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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
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.
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.
There is first amendment protection within a public forum case:
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.
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.
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.
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.