Roberts, Scalia, Alito and Thomas, unsurprisingly, were the dissenters.
Incidentally, the Court also rejected an appeal by the Vatican in which the Vatican claimed that it is immune to civil lawsuits over sex abuse claims. This allows lawsuits directly againsty the Vatican to go forward.
A good day for the Court today. The gun decision has its own thread, but I think these are two pretty significant developments too.
This just makes sense - I’d have a problem if the University was denying them the right to form a society unless they admitted everyone, but instead they are simply denying University recognition. Part of the purpose of Law School is to be exposed to countering viewpoints. Hell I even joined the Federalists.
If the members of the CLS don’t want to have to be exposed to homos, they still have that right. They just can’t tar the law school with their policies.
I agree with the dissent. If the club was one that had nothing to do with religion, say a Chess Club, then it would be fine to impose a policy of non-discrimination based on religion or sexual orientation.
But if the club itself is religious in nature, the state is stifling the protected speech of that group by requiring it to accept members which are openly hostile to the view that it is trying to promote.
With this policy, what is to stop the reverse from happening? What if the OP started a campus atheist organization and I recruited members from local churches to join the group and conduct a hostile takeover? No group could ever gather for a purpose unless it had a state stamp of approval: the 1st amendment in reverse.
But that’s not what’s happening here. The state’s not requiring groups to accept such members; it’s just saying universities don’t have to recognize groups that don’t.
It looks to me like freedom all around: religious (and other) groups are free to deny membership to people who don’t accept their core beliefs or live by their rules (as they should be); and the universities are free to recognize or not recognize such groups (as they should be).
The whole booga-booga argument of “hostile takeovers” and UTR coups of these organizations has always been remarkably specious. If they want to enact these prohibitions to preserve their “core values” or “mission statement” or whatever, then grow a pair and let the strength and unity of its membership dictate the future of the group instead of applying these exclusionary tactics.
But the university is a public university: an arm of the state. And by denying recognition to a group based on religious beliefs (or more accurately, the ability to promote those beliefs by excluding those who may be hostile to its message), it is putting such a group at a disadvantage: a 1st amendment no-no
Nope. Declining to bestow a benefit is not equivalent to imposing a disadvantage (e.g. it doesn’t violate the First Amendment for the government to not give you a grant to pay your printing expenses).
Apparently, in the decision, the Court identified gay people as a class, which they had heretofore managed to avoid doing. This could be significant for other cases. Counsel for the plaintiffs in the Proposition 8 case, Perry v. Schwarzenegger, have sent a letter to the judge in the case to point this out, and I’m sure it will be noted in arguments in the inevitable appeal.
I disagree with your characterization, or what you say the dissent characterizes, of this as an example of requiring a group to accept members which are openly hostile to the view the group is advocating. The CLS does not have to engage in this at all. They are not required to allow those with an opposing point of view to join their organization. They can still discriminate. However, they cannot discriminate if they want to the school to officially recognize their organization and to receive money from the school. They cannot force to the school recognize them and expend funds for their expressive association.
So you’re okay with the Sharia Law Club demanding that the college give them money and facilities? Of course, only bearded men and genitally-mutilated women (in burkas) need apply…
Like Scalia, you’re attempting to compare apples to belly-buttons when the strict question is “If you define apples as red pome-style fruit, are Granny Smith apples still apples?”
The university law school’s chapter of CLS was required by its national body to adopt bylaws excluding gay Christians. It did so. The university in consequence denied it recognition and funding, since it was not in compliance with non-discrimination regulations. Please note that:
[ol]
[li]It was not atheists vs Christians, it was a group of Christians seeking to exclude gay people vs gay Christians[/li][li]The university did not prohibit them from existing with their current bylaws, it just refused them recognition and funding[/li][li]They are claiming discrimination on the basis of religious beliefs as the ground for the relevant bylaw excluding gay Christians[/li][/ol]
As I pointed out in the previous thread on this case, it’s not really a first amendment issue. Nobody is being told what views they can hold or who they have to associate with. What it is a case of is an organization setting up an impartial set of rules over how it gives out its money - if you don’t want to accept their rules, you don’t have to.
Here’s an example I used in the other thread. Suppose I’m a restaurant and I offer a special where you get a free drink if you buy a cheeseburger. Then a guy comes in a says he wants just a free drink but not a cheeseburger. So I tell the guy he has to buy a cheeseburger to get the free drink. And he says he’s a Hindu and it’s against his religion to buy a cheeseburger so I’m discriminating against his religion by forcing him to buy a cheeseburger in order to get the free drink he wants. But the reality is that I’m not forcing him to do anything. I’m making an offer and he’s free to accept or decline it. The fact that he might choose to decline it for religious reasons does not make the conditions of my offer discriminatory.
No one is being denied recognition based on religious beliefs. People are being denied recognition based on actions - the action being excluding other students. Actions, even religiously motivated ones, are not per se protected. Beliefs on the other hand are. Hence, as I am sure you are aware, it is perfectly constitutional to criminalize human sacrifice, and standing up whining that your religious rights are being violated ain’t going to get you very far.
It should be pointed out that this group is still being permitted to meet on campus and still being permitted to exclude homos all they want. They just aren’t entitled to receive taxpayer money for it, that’s all.