I have not seen a cite that any groups were still allowed to exclude anybody after the rule change.
Then you’re not reading what was provided. Hastings asserted there was no rule change–this was supposedly long-established policy. Their position was that they had a viewpoint-neutral “accept all comers” policy in place for years before CLS was denied, so there was no basis for a first amendment complaint. Unfortunately, the facts contradicted that claim.
None of that is relevant. The policy currently exists for all groups, and there is no reason that the CLS shoud be given special dispensation to ignore the requirements.
No, because science has proven that homosexuality is an innate attribute, like gender.
I’m surprised by this. I remember when we were discussing the case before the decision came down, the issue of Hastings’ policies was raised. And it was not an “all comers” policy. It gave a list of things like race, religion, gender, age, and sexual orientation and said that no student organization could exclude members on the basis of any of these things.
The reason I remember this was because Scalia talked about the ability of Democrats to join a Republican student organization to subvert it. This was not only irrelevant to the facts of this case, it was also untrue. We quoted Hastings’ policies and they did not forbid student organizations from excluding members based on their political affiliation. So the Republicans would have been able to “protect” themselves by not allowing Democrats to join them.
So maybe Hastings now has an all comers policy but there was a different policy in place at the time of this incident.
Dammit, I re-read the entire thread and your cites provide no such thing. The only things you demonstrated were that the university may have lied when saying such standards have always been in place, and that students who “exhibit a consistent disregard and lack of respect for the objective of the organization” may be barred from joining other groups.
That is much different than saying there are actual reported incidents of students being banned from those clubs.
And that’s the last time I fall for the ‘I provided the cites’ response. I’ve noticed most honorable posters will re-post the link or the give the post number instead of making you search the entire thread for cites that don’t say what you asked to provide.
No, you provided cites that didn’t back up what you said, as I noted earlier in the thread.
ETA: Post #41.
The policy as it currently exists may be a-okay. SCOTUS was asked to opine on how it was applied to CLS, at that point before Hastings fixed the crappy inconsistencies in their policy and its administration of it. That’s what I said before–it may be moot now for Hastings at this point, but the fact that SCOTUS has deemed how it worked “pre-fix” as constitutionally okay is what creates future first amendment protection concerns. Altio got it right–Hastings had an unwritten, inconsistently applied policy that consequently ran afoul of accepted standards for public forums in a public university, and CLS alone was denied. Whether or not they’ve fixed it since then, they violated CLS’s first amendment rights. SCOTUS needs to be concerned with the precedents they set, and those they overturn. “All’s well that ends well” isn’t good enough.
Not getting your post 41 point. How is that any different than CLS’s standard?
Calm down, Francis. I misunderstood or misread, I suppose. The difference doesn’t matter. Those organizations were permitted bylaws that gave them the latitude to exclude potential members. I suppose they had those bylaws to actually enforce, but perhaps it never occurred. I don’t know. For that matter, I’m not sure there’s a reported instance of CLS at Hastings actually denying anyone. But that’s irrelevant. Other groups were permitted to deny membership, at least before Hastings scrambled to fix their inconsistent policy. CLS was denied because of an exclusionary rule–the rule itself.
So, they should be obligated to fund the local university Ku Klux Klan (legitimate by historical standards, whose core purpose is promoting a certain view point) who exclude other races (since they conflict with their core purpose of promoting white superiority) who might usurp their ideals?
Yeah, that’s pretty obvious from your posts. For example:
CLS’s policies prohibited people (gays) from being able to join the organization. The two policies you quoted would not bar anyone from becoming a member, they simply give the group the ability to bar a member should they exhibit behaviour deemed incompatible with the group’s goals.
And again, if the goals of the group are directly, legally discriminatory, the point is moot as UC Hastings cannot support those goals in any way, AFAIK. No matter how much else the Fraternal Order of Psychotic Serial Killers conforms to the rules, the fact that their core reason for existing is contrary to policy doesn’t give them a pass on following that rule.
AGAIN, other groups were not permitted to deny membership, or at least you have failed to show this. The rules you quoted (this will be the second time I’ve explained this in this post, for those keeping track) would allow a group to revoke membership for unacceptable behaviour.
What’s obvious is you’re not reading all my cites. Here’s one previously provided (emphasis added, just for you):
There were groups that let some people join, but only as “limited” members (e.g., not able to vote). There were groups like “Hastings Democrats” who required a specific party affiliation for someone to become a member at all. Here’s some other cites previously provided (with emphasis helpfully added, just for you, 'cause you’ve been so cordial):
This excludes people from ever becoming a member if they exhibit behavior antithetical to the objective of that organization. Why you think that is substantially different from CLS’s denial to gays is beyond me. In each instance, the organization is barring members who manifest a disregard for a tenet of the organization.
No, again, read the cites I provided: “A student could become a member of the Vietnamese American Law Society so long as…” and “any full-time student at Hastings may become a member of HDC so long as…” These prohibit someone from ever BECOMING a member. Frankly, I would consider it a trivial distinction if it the membership could only be revoked later. But that’s not the case. It prohibits certain people from ever BECOMING members.
You’re not reading my cites! Hastings’ position (and the majority’s) was not a non-discrimination one per se. Hastings disavowed that posture, since it was a weak position given how public forum issues are typically resolved. In such matters, it matters not that the group has a discriminatory viewpoint. Again, the Nazis were permitted to march in Skokie not because they had policies that respected protected classes. It was because they had a first amendment right to express their warped views.
You keep explaining away, brother. Forgive me if I find your grasp of the details here a bit underwhelming though.
I agree that the state is under no obligation to provide money to fund any organization. But if it decides to allocate money to fund a variety of organizations, would you agree that it must do so in a way that does not infringe on a group’s freedom of religion?
I don’t get your characterization of a “religious exception to the rules”. Of course there is a religious exception to the rules. There is also a free speech, free press, freedom to peaceably assemble, etc. exception to rules. That is the cornerstone of the first amendment. You can’t make rules which infringe on these.
And about gay taxpayers paying for the group, by your standard there could be no groups unless every single citizen would be represented. I’m not Vietnamese. Why should my tax dollars support the Vietnamese Law Group? Where is my bang for the buck there?
Is this just a matter of semantics? Would the group be okay if their statement read “All students are eligible for membership provided they agree to conduct themselves in accordance with the group’s policy regarding sexual activity”
I think it is a stretch to say that the KKK is legitimate by historical standards. Maybe the Klan of the 1920s was, but the modern group is widely regarded as a bunch of racist idiots.
I’m not sure. Like I said, I’m not a lawyer, but I’m sure that they’ve dealt with this before. Surely they don’t have to accommodate the Hitler Youth, the Vampire Cult, and the Satan Worshipers, even though it could be argued that those groups are expressing 1st amendment protected speech.
This is the way I see it.
CLS: We are changing our bylaws to specifically ban gay Christians.
Hastings: Okay, but you will lose benefits as we can’t support a discriminatory group.
CLS: But, all these other supported groups get to discriminate! Look at their charters!
Hastings: Well, it’s never come up, but if they were actively discriminating we wouldn’t support them either
CLS: No fair! We’re taking this all the way up to the Supreme Court!
SC: Hastings does not have to support groups that discriminate.
Stratocaster, Until you can show any evidence that Hastings supported or plans to support other groups that discriminate, I find your arguments unpersuasive.
Two other points:
You seem so worried about precedent - what about the precedent that would be set if the dissenters had their way? It wouldn’t only apply to Christian groups.
The “disregard and lack of respect for the objective of the organization” clause is a red herring in this case. I presume the mission statement of the CLS states something about defending the rights of Christians or promoting Christian values in professional law. There isn’t anything about being gay that contradicts those goals. I think the court would support the right of the CLS to not accept as a member a gay student activist who actively protests every CLS event. But that is 100 miles away from not even considering a prospective student for the sole reason of being gay.
Hastings did support groups that restricted membership! That’s the discrimination that is relevant to this case. It was only CLS that was denied, though; that’s the point.
I am not arguing that Hastings may have accepted the registration of other organizations whose bylaws permitted potential members to be barred, based on their opposition to the group’s objectives. I offered the facts that showed that they did permit exactly that! If you find that unpersuasive, I don’t know what to tell you. But there’s no question that at the time of CLS’s denial, there were other groups who Hastings had registered who did NOT accept all comers. It was Hastings who asserted that CLS was denied because of their “accept all comers” rule, which was indifferent to the specific beliefs of the individual groups (or so they said). That’s what Hastings asserted and the SCOTUS majority bought. Unfortunately, the facts disagree.
I accept the fact that strong first amendment rights apply to groups I don’t agree with (which, by the way, includes CLS). The first amendment is there to protect unpopular speech and expression. I am perturbed when those protections erode.
It’s not up to you or me to decide the tenets of CLS’s version of Christianity. It’s none of my business. And to be clear, if Hastings had a true consistently applied, viewpoint-neutral, “accept all comers” policy, they’d probably have had no problem, and I’d probably have no objection. CLS, like every other group on campus, would have been required to accept all applicants, no exceptions.
But that’s not what happened. Only CLS was denied relative to that standard, for a particular belief that they held. I happen to disagree with that belief. But that’s not my club. If CLS was denied, it was not solely on the basis of their restricting membership–because other groups were permitted to do so! That’s the problem.
Not allowing membership to a student for “disregard and lack of respect for the objective of the organization” does not equal discrimination, no matter how many times you try to equate the two. The cause *could be *used as an excuse to discriminate, but I imagine that could be taken up with the university on a case by case basis.
Also, you wave off this explicit discriminitory practice as simply “a particular belief that they held”. Just because it is part of a ‘belief’, doesn’t mean the state has to sanction it. Should the university be forced to sanction the hypothecal KKK group that someone mentioned earlier? If not, why not? If so - why does the state have to participate in descrimination against it’s own citizens?
EDIT: I just realized that Hastings may not be a state school - but the point still stands. Just change STATE to PRIVATE INSTITUTION.
Yes, it is. It’s clear you haven’t read the opinion and don’t understand this particular notion. Hastings did not–DID NOT–base their defense on what you seem to think they did. They asserted–for the millionth time–that they denied CLS through their viewpoint-neutral “accept all comers” rule. Do you understand what viewpoint neutral means? I ask that sincerely, because you seem not to. Hastings disavowed their “this was discrimination” position. That’s not what this case was about.
If the KKK group met the same standard that other groups were held to, then, yes, Hastings should have to register them. Such is the nature of constitutional protections. We don’t get to assign them just to the “good guys.”
So, Hastings was arguing “accept all comers” with absolutely no restrictions? I think reasonable interpretations of “accept all comers” and the “disregard and lack of respect for the objective of the organization” clauses are not contradictory. That is the case I don’t think the dissenters were able to make.