But isn’t an openly gay person showing “disregard and lack of respect for the objective” of an organization that has a core tenet of promoting the idea that homosexuality is an immoral and sinful lifestyle?
Is it really only the semantics of the argument?
I’d say it makes sense, even for those cases where I wouldn’t like the results. A university can have a say, and some amount of control, over what happens on the campus (their property). I’d go as far as to say they have a responsibility to know what’s going on.
Let’s say some group wants to exclude a certain “type” of people. Fine, that’s their choice. But, they then have to abide by whatever consequences go along with that.
If they can exclude someone, then they themselves can be excluded also.
Fair is fair.
I’m surprised it took 38 posts before the thread got Godwinized.
The only real solution is for the university not to provide any funding for any groups, not La Raza, not the Black Student Union, not the Gay Student Union, not the Young Republicans, not the Gay Vegetarian Fascists for Christ, not anybody. Let 'em all proselytize on their own dime.
Bad first of a double-post, next corrected. Ignore this one…
But that would discriminate against non-lesbian women republicans. Surely you can’t mean that! 
Well no, of course not. Wait, I didn’t say that. Argh, I’m so confused!
(I do believe I’ve been accidentally misquoted. I’m clearly getting older, because I really had to think back about whether I’d actually written that.)
We shouldn’t pay for any of 'em. Why should a student who objects to the political goals and principles of a group like La Raza or the Young Republicans have to subsidize their activities on campus?
No, even that one was wrong. It points back to a post that was not the one I was quoting. I don’t know what went wrong. Ignore both my previous posts, unless you can make sense of where they were supposed to be pointing.
rolleyes::smack:
No, they are obligated by the First Amendment not to fund any groups at all.
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.
OK, explanation of my bad post: Polycarp, in post 61 made a comment, the last sentence of which I was replying to. Polycarp had, in that post, a poorly formed set of quote tags referencing a post by Lightnin’, which then lead back to the wrong post. In attempting to properly form the quote tags, I properly formed the wrong ones, to the wrong post. Polycarp’s fault. Don’t blame me, blame Polycarp!
So you want to make it illegal for universities to support any group - a universal censorship. And you feel this law prohibiting any form of expression whatsoever is in keeping with the primary intent of the First Amendment.
Yes, indeed. The issue CLS raised was that they were held to a standard that other groups were not, a claim that seems to be supported by the facts. That’s where the first amendment concern arises.
Excuse me? Respecting your right of free expression does not require me to provide you with access to a printing press, a radio station, or a college campus. If a student activist group on campus can’t come up with its own funding, there is no reason whatsoever that people who disagree with their aims should have to provide them with financial support.
You’re all over the place. If a disregard for the objective of the organization is acceptable to prohibit membership, then it’s acceptable for CLS as well.
But that’s not what Hastings asserted anyway, and they scrambled to eliminate this loophole when CLS bitched about it, so they (and the SCOTUS majority) would disagree with your assessment of this being a reasonable restriction. They asserted they had a long-established “accept all comers” policy that was viewpoint neutral. In that sense, yes, no restrictions on viewpoint should apply. It was their own rules, for Pete’s sake–or so they said. It was applied inconsistently, which is what created the first amendment concern. I don’t know why this is so hard to grasp.
I agree with your point that they are under no obligation to provide funding or access to facilities to any group, but I’m not sure where you’re getting the idea that government funding (via the university) is unconstitutional in any event. Even the dissenting opinion didn’t argue that. They just can’t pick and choose if they do provide funding, unless the standard they apply is consistent and not restrictive of only certain viewpoints. That’s what Hastings did, and they were lucky enough to have a SCOTUS majority that wasn’t troubled by that fact.
You can read it any way you’d like, but it was a qualification for membership that demanded that the applicant act in accordance with the objectives of the group. Just like CLS’s. You can torture this as much as you’d like, but what it comes down to is, you’re okay with certain exclusions, but not others. And the first amendment doesn’t protect only the expressions or ideas that you agree with, much as that might pain you.
Exactly right! I am okay with excluding someone based on the fact that they are an asshole, but not okay with excluding someone based on the color of their skin or who they are sexually attracted to. Glad we cleared that up.
It has nothing to do with whether I like it or not. Compelling the university to participate in discrimination with university funds the only thing I have a problem with.
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!
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.