Strict neutrality applies to the guv'mnt, not to the group. They get to be what they are when they deal with the guv'mnt, not something the guv'mnt wants but what they want.
Capice?
oh vay.
The college has a non-discrimination policy in places that barred discrimination based on “sexual orientation” among other things, including race, gender and religious belief This is a rule that every single student group has to obey. Hastings went so far as to say they they would not allowed a black student group to explicitly ban KKK members from attending and all groups must accept all comers. In short, the rule was applied in a viewpoint neutral way. The Christian Legal Society even stipulated as much at the district level. (they went on to say that their viewpoint is unduly burdened)
The crux of the argument is that the Christian Legal Society was seeking to use: first official status as a RSO, second, funds that are derived from mandatory student fees and state funding, and three school property. It is perfectly reasonable that the college can regulate conduct that that goes with this official status as long as it does so in a viewpoint neutral way. the CLS was, in essence, asking for a special exemptions from the rules because of their religious beliefs. the freedom of religion does not extend to be given state sponsored status without any sort of regulation of conduct. If any group wants to be part Hasting RSO program the they must abide by the regulations.
This would mean a homosexual group would have to accept Christians as well.
Hastings did not prohibit the Christian Legal Society from enacting selective policies that governed members; CLS was free to form as a group that had whatever bylaws they wanted. Nor did Hastings order CLS to accept all comers. What Hastings did was say “If you want to be a RSO, you must obey X,Y and Z, where x, y and z applied to everyone.”
It should further be noted that after Hastings denied RSO status to CLS they still allowed the group to use campus facilities (but not RSO funds, nor the Hastings Logo) and they met as an unofficial student group for about a year prior to the court case. I don’t think Hastings’ non-discrimination policy is very wise, nor do I think the all comers requirement is the best way to adjudicate the issues. But I do not see how the 1st amendment is being violated when a public university refused to give a group a state subsidy in light of them refusing to obey the rules governoring said state subsidy.
Do you think a homosexual group that explicitly forbids Christians, and those that believe in traditional marriage, from joining it should be allowed to have access to a state subsidy in the form of RSO status?