone else.
*we even had an official policy of recruiting as many racial minority members as possible because we were all disturbed by how white we were. For a couple of years I was the only active member who wasn’t a Caucasian.
Sorry, I lol’d. I’m a sinner!
Something like, “I was talking to a group of the smartest people on the planet and they fully support your actions with a few even going as far as to say it would make them extremely proud as a parent to have a daughter such as you. Well, all except for this guy Geepers, who thinks you’ll burn in hell.”
It’s an attack on belief in a diety (which over 90% of Americans STILL believe in) and basic moral principles that students should abide by. Christianity is a belief in a diety, and therefore is part of the attack.
No one has demonstrated how students are better off without the banner up there. How does this improve this atheist’s life? Not a single iota.
See, I wasn’t ignoring your question.
Underline added. I love this phrasing.
So if public monies are involved, your atheist group MUST accept sex offenders into the group. Also people who practice incest, bestiality and other forms of sexual immorality. You probably wouldn’t like that, huh?
Should ? Sez who ?
It does, actually. By making apparent to them that they don’t *have *to take your religious hegemonic crap and fucking like it.
I’m glad I wasn’t the only one to notice that.
Of course you were, as proven by the fact that you only now even attempted to answer it.
Bullshit. I know you evidently want to claim you’re horribly persecuted, but no. Saying that a public school can’t endorse Christianity is not an “attack on belief” in anything, it’s saying you can’t use a public institution to proclaim that belief as its official policy. Further, you are again displaying one of your argument’s pathologies; even now you claim that it simply applied to all deistic religions, and yet you claim it’s an attack on Christianity in specific, and not Judaism, Islam, etc…
And as pointed out to you multiple times and ignored by you, multiple times, the fundamental ‘moral message’ remains 100% unchanged if you simply remove the Christian invocation from the thing. That proves that your concern is not, at all, morality, but forcing Christianity upon school students who do not consent.
Perhaps you can cite a constitutional provision, statute, ordinance or regulation which prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex offender status, incest or bestiality.
To stretch your argument to the breaking point, yes they would have to,* if that is what the anti-discrimination laws required*.
But, that is getting far off the mark here. The banner controversy was never about discrimination.
Who. Gives. A. Crap.
The only thing that matters in chess club is paying your dues, playing chess, and not talking about chess club.
What fellow chess players do outside of the club is entirely immaterial, both to me and to campus authorities. If Charlie Manson wants to play chess with me, why should I refuse ? Until he starts eating the rooks, I mean ?
I would think that, if a gay man applied to be a member of your church, that he should be accepted. After all, he needs savin’, don’t he? 
If we were all sinless and perfect, we wouldn’t need a savior.
Your not supposed to judge. God does that.
You’re 225 years too late, then. This great nation decided that establishing a government-sanctioned system to exercise belief in said diety was something we weren’t interested in doing, so today the banner comes down, and that’s just OK. There’s no attack, just moving to a more appropriate venue, i.e., church, home, and Christian-themed media.
Heck, 90% of Americans like their Pizza, but I can’t see anyone wanting to put a Papa John’s in the local high school.
Heck, I’d welcome them. The more the merrier. Sheep-fuckers? Sure. Father-rapers? Of course.
But we don’t want the Irish!
For the record, it is often quite legal to discriminate against sex offenders; my church has such a policy, and we’ve had to use it more than once, unfortunately. The most prominent offender was indeed an attorney; were we violating any laws, I can assure your our respective butts would be in appropriate slings.
What the hell does this have to do with the banner?
The banner was straight.
I think it’s fine in some circumstances. A private group can do whatever it wants, but a group that receives government money has to follow the government’s rules against discrimination and a group that is affiliated with a university has to abide by that university’s policies.
Tough shit. The “problem” is not Christian groups being forced to accept gays, it’s the backward and disgusting views of some (not all) Christians. Fortunately those views are quickly being tossed into the dustbin of history. It won’t be long before discriminating against gays is seen as very similar to discriminating against black people- something that was also common not very long ago and was often justified Biblically.
They do. But they don’t have a right to government funding or affiliation with a university. If they want those things, they have to follow the same rules as everybody else.
No. But they can’t formally exclude people based on their sexuality.
Are they a protected class?
No, it isn’t. It is an “attack” on a public school hanging a banner with an explicitly Christan message.
Nobody has to do that and you didn’t ask. In a case like this one, at least, the law doesn’t require that a plaintiff demonstrate why we’re better off when the principles expressed in the Constitution are followed or that a particular action is good or bad. The question is what the law says. And it’s kind of taken for granted that that’s a good thing. We’re all better off when the government doesn’t any religion its official imprimatur. That’s why the First Amendment includes language about the government establishing religion.
No, you just dragged it out for five pages even though you should’ve explained it in your OP. Thank you for addressing it at long last.
If those were the groups the government mandates that I not discriminate against, then yes. In reality, I’m pretty sure none of those are protected classes, so I think I could exclude them without a problem.
Making Christian groups accept gays (if they take government funding or have a university affiliation) is like making atheist groups accept incestuous pedophile bestiality practicing Charles Manson Community Nazis. Also every Christian agrees that gay sex is sinful and there are no doctrinal disputes whatsoever about the Biblical view on this subject or how Christians should handle the topic of homosexuality or gay marriage or adoption.
Frankly, I find the use of foul profane language as a poor crutch to make one appear superior in arguments. I have yet to meet one atheist that didn’t have a foul tongue. Doesn’t speak well of your character.
And I never claimed that the banner was a horrible great persecution. I claimed that it was disgusting to reward someone for taking away the rights of everyone else who enjoyed the banner. A banner is not a creed to follow Christianity. It is a message, and no different than if I prayed aloud in a classroom. You have the right to ignore it.
I find this an even more blatant violation of Christian rights. Digusting to say the least.