1
   

Suprime Court sides with school over Christian group ban

 
 
Reply Tue 29 Jun, 2010 09:11 am
Thanks to Justice Kennedy voting with the "moderate" Justices 5-4, University of California's Hastings College of the Law prevaled. --- BBB

Monday, June 28, 2010
Court sides with school over Christian group ban
By Michael Doyle | McClatchy Newspapers

WASHINGTON — A divided Supreme Court on Monday upheld a California law school's refusal to recognize a Christian student group that effectively banned gay members.

In a closely watched case that pit First Amendment rights against anti-discrimination policies, the court concluded 5-4 that the University of California's Hastings College of the Law acted reasonably in refusing to recognize and subsidize the Christian Legal Society.

The court's majority reasoned that Hastings was simply applying a standard, nondiscriminatory requirement that all student organizations accept all would-be members. In doing so, the court rejected the Christian Legal Society's claim that the policy infringed on religious and freedom-of-association rights.

"CLS's conduct, not its Christian perspective, is, from Hastings' viewpoint, what stands between the group" and recognition, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote for the majority.

Ginsburg, whose husband, Martin, died Sunday, was in the courtroom Monday to read her majority opinion. Conservative dissenters called the decision "deeply disappointing" and possibly dangerous for those who espouse politically incorrect views.

"The court arms public educational institutions with a handy weapon for suppressing the speech of unpopular groups; groups to which, as Hastings candidly puts it, these institutions do not wish to lend their names," Justice Samuel Alito wrote in dissent.

Based in San Francisco, Hastings formally recognizes about 60 student organizations, from the Hastings Association of Muslim Law Students to the Hastings Democratic Caucus.

The local chapter of the Christian Legal Society proposed an explicit criterion for membership. Students must sign a "statement of faith" to join. The statement recognizes "the Bible as the inspired word of God" and requires officers to "abstain from acts of the sinful nature."

"Unrepentant participation in or advocacy of a sexually immoral lifestyle is inconsistent with an affirmation of the statement of faith," a Christian Legal Society resolution says, specifically condemning "all acts of sexual conduct outside of God's design for marriage between one man and one woman, including fornication, adultery and homosexual conduct."

Hastings officials deemed the Christian Legal Society's bylaws a violation of the school's prohibition against discrimination on the basis of religion or sexual orientation. Consequently, the school denied formal recognition to the organization.

Justices Stephen Breyer, John Paul Stevens, Sonia Sotomayor and Anthony Kennedy joined Ginsburg's conclusion that the school's policy was "viewpoint neutral," since it applied equally to every organization.

"It is, after all, hard to imagine a more viewpoint-neutral policy than requiring all groups to accept all comers," Ginsburg wrote, adding that the Christian group is free to exclude potential members so long as it forgoes state support.

Leo Martinez, the law school’s acting chancellor and dean, pronounced himself "very pleased" with the decision.

"The college's intent has always been to ensure the leadership, educational and social opportunities afforded by officially recognized student organizations are available to all students attending public institutions. The court's ruling validates our policy, which is rooted in equity and fairness."

Jay Sekulow, the chief counsel of the conservative American Center for Law and Justice, said he was "extremely disappointed" in a decision that "significantly damages the constitutional rights of religious organizations."



  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 1,289 • Replies: 4
No top replies

 
failures art
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Jun, 2010 02:56 pm
Interesting read. I'm surprised I haven't heard more about this. I agree with the ruling. That, to many, will be no shock.

A
R
T
engineer
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Jul, 2010 06:54 am
@BumbleBeeBoogie,
I'm actually surprised this went down 5-4 instead of 9-0. Alito's dissent was especially disingenuous saying that the Christian group's free speech rights were trampled.
Supreme Court Justice Alito wrote:
I do not think it is an exaggeration to say that today’s decision is a serious setback for freedom of expression in this country. Our First Amendment reflects a “profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide- open.” [citation omitted] Even if the United States is the only Nation that shares this commitment to the same extent, I would not change our law to conform to the international norm. I fear that the Court’s decision marks a turn in that direction. Even those who find CLS’s views objectionable should be concerned about the way the group has been treated—by Hastings, the Court of Appeals, and now this Court. I can only hope that this decision will turn out to be an aberration.

No where was the Christian Legal Society restricted from speaking. They were only asked to abide by all the same rules (non-religious rules at that) that every other club asking for school money and resources are asked to abide by. I also don't get Alito's "change our law to conform to the international norm" comment since international laws were never at issue in this case. This almost seems like a political move to agitate certain groups to see a sinister agenda in the ruling.
Walter Hinteler
 
  0  
Reply Thu 1 Jul, 2010 07:35 am
@engineer,
engineer wrote:
[...]
Supreme Court Justice Alito wrote:
[...]Even if the United States is the only Nation that shares this commitment to the same extent, I would not change our law to conform to the international norm. I fear that the Court’s decision marks a turn in that direction. [...]
[...]I also don't get Alito's "change our law to conform to the international norm" comment since international laws were never at issue in this case. [...]


Additionally, I don't know to what "international norm" Justice Alito is referring.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Thu 1 Jul, 2010 08:52 am
@failures art,
failures art wrote:

Interesting read. I'm surprised I haven't heard more about this.

You should have read this thread.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
  1. Forums
  2. » Suprime Court sides with school over Christian group ban
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 04/26/2024 at 05:18:16