I believe that it is Hastings’ position that they would provide these same facilities and resources to all student groups, Christian and not, who agree to Hastings’ non-discrimination policy.
Let me amend that, based on my own long-ago student days. This equality would apply use of facilities for things like meetings and events. Meeting space at a college is virtually unlimited. Cash is another thing – there would normally be some kind of competitive grants program to distribute whatever money is available among groups that apply for it.
AFAIK, the fairness or lack thereof of Hastings’ student grants program is not at issue in this case, as it would only be open to officially recognized student groups. So if this Christian group wins their case on recognition, they may apply for money, and if they are turned down, be back in court next year over the fairness of these distribution policies.
Once again, as Bright N’ Shiny has illuminated, it is going to depend on what exactly the policy says, and how it is actually applied.
However, a better analogy would be Messianic Jews would have to be afforded officership in an atheist, Muslim, or Buddha clubs/organizations, if the latter wanted to be officialy recognized by the school and receive funds from the school.
The point Scalia and others were making is the rule will have the effect of some organizations making positions of leadership available to individuals whose views are entirely contrary to those of the club/organization.
The issue of whether Hastings policy is genuinely “all-comers” or just “no excluding members for the following list of reasons” appears to be one of the facts that is unclear in this case. I’ve looked and I’ve found contentions in both directions.
My belief is that Hastings has an obligation to provide support to any student organization, Christian or non-Christian, that complies with its policies and an obligation to deny support to any organization, Christian or non-Christian, that does not comply with its policies.
I don’t think anyone can argue that Hastings has generally refused to support Christian student groups. It supported the CLS before it adopted its no-gays policy.
Okay, I’ll concede that my hypothetical $25,000 limit is unlikely to pass a sincerity standard. And I’ll certainly agree there’s no reason to doubt the CLS’s beliefs are sincere.
But if sincerity is the key point, I’m sure I can come up with a hypothetical case essentially the same as the hypothetical example I gave except using a recognized religious belief.
For example, let’s say a fast food chain offers a special where you can get a large order of fired for the price of a small order if you also order a hamburger. A customer comes in and says that he just wants a large order of fries but he wants it for the price of a small order. The counter guy says he has to buy a hamburger to get that special. The guy says he’s a Hindu and it’s against his religion to buy a hamburger. So the restaurant can’t force him to violate his religious beliefs and has to give him the french fries special even though he isn’t buying a hamburger.
Now I see this as the same issue as CLS vs Martinez. Nobody is being told they cannot follow their religious beliefs. Nobody is being forced to buy a hamburger or to admit gay members to their organization. But they are being told that buying a hamburger and admitted gay members are conditions for receiving some benefit (extra french fries or college funding). If they choose not to comply with the condition, they don’t qualify for the benefit. Their reason for choosing not to comply is not germane.
Bump up – SCOTUS has decided.(PDF) 5-4, the “all-comers policy” is upheld. On remand, the lower court may look “if and to the extent it is preserved” into the issue of whether the policy is selectively enforced vis-a-vis specific groups.
I don’t know what Scalia was talking about in the OP, there must be more context to it. It sounds like he is referring to groups being* forced *to accept members who don’t share their beliefs, but I don’t know what he is referring to there. The problems in this area usually occur where there is public funding involved, perhaps the case in the college. It doesn’t sound like he’s talking about atheists being unable to study the Bible, but private groups placing restrictions on their membership. I’d like to find out more about public resources used by the organization in question.
**Moderator Note: ** I recognize that this could be construed as a zombie, but it has not been dormant very long and I do not see a lot of long-departed posters in it.
My understanding-
The whole case, which was decided yesterday 5-4 for the school, was whether a group that accepts school resources can determine the nature of its voting membership, the group being The Christian Legal Society & the school being Hastings. The CLS had a stipulation that gays were not eligible to be voting members. Hastings has a non-discrimination policy against gays and was withdrawing school resources from CLS as a result. CLS sued on free speech & freedom of association grounds & lost.
The thread title is a total red herring.
So what happens when the Gay Rights Legal Society has to deal with an influx of Christian Rightists applying for voting membership, the Jewish Legal Society with National Socialists applying, the Pacifist Legal Society with Nuke’Em Alls applying? It’s gonna be interesting!
I quoted Scalia in the OP: “To require this Christian society to allow atheists not just to join, but to conduct Bible classes, right? That’s crazy.” So I figure the thread title was factual. It was certainly more factual than some of the things Scalia was saying.
If it happens, these groups will have to make the same decision that the CLS will: do they want to preserve their exclusivity or their subsidy?