# SCOTUS will hear case of Tolerant v. Intolerant **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [December 8, 2009, 2:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-will-hear-case-of-tolerant-v-intolerant/520448 "2009-12-08T14:27:00Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![villa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/bc79bd/32.png) [@villa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/villa)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2009, 11:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-will-hear-case-of-tolerant-v-intolerant/520448/61 "2009-12-08T23:12:19Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > Sounds like that school is ripe for meme warfare, internet message board invasion style. 😉 If people who do not fit the ‘values’ of the club people from the other club can just invade their club too. 😉 Be a member of both clubs. 😉 That’s how you play that situation. This isn’t an earth shattering suggestion, you know. It’s pretty damn common, especially at law schools. I (and significant parts of my class) were members of both the Federalist Society and the American Constitution Society - pretty much diametrically opposed. But they both had interesting speakers, and it never hurt to keep one’s options open as this was a time when certain government jobs were effectively closed to you if you couldn’t list the Federalists on your resume. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Second\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bbe5ce/32.png) [@The\_Second\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Second_Stone)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2009, 11:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-will-hear-case-of-tolerant-v-intolerant/520448/62 "2009-12-08T23:23:30Z")
Seems to me the question is whether we are going to register all groups or have exceptions based on religion. I have no problem either way as long as it is consistent for groups that I may not like. Equal protection and all that. So if the ruling pisses me off, it will probably be correct. Scientology Legal Society. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [December 8, 2009, 11:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-will-hear-case-of-tolerant-v-intolerant/520448/63 "2009-12-08T23:28:14Z")
> [@The\_Second\_Stone](#): > > Seems to me the question is whether we are going to register all groups or have exceptions based on religion. I have no problem either way as long as it is consistent for groups that I may not like. Equal protection and all that. So if the ruling pisses me off, it will probably be correct. Scientology Legal Society. Interestingly enough, there was a case involving Scientologists and this sort of “takeover” strategy. There was a cult study group, IIRC, and the Scientologists descended on it, voted their own leaders in, and by new bylaw removed Scientology from the list of cults. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2009, 12:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-will-hear-case-of-tolerant-v-intolerant/520448/64 "2009-12-09T00:18:26Z")
> [@villa](#): > > This isn’t an earth shattering suggestion, you know. It’s pretty damn common, especially at law schools. I (and significant parts of my class) were members of both the Federalist Society and the American Constitution Society - pretty much diametrically opposed. But they both had interesting speakers, and it never hurt to keep one’s options open as this was a time when certain government jobs were effectively closed to you if you couldn’t list the Federalists on your resume. Ahh, interesting. ---
**Author:** ![appleciders](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/85f322/32.png) [@appleciders](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/appleciders)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2009, 12:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-will-hear-case-of-tolerant-v-intolerant/520448/65 "2009-12-09T00:33:07Z")
> [@villa](#): > > I’m intrigued to see the way the Court goes on this. I can’t remember which way Scalia went on the boy scouts case, but I have essentially given up expecting consistency from him on ‘culture war’ issues. Scalia was in the majority in B.S.A. v. Dale- he voted that the government cannot direct the B.S.A. to change their views on gays. **mswas** , you’re exactly right in my case. My college (small private school) has a simple test for student organizations who want to use school resources (and particularly the small budget afforded to each club)- if a club allows everyone to join and to serve as officers, then they receive funding. If not, they’re still allowed to exist and to use campus buildings and the like for meetings, but they receive no money. Funny thing is, there are two organizations on campus that fit this profile. One is the Christian Society, which disapproves of homosexuality (to what end, I’m not sure, but I don’t think they’d look kindly on non-straight students joining) and prohibits officers from dating outside of the Society. The other is the GLBTQ club, which is off-limits to straight people. Both of these clubs consciously chose their status as unfunded in order to maintain their discriminatory membership rules. Very interesting. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2009, 1:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-will-hear-case-of-tolerant-v-intolerant/520448/66 "2009-12-09T01:41:01Z")
**appleciders** Sounds good to me. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2009, 6:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-will-hear-case-of-tolerant-v-intolerant/520448/67 "2009-12-09T18:21:18Z")
> [@appleciders](#): > > Funny thing is, there are two organizations on campus that fit this profile. One is the Christian Society, which disapproves of homosexuality (to what end, I’m not sure, but I don’t think they’d look kindly on non-straight students joining) and prohibits officers from dating outside of the Society. The other is the GLBTQ club, which is off-limits to straight people. Both of these clubs consciously chose their status as unfunded in order to maintain their discriminatory membership rules. Very interesting. How does the GLBTQ club verify the status? If I’m a straight guy with a GF, then I can just say I’m bi. But maybe it’s just not a problem… ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2009, 6:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-will-hear-case-of-tolerant-v-intolerant/520448/68 "2009-12-09T18:54:02Z")
It’s not hard to imagine an initiation ceremony for that one. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![CurtC](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ce73a5/32.png) [@CurtC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CurtC)\ **Post date:** [December 9, 2009, 7:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-will-hear-case-of-tolerant-v-intolerant/520448/69 "2009-12-09T19:45:19Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > How does the GLBTQ club verify the status? Reminds me of the punchline to a joke: “Man, you’re going to HATE Wednesdays.” ---
**Author:** ![lurking\_guest](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/2acd7d/32.png) [@lurking\_guest](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lurking_guest)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2009, 6:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-will-hear-case-of-tolerant-v-intolerant/520448/70 "2009-12-15T18:02:36Z")
Well… let us just quote from Scripture: First Corinthians 5, v. 9-11: (From Paul) “I have written you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people - not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world. But now I am writing you that you must not associate with anyone who calls himself a brother but is sexually immoral, greedy, an idolater or a slanderer, a drunkard, or a swindler. With such a man, do no even eat.” He he Christians of every political or religious persuasion must be cringing at Paul’s words. Doomed. ---
**Author:** ![Sage\_Rat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sage_rat/32/399_2.png) [@Sage\_Rat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sage_Rat)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2009, 6:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-will-hear-case-of-tolerant-v-intolerant/520448/71 "2009-12-15T18:17:47Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Me, too. > > Could the Jewish Legal Society be required to admit to its membership “Jews for Jesus?” What if the JFJ crowd decided to try to “take over” the organization by flooding the membership roster and then electing their own candidates as officers, in an effort to completely alter the message of the Jewish Legal Society? I suspect that there’s some sort of technical difference between saying specifically, “we only accept Jews who conform to such and such proofs of Jewness”, and between not saying anything about ethnicity/religion in your acceptance criteria, but in practice only accepting Jews who conform to such and such proofs of Jewness. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [December 15, 2009, 6:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-will-hear-case-of-tolerant-v-intolerant/520448/72 "2009-12-15T18:19:41Z")
> [@Sage\_Rat](#): > > I suspect that there’s some sort of technical difference between saying specifically, “we only accept Jews who conform to such and such proofs of Jewness”, and between not saying anything about ethnicity/religion in your acceptance criteria, but in practice only accepting Jews who conform to such and such proofs of Jewness. Except that there doesn’t appear to be any other permitted acceptance criteria. That is, if you can show you’re a student, you cannot be refused membership. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2009, 1:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-will-hear-case-of-tolerant-v-intolerant/520448/73 "2009-12-16T13:47:01Z")
Can anyone offer a coherent basis for concluding that persons who wish to “join” an organization primarily for the purpose of disrupting it have a right to do so? Where would such a right be found? ---
**Author:** ![villa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/bc79bd/32.png) [@villa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/villa)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2009, 1:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-will-hear-case-of-tolerant-v-intolerant/520448/74 "2009-12-16T13:51:03Z")
Has anyone suggested such a right exists? The fact is, under the rules in place at this institution, if you don’t let every student join, you don’t get recognition. It isn’t about whether there is a ‘right’ to join any organization. ---
**Author:** ![CurtC](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ce73a5/32.png) [@CurtC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CurtC)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2009, 2:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-will-hear-case-of-tolerant-v-intolerant/520448/75 "2009-12-16T14:42:47Z")
If there were a student who joined a group but was disruptive, would that group be allowed to kick that person out, and still receive recognition and aid? ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2009, 2:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-will-hear-case-of-tolerant-v-intolerant/520448/76 "2009-12-16T14:48:30Z")
The “right” is the one student organizations have under the school’s rules to have publicly-funded school recognition and support. Why is there an obligation, under the school’s rules or the law in general, to have that right attached to an obligation to permit disruption of the organization? Why does anyone have a right, under the school’s rules or the law, to disrupt an organization solely because it has taxpayer support? Do disruptors have a superior First Amendment right to that of organizers? Why would that be? And where is the OP even acknowledging that legitimate organizations have a legitimate interest in not permitting disruption by the asswipes he’s defending? **CurtC** , the discussion appears to be about the answer to your question being No. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2009, 3:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-will-hear-case-of-tolerant-v-intolerant/520448/77 "2009-12-16T15:07:56Z")
> [@CurtC](#): > > If there were a student who joined a group but was disruptive, would that group be allowed to kick that person out, and still receive recognition and aid? One man’s disruption is fifty men’s needed change. The idea I’m floating here is that there might be 25 Jewish students in this group. If “Jews for Jesus” brings 26 members, they can fundamentally change the organization – elect their own officers, contribute to their own charities – and those directions would be anathema to the REAL Jews. Of course, the real Jews could leave and start the Real Jewish Law Society, which the Jews for Jesus could then similar disrupt, leading to the formation of the Real, Actual Jewish Law Society, and so forth. That doesn’t seem wise. It seems great for viewpoints which enjoy the majority. ---
**Author:** ![villa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/bc79bd/32.png) [@villa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/villa)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2009, 3:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-will-hear-case-of-tolerant-v-intolerant/520448/78 "2009-12-16T15:21:43Z")
I really don’t see your problem with this, **Bricker**. There is nothing set in stone about an organization - it changes as its membership changes. If its membership changes to a sufficient degree to cause a 180 degree change in the organization, then so be it. If people no longer wish to be a part of that organization, then they leave, and start a new one. Now, if excluding people is considered essential to the organization, there is a method of doing that - you just don’t apply for official recognition. If you do, however, you are using the University’s brand value - and if that happens, the University has an interest in protecting itself. The method it has chosen to protect itself with is by preventing recognized organizations discriminating as regards to prospective members. A consequence of this is the (highly unlikely) situation you discuss. But I see the alternative (official support for organizations that can practice discrimination in their membership decisions) to be worse. Which is more problematic do you think? Hastings Jewish Legal Society being open to Jews for Jesus to join, or Hastings Klan Chapter, no blacks allowed? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2009, 3:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-will-hear-case-of-tolerant-v-intolerant/520448/79 "2009-12-16T15:56:56Z")
> [@villa](#): > > A consequence of this is the (highly unlikely) situation you discuss. Would it change your mind if I could point to a similar, real-life example? I think I mentioned it briefly earlier in the thread – Hart v. Cult Awareness Network, 13 Cal.App.4th 777 (1993): > [@](#): > > CAN-National is a nonprofit corporation; its purpose is to educate the public about the harmful effects of mind control as practiced by destructive cults and about the unethical or illegal practices they employ. > . > . > . > > Membership in CAN-National is open to individuals without regard to race, religion or national origin. > . > . > . > > CAN-LA is an unincorporated association separate from, but authorized to exist by, CAN-National’s requirements for affiliation. These requirements include the existence of five or more unrelated persons wishing to form an affiliate organization, agreement to hold at least four meetings per year, agreement to subscribe to the by-laws of CAN-National, payment of $100 annual affiliate dues; and submission of quarterly activity reports and yearly financial reports to CAN-National. > . > . > . > > Priscilla Coates is the chairwoman of CAN-LA; she receives no salary as chairwoman; CAN-LA has no paid employees and owns no tangible assets of any kind; the only revenue generated by CAN-LA comes in the form of donations and the entire “work force” consists of volunteers who donate time and resources to the organization. > . > . > . > > Until October 1991, meetings of CAN-LA were held on a bimonthly basis in a room provided free of charge by a local bank or in the home of Coates; currently, meetings are held on an irregular basis at the homes of members or friends of the organization. > . > . > . > Beginning in July 1991, Coates began to receive a total of 486 letters from acknowledged Scientologists requesting to be admitted as members of CAN-LA, purportedly to engage in religious dialogue with other members; the letters were remarkably similar in composition. > . > . > . > According to plaintiff’s declaration submitted in support of his application for preliminary injunction, "I wanted to and still want to join CAN-LA, for the purpose of engaging in a meaningful religious dialogue with the members of CAN-LA about the merits of underlying philosophies of their respective religions, including providing a Scientologist’s perspective of Scientology. … I have become aware that, despite its stated purposes, CAN has engaged in an extensive campaign to destroy my religion and others. I am also aware that CAN is required by its own statement of purpose, and by its status as a tax-exempt educational organization, to hear and be informed on all sides of religious issues. Thus, I am seeking to exercise my right to join this organization and voice my side of the story of Scientology, to bring about an understanding which would urge this organization to understand and entertain positive viewpoint toward Scientology, and to compel CAN to cease its attacks on my religion. Essentially, a crowd of Scientologists sought to join an organization whose mission was to warn people about cults, with the purpose of removing Scientology from the list of cults the organization warns of. ---
**Author:** ![villa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/bc79bd/32.png) [@villa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/villa)\ **Post date:** [December 16, 2009, 4:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-will-hear-case-of-tolerant-v-intolerant/520448/80 "2009-12-16T16:01:40Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Would it change your mind if I could point to a similar, real-life example? As I said earlier in the thread, I have seen it happen before as well (Monday Club taking over the Liberals at Oxford). But I don’t see it as necessarily a bad thing. And even if it were, the alternative is significantly worse. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-will-hear-case-of-tolerant-v-intolerant/520448.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/scotus-will-hear-case-of-tolerant-v-intolerant/520448.md?page=5)