The thing is, they *weren’t *“entitled” to it. They existed at the pleasure of the university and our tax dollars. They’re still free to exist- but we don’t have to pay for them.
[/quote
Check on this one. I despise the “public policy” justification for laws, but it does make sense that the reception of tax dollars be contingent on whatever (legal) terms the legislature chooses. If they choose to help low-income families in an area where rents have skyrocketed with a percentage of rent capped by household income, that’s fine; if they choose to give such help only when the family is in imminent danger of eviction, that too is fine (legally; one is for me more morally acceptable). The only ccondition to setting those criteria is that they must be applied fairly, equally, across the board.
Likewise here. Nobody is saying CLS has no freedom or organize and to exclude gay people if they so choose. But whether they receive funding from the school is quite a different story, and within reason the state can place such standards on it as they wish.
I’m curious what “viewpoint” **Puddleglum ** believes CLS is being improperly penalized for espousing, by the way.
This one, I dislike. It took me some doing to get there, but now that I grasp it, I seem to have gotten quite zealous on the idea that gay people create pair-bond relationships the same as everyone else, and ‘preference in sexual partner’ has only a little to do with it. A full mutual romantic/sexual attraction often leading to permanent commitment is what most people desire, and orientation’s role in that is only to delimit the range of people in whom one may find such a mate.
You might as well have the Campus Young Republicans adopt a member qualification of agreeing with the premise, “Hell, yes, I’d screw Ann Coulter in a heartbeat!”
But if the school does not apply the standard consistently, then there’s a problem, right? If “all comers must be accepted” is applied only in certain instances, those unfavorably impacted have been unfairly harmed. Only their expression was muted, based on a criterion that other organizations were not held to. There’s the rub.
But it’s not just money, it’s official sponsorship that’s in question here. If someone wants to be the official Hastings Quilting Bee Society, shouldn’t they be bound by the same limitations that bind the school itself? At what point does close association with the administration cross into being a de facto part of the administration?
Stratocaster, even if the school was really enforcing a policy of “Groups that exclude gays will not receive recognition or funding from the school”, rather than a policy of “groups must accept everyone, no matter what”, my question is so what? Why shouldn’t they be allowed to apply a restriction like “Don’t discriminate against gays if you want to receive school funding”?
Are you really arguing that public universities are obligated by the First Amendment to fund groups who refuse to comply with their anti-discrimination policy?
For purposes of being a quasi-government agency? Certainly not at the point where the Quilting Bee Society gets the privilege of pinning their box social flyers on the school bulletin boards; I don’t think that crosses the line. I don’t know. Maybe if they had voting rights as to who received funds, at that point? If all the registered organizations had a veto right? At that point they are disbursing government money in effectively the same way that the university is, I think. Maybe there?
What Hastings did was cite a policy in defense of this charge that it turns out they did NOT apply to all organizations–i.e., there can be no restrictions to any comers. That was clearly not the case, since they permitted this type of restriction to exist in practice and in the bylaws of other organizations. What Hastings asserted, and the majority accepted, was that they had universally applied a viewpoint-neutral policy, and had done so for over twenty years, though clearly that had not occurred. Hastings disavowed the anti-discrimination argument that it appeared they were originally asserting. Which made sense, since the argument they started would have been problematic:
I think that this, like all other debates in which homosexuality is involved, comes down to the differences in viewing it as conduct vs. an inseparable distinction.
It seems as if society has painted itself into a corner by having two different “absolutes”:
Freedom of religion—and (most/some) Christians believe that homosexuality is immoral
Freedom of sexual preference–cannot discriminate based on sexual orientation
1&2 can’t co-exist. This is why right wing groups claim that there is a culture war going on. Because there is.
So when the government hands out money, it can set whatever discriminatory rules it wants?
It doesn’t apply that way in public forum cases. Nazi bylaws would be unconstitutional as government policies, but the Nazis still get to march in Skokie.
I’ll admit that IANAL, but surely it has been settled some time ago that “freedom of religion” means that Christians can go to church, Jews can go to synagogue, but we stop short of allowing Satan worshipers to perform virgin sacrifices. I don’t know where that dividing line is, but genital mutilation would fall somewhat afoul.
Obviously you can accommodate all types of religious beliefs, but if there was any belief that would be considered mainstream and fall under the umbrella of protection of “freedom of religion” it would be a traditional Christian viewpoint.
Some Christians used to believe that miscegenation was immoral, too. Society hasn’t painted itself into a corner; some Christians have simply chosen to ignore the facts.
Their right to practice their religion has not been infringed upon in this case; their right to discriminate has.
That’s a stretch. It was far from universal for Christians to be against miscegenation. That could be on the dividing line as well.
But to say that a Christian belief that sodomy is immoral and to be frowned upon is inconsistent with out framers’ idea of freedom of religion is absurd. Many states had capital punishment for sodomy at the time of the founding.
Whatever new developments that have happened in society in recent years, Christianity with a prohibition against homosexual sodomy (and premarital sex for that matter) is certainly, certainly one of those traditional religious views that falls under the umbrella of freedom of religion.
Can you explain how applying one set of rules to everyone can be discriminatory?
Or is this your explanation? That it’s not enough to give Christians equal rights. Christians are being discriminated against if they don’t get the special bonus rights they think they’re entitled to.
It’s far from universal for Christians to be against sodomy. The United Church of Christ and Episcopal Church have no problem with monogamous homosexual relationships, to name but two.
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)?
No person may marry outside of his own race. Applies to everyone equally. Discriminatory?
The freedom of religion is a “special bonus right”? Hell, the stamp collecting club can throw out someone who froths at the mouth about how collecting stamps is what killed JFK. How is the right of exclusion from a group a “special bonus right”?
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?
“Homosexuality is immoral” might mean “we believe it immoral to have same-sex secual relations” – and a church presumably has every right to say just that.
But “homosexuality” also means “the state of feeling romantic and sexual attractions, not to some persons of the opposite sex, but rather to persons of the same sex as oneself.” And that is (subject to caveats we need not go into) immutable by the unaided individual, by the explicit testimony of all those who experience it.
There is a big difference between “lobsters are an endangered species; it’s illegal to eat lobsters” and “I enjoy the taste of lobster” – and while I can refrain from eating lobsters in obedience to the law, I cannot change the fact I enjoy the taste of lobster.
Now put that in the context of something as important to an individual as finding and committing to a lifemate.
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.”