How?
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.
What do you mean how? Restricting expression would be a precedent for restricting expression again. What needs to be explained about that?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?”
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).
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.
Is that English?