# 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:** 12\ **Page:** 8
**Author:** ![LonesomePolecat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a88e57/32.png) [@LonesomePolecat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LonesomePolecat)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2010, 1:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-universities-may-deny-recognition-to-campus-groups-who-exclude-gays-non-believers/544851/141 "2010-07-04T01:27:36Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > Your proposal would forbid universities from participating in any exercise of free expression. It would be a precedent that only people have a right to free speech and the government can regulate and prohibit the right of groups, organizations, and corporations from expressing a collective opinion. How? ---
**Author:** ![Pashnish\_Ewing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/8797f3/32.png) [@Pashnish\_Ewing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pashnish_Ewing)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2010, 4:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-universities-may-deny-recognition-to-campus-groups-who-exclude-gays-non-believers/544851/142 "2010-07-04T04:35:02Z")
> [@Stratocaster](#): > > You’d fit right in on SCOTUS, then, who play very loose and fast with personal liberties as well. Give 'em a call, quick, before Kagan grabs your spot. > > And I’m not going to explain it again to you at this point. Lost cause and all that…have fun! Bullshit. There was no reduction of personal liberty. The CLS is free to keep whatever restrictions they want on their group. The only limit was on forced discrimination by a university.\*That \*I can live with. ---
**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 4, 2010, 5:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-universities-may-deny-recognition-to-campus-groups-who-exclude-gays-non-believers/544851/143 "2010-07-04T05:56:12Z")
> [@LonesomePolecat](#): > > How? What do you mean how? Restricting expression would be a precedent for restricting expression again. What needs to be explained about that? ---
**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 4, 2010, 10:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-universities-may-deny-recognition-to-campus-groups-who-exclude-gays-non-believers/544851/144 "2010-07-04T10:32:32Z")
> [@Pashnish\_Ewing](#): > > Bullshit. There was no reduction of personal liberty. The CLS is free to keep whatever restrictions they want on their group. The only limit was on forced discrimination by a university.\*That \*I can live with. Your grasp of the questions this case hinged on remains breathtaking. Anyway, as long as you can live with it. That’s the important thing. ---
**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 4, 2010, 6:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-universities-may-deny-recognition-to-campus-groups-who-exclude-gays-non-believers/544851/145 "2010-07-04T18:15:10Z")
I can’t believe I agree with **Lonesome Polecat** , but it is so. The university should maintain a strict policy of neutrality regarding any type of _advocacy_ group. A skiing club or whatever is different. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2010, 6:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-universities-may-deny-recognition-to-campus-groups-who-exclude-gays-non-believers/544851/146 "2010-07-04T18:21:33Z")
> [@Pashnish\_Ewing](#): > > Perhaps it is to the CLS, but that’s not their wording. It’s the wording found in charters for other groups. I read it as basically a “don’t be a jerk” policy like we have here on the SDMB, and not discriminatory in nature. “No gays allowed” is discriminatory in nature. The fact that the group holds these ‘beliefs’ is irrelevant to whether it is discriminatory or not. Right, but my point is, could the CLS amend its policy to have wording exactly like the other groups, but when a gay person applies, dismiss them because their conduct in contrary to the group’s mission? ---
**Author:** ![CannyDan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cannydan/32/548_2.png) [@CannyDan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CannyDan)\ **Post date:** [July 4, 2010, 8:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-universities-may-deny-recognition-to-campus-groups-who-exclude-gays-non-believers/544851/147 "2010-07-04T20:07:56Z")
> [@jtgain](#): > > Right, but my point is, could the CLS amend its policy to have wording exactly like the other groups, but when a gay person applies, dismiss them because their conduct in contrary to the group’s mission? I don’t think so, unless the person is, er, “exhibiting the conduct” in front of the group. We use the construction “don’t be a jerk” here, but we really mean “don’t _act like_ a jerk”. You might be one, but it is your actions, not your existential state, that governs. ETA-- that’s a generic “you”, not directed at **jtgain**. ---
**Author:** ![LonesomePolecat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a88e57/32.png) [@LonesomePolecat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LonesomePolecat)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2010, 12:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-universities-may-deny-recognition-to-campus-groups-who-exclude-gays-non-believers/544851/148 "2010-07-05T00:50:23Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > What do you mean how? Restricting expression would be a precedent for restricting expression again. What needs to be explained about that? Nobody’s restricting your expression when they refuse to fund you. The right of free expression doesn’t include the means of free expression. Refusing to provide you with access to a printing press, a radio station or a lecture hall doesn’t violate your rights However, providing resources to a competing religious or political group while denying them to you is violating your right of free expression. You can’t give funds to the Young Democrats and not the Young Republicans, you can’t give funds to the Black Student Union but not the White Student Union, you can’t allow some students to engage in a “day of silence” to promote gay rights and deny other students the right to condemn homosexuality as immoral. The only way to be fair in such circumstances is to provide funds to all or provide them to none. This doesn’t mean that there shouldn’t be any political or religious activist groups on campus, only that none of them should receive money from student activity fees or the public treasury. If you can’t get people to provide financing for your group voluntarily, if there’s just not enough interest on campus to sustain your group, that’s just too bad for you, the school administration shouldn’t keep your group on life support if there’s not really anyone around who wants to support it. It is absurd to demand that people who oppose you or simply aren’t interested to provide support for you. ---
**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 5, 2010, 5:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-universities-may-deny-recognition-to-campus-groups-who-exclude-gays-non-believers/544851/149 "2010-07-05T05:08:14Z")
They aren’t being denied recognition because of their beliefs. their beliefs are irrelevant. They are being denied recognition because they want to follow the same rules that every other group wants to follow. They want special dispensation to deny access to people they don’t like. It doesn’t work that way. If they want to suck the public tit, they have to remain open to everybody. That is not a violation of any Constitutional right. ---
**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 5, 2010, 10:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-universities-may-deny-recognition-to-campus-groups-who-exclude-gays-non-believers/544851/150 "2010-07-05T10:06:28Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > They aren’t being denied recognition because of their beliefs. their beliefs are irrelevant. They are being denied recognition because they want to follow the same rules that every other group wants to follow. They want special dispensation to deny access to people they don’t like. It doesn’t work that way. If they want to suck the public tit, they have to remain open to everybody. That is not a violation of any Constitutional right. They were not asked to follow the same rules that everyone else was asked to follow. The first amendment concern, for the umpteenth time, arises in large part because CLS was held to a standard that other groups were not held to. Hastings has since scrambled to fix the shitty process they had in place, but the fact remains that CLS was denied registration for excluding potential members when groups who held different beliefs were permitted to. CLS pointed out some of these these inconsistencies, by the way. They weren’t asking for “special dispensation,” they were asking, “why are we the only ones being singled out?” ---
**Author:** ![Pashnish\_Ewing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/8797f3/32.png) [@Pashnish\_Ewing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pashnish_Ewing)\ **Post date:** [July 5, 2010, 2:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-universities-may-deny-recognition-to-campus-groups-who-exclude-gays-non-believers/544851/151 "2010-07-05T14:15:51Z")
> [@Stratocaster](#): > > They were not asked to follow the same rules that everyone else was asked to follow. The first amendment concern, for the umpteenth time, arises in large part because CLS was held to a standard that other groups were not held to. And the only evidence of this is the existence of the “disregard and lack of respect for the objective” clause in other charters. Maybe _that_ is why you have to keep explaining this over and over again. Based on the merry-go-round of this thread, I predict your response to be something along the lines of “That’s not what Hastings argued!” - Which doesn’t validate the first amendment ‘concern’ you spelled out in the post quoted here. The first amendment should be able to stand up in the face shitty defense, and it appears it did in this case (barely). ---
**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 5, 2010, 2:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-universities-may-deny-recognition-to-campus-groups-who-exclude-gays-non-believers/544851/152 "2010-07-05T14:34:08Z")
> [@Pashnish\_Ewing](#): > > And the only evidence of this is the existence of the “disregard and lack of respect for the objective” clause in other charters. Maybe _that_ is why you have to keep explaining this over and over again. Yes, you are correct, the only evidence that other groups were permitted to exclude potential members was the fact that they were permitted to exclude potential members. You got me. > [@](#): > > Based on the merry-go-round of this thread, I predict your response to be something along the lines of “That’s not what Hastings argued!” - Which doesn’t validate the first amendment ‘concern’ you spelled out in the post quoted here. The first amendment should be able to stand up in the face shitty defense, and it appears it did in this case (barely). Is that English? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-universities-may-deny-recognition-to-campus-groups-who-exclude-gays-non-believers/544851.md?page=7)