# SCOTUS: Universities may deny recognition to campus groups who exclude gays, non-believers **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 28, 2010, 10:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-universities-may-deny-recognition-to-campus-groups-who-exclude-gays-non-believers/544851 "2010-06-28T22:10:28Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [July 2, 2010, 11:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-universities-may-deny-recognition-to-campus-groups-who-exclude-gays-non-believers/544851/81 "2010-07-02T23:25:41Z")
> [@Polycarp](#): > > Then add in the fact that many Christians see the distinction I’ve drawn clearly and do not condemn and exclude others for their orientation. Some people with same-sex sexual orientation are Christian believers. In what way is it a tenet of Christian belief that such people should be excluded – the only grounds I can see for claiming that rule as being “a religious belief.” Let me be clear. I’m not a spokesman for Christians, but I am saying that a Christian belief, one that includes a hatred of homosexual sodomy, is one that is a enormous part of the traditions of our country. Right or wrong, it is certainly a religious belief that our framers would agree is a free religious belief to have. You, and others, have pointed out that in recent years some Christian denominations have rejected these earlier rules and some even ordinate homosexual pastors. I fail to see how that undercuts the idea that the earlier belief is still valid and worthy of constitutional protection. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2010, 12:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-universities-may-deny-recognition-to-campus-groups-who-exclude-gays-non-believers/544851/82 "2010-07-03T00:05:29Z")
The belief remains Constitutionally protected. Not a single thing has been done to abridge the belief or the expression of the belief. The belief is just not entitled to be subsidized on the taxpayer tit, that’s all. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2010, 12:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-universities-may-deny-recognition-to-campus-groups-who-exclude-gays-non-believers/544851/83 "2010-07-03T00:21:33Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > The belief remains Constitutionally protected. Not a single thing has been done to abridge the belief or the expression of the belief. The belief is just not entitled to be subsidized on the taxpayer tit, that’s all. But the taxpayer tit, as they are subsidizing groups, many groups, religious or not, must do so in a way that does don’t show favoritism or bad wishes to a particular protected religious group. In that this group is a mainstream religious group, the state can’t deviate from its constitutionally mandated policies to stifle the message of this group because it disagrees with it. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2010, 12:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-universities-may-deny-recognition-to-campus-groups-who-exclude-gays-non-believers/544851/84 "2010-07-03T00:24:43Z")
> [@jtgain](#): > > Correct, but this is a very new thing. Traditional Christian theology teaches (and certainly taught from 1776-circa 1970) that homosexuality was a dreadful sin. Do you think that the freedom of religion only covers beliefs that keep up with modern social norms? _Some_ Christian theology. However, that is irrelevant. Heterosexuality is not an integral part of the function of the CLS. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2010, 12:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-universities-may-deny-recognition-to-campus-groups-who-exclude-gays-non-believers/544851/85 "2010-07-03T00:26:37Z")
> [@jtgain](#): > > But the taxpayer tit, as they are subsidizing groups, many groups, religious or not, must do so in a way that does don’t show favoritism or bad wishes to a particular protected religious group. And they are doing exactly that. They would actually be showing favoritism if they did NOT hold this particular group to the same standard as other campus groups. You seem to want an exception for religious hate groups. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2010, 12:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-universities-may-deny-recognition-to-campus-groups-who-exclude-gays-non-believers/544851/86 "2010-07-03T00:34:52Z")
> [@](#): > > But the taxpayer tit, as they are subsidizing groups, many groups, religious or not, must do so in a way that does don’t show favoritism or bad wishes to a particular protected religious group. How can you keep saying things like this? You say you don’t want Hastings to show any favoritism. And then you say you want Christian groups to be given an exemption to a rule that applies to all other groups. What do you think the word favoritism means? ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2010, 12:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-universities-may-deny-recognition-to-campus-groups-who-exclude-gays-non-believers/544851/87 "2010-07-03T00:39:56Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > _Some_ Christian theology. However, that is irrelevant. Heterosexuality is not an integral part of the function of the CLS. It might not be integral, but it is a major component of its religious belief. One that has historically been a protected, and until recently, and undisputed protected religious belief. Because society, in the last 20 years, has had a more tolerated attitude towards homosexuality, it invalidates a religious claim? > [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > And they are doing exactly that. They would actually be showing favoritism if they did NOT hold this particular group to the same standard as other campus groups. You seem to want an exception for religious hate groups. I’m not even going to respond to the fucking “hate group” comment. More modern labeling against a traditional, respected, and protected belief. As I said earlier, the Chess Club, Quilting Club, Wine Making Club, Hiking Friends, Rafting, Sailing, Water Skiing, Tennis, Golf, and Water Polo Clubs can all abide by these type of rules. Rules against gay people or non-Christians have no effect on their groups. These regulations are fine. But when you apply them to organizations, not crazy, lunatic fringe ones, but legitimate by historical standards, organizations that have a core purpose of promoting a certain viewpoint, it becomes absurd. Did you see how the Muslim group was quoted in the dissent? If you will have any group at all which deals with an issue of a protected class, they MUST be able to construct a rule to prevent a usurping of their ideals. Would you accept your hypothetical atheist club being taken over by 100 kids from the local Baptist church? ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2010, 12:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-universities-may-deny-recognition-to-campus-groups-who-exclude-gays-non-believers/544851/88 "2010-07-03T00:42:03Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > How can you keep saying things like this? > > You say you don’t want Hastings to show any favoritism. And then you say you want Christian groups to be given an exemption to a rule that applies to all other groups. > > What do you think the word favoritism means? If the rule is constitutionally void, then it is bad. If it is “favoritism” because it protects a 1st amendment belief, then that is good. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2010, 12:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-universities-may-deny-recognition-to-campus-groups-who-exclude-gays-non-believers/544851/89 "2010-07-03T00:43:16Z")
I wouldn’t give a shit, no. I certainly would not want public money to subsidize any on-campus group that excluded Christians. The “protected class” thing is not material, by the way. The Christian group has not had any freedoms abridged, nor was it denied recognition for a belief. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2010, 12:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-universities-may-deny-recognition-to-campus-groups-who-exclude-gays-non-believers/544851/90 "2010-07-03T00:44:47Z")
> [@jtgain](#): > > If the rule is constitutionally void, then it is bad. If it is “favoritism” because it protects a 1st amendment belief, then that is good. No 1st Amendment right was violated. There is no 1st Amendment right to receive taxpayer money for excluding homos from your on-campus hate group. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2010, 12:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-universities-may-deny-recognition-to-campus-groups-who-exclude-gays-non-believers/544851/91 "2010-07-03T00:56:12Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > No 1st Amendment right was violated. There is no 1st Amendment right to receive taxpayer money for excluding homos from your on-campus hate group. It’s not my fucking group. If you can’t leave the “hate group” shit out of it, then you should look at becoming more dispassionate about your debates. A traditional, recognized religion is not a hate group. If it becomes such, then our 1st amendment is turned on its head. ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2010, 1:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-universities-may-deny-recognition-to-campus-groups-who-exclude-gays-non-believers/544851/92 "2010-07-03T01:00:20Z")
> [@Pashnish\_Ewing](#): > > Have I missed where this has been established? That is to say, there is record of non-Hispanic students being barred from joining the Hispanic law society (or whatever)? I provided several cites in this thread. ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2010, 1:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-universities-may-deny-recognition-to-campus-groups-who-exclude-gays-non-believers/544851/93 "2010-07-03T01:01:52Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > The belief remains Constitutionally protected. Not a single thing has been done to abridge the belief or the expression of the belief. The belief is just not entitled to be subsidized on the taxpayer tit, that’s all. You’re wrong. That’s not how this is applied in public forum constitutional questions. ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2010, 1:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-universities-may-deny-recognition-to-campus-groups-who-exclude-gays-non-believers/544851/94 "2010-07-03T01:03:12Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > And they are doing exactly that. They would actually be showing favoritism if they did NOT hold this particular group to the same standard as other campus groups. You seem to want an exception for religious hate groups. Are you deliberately ignoring the cites I provided? Hastings did NOT hold other groups to the same standard they held CLS to. That’s the problem. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2010, 1:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-universities-may-deny-recognition-to-campus-groups-who-exclude-gays-non-believers/544851/95 "2010-07-03T01:08:29Z")
I was using the generic, rhetorical “you,” I didn’t mean you personally. Homophobia is hate, and most Christian groups that I’m aware of do not exclude gay people _a priori_. Whether a group is or is not a hate group also has nothing to do with the 1st Amendment. Hate speech is just as protected as any other speech. Regardless of whether or not you like my characterization, there is still no 1st Amendment right to receive public money for ANY speech, and this group was still allowed to meet on campus and exclude gay people, so the 1st Amendment doesn’t play into it on any level. They were not held to any standard that all other groups on campus were not held to, and they did not have any freedoms abridged. They simply are not entitled to receive money if they don’t follow the rules, and they are not entitled to a religious exception to the rules. The idea that they should have special dispensation to receive cash while discriminating is hogwash. The _whole_ public _provides_ those resources, and the whole public is entitled to benefit from them. It’s ridiculous to assert that gay people should be forced to subsidize a group that won’t allow them as members. ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2010, 1:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-universities-may-deny-recognition-to-campus-groups-who-exclude-gays-non-believers/544851/96 "2010-07-03T01:09:14Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > No 1st Amendment right was violated. There is no 1st Amendment right to receive taxpayer money for excluding homos from your on-campus hate group. There is first amendment protection within a public forum case: > [@](#): > > The Court pays little attention to Healy and instead focuses solely on the question whether Hastings’ registration policy represents a permissible regulation in a limited public forum. While I think that Healy is largely controlling, I am content to address the constitutionality of Hastings’ actions under our limited public forum cases, which lead to exactly the same conclusion. > > In this case, the forum consists of the RSO program. Once a public university opens a limited public forum, it “must respect the lawful boundaries it has itself set.” Rosenberger v. Rector and Visitors of Univ. of Va., 515 U. S. 819, 829 (1995). The university “may not exclude speech where its distinction is not ‘reasonable in light of the purpose served by the forum.’” Ibid. (quoting Cornelius v. NAACP Legal Defense & Ed. Fund, Inc., 473 U. S. 788, 806 (1985)). And the university must maintain strict viewpoint neutrality. Board of Regents of Univ. of Wis. System v. Southworth, 529 U. S. 217, 234 (2000); Rosenberger, supra, at 829. > > This requirement of viewpoint neutrality extends to the expression of religious viewpoints. Hastings and the majority did not principally base their argument on non-discrimination, because that one is a non-starter with regard to a public university registration of a student group. Hastings quickly abandoned that line of reasoning and asserted, in contradiction of their own application of policy, that they had a universally applied “accept all comers” rule, one that took no account of the specific beliefs espoused by the student group. They did not in reality do any such thing, since they permitted other groups to have restrictions to their membership. Read the opinion. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2010, 1:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-universities-may-deny-recognition-to-campus-groups-who-exclude-gays-non-believers/544851/97 "2010-07-03T01:10:55Z")
> [@Stratocaster](#): > > You’re wrong. That’s not how this is applied in public forum constitutional questions. Actually YOU’RE wrong, and the Supreme Court decision is my cite. This issue has nothing to do the public forum anyway. This group is still allowed to publicly spew whatever it wants. It just isn’t entitled to public subsidy if it doesn’t follow the rules everybody else has to follow. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2010, 1:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-universities-may-deny-recognition-to-campus-groups-who-exclude-gays-non-believers/544851/98 "2010-07-03T01:12:50Z")
> [@Stratocaster](#): > > they permitted other groups to have restrictions to their membership. Cite? ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2010, 1:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-universities-may-deny-recognition-to-campus-groups-who-exclude-gays-non-believers/544851/99 "2010-07-03T01:17:27Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Actuyally YOU’RE wrong, and the Supreme Court deciusion is my cite. The majority in SCOTUS ignored facts that were not in question, and it’s not the first time they arrived at a PC decision that ignored precedent and the facts. Hastings itself scurried to correct the inconsistencies I pointed out. It is beyond dispute that other groups were permitted to exclude members, despite Hastings’ assertion that they were justified in their handling of CLS because they had an evenly applied “accept all comers” rule as the basis for it. They did not. > [@](#): > > This issue has nothing to do the public forum anyway. This group is still alllowed to publicly spew whatever it wants. It just isn’t entitled to special rights or public subsidy if it doesn’t follow the rules everybody else has to follow. Both the majority and the dissent disagree with you that this is not a public forum issue. They weren’t asking for special rights. They were asking for the same accommodation other groups received. Denying them a benefit every other group received because of a religious belief, when the basis for the denial was not applied to other groups, is a first amendment violation. SCOTUS screwed the pooch, again, on this one. ---
**Author:** ![Stratocaster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stratocaster/32/16393_2.png) [@Stratocaster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stratocaster)\ **Post date:** [July 3, 2010, 1:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-universities-may-deny-recognition-to-campus-groups-who-exclude-gays-non-believers/544851/100 "2010-07-03T01:18:29Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > Cite? I provided several in this thread. Or you could try reading the opinion. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-universities-may-deny-recognition-to-campus-groups-who-exclude-gays-non-believers/544851.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-universities-may-deny-recognition-to-campus-groups-who-exclude-gays-non-believers/544851.md?page=6)