Court: Christian group can't bar gays, get funding (Christian Legal Society v. Martinez)

AP ^ | 06/28/2010 | Staff

[OldDeckHand]

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court says a law school can legally deny recognition to a Christian student group that won't let gays join.

The court on Monday turned away an appeal from the Christian Legal Society, which sued to get funding and recognition from the University of California's Hastings College of the Law.

[OldDeckHand]

"So, why are these organizations continuing as 501(c)(3) in the first place?"

It's not their tax exempt status at issue here. What's the court found to be problematic is that this Christian group received "public funding" vis-a-vis access to campus meeting rooms and other privileges afforded to groups that are officially recognized by the university. With that recognition, comes a demand that the group be in compliance with the university's "anti-discrimination policy", or so the Court held.

[massmike]

bookmark

[OldDeckHand]

"So this will include say, The Muslim Student Association, from obtaining funding?"

No, but it will keep the Muslim group from excluding Christians or Jews or anyone else from membership.

It will be interesting to see if any of these Muslim groups segregate women from men in their activities. If so, that's going to be problematic, moving forward. You could have a Christian woman file suit to participate in these Muslim men activities, She'd win, judging by this particular opinion.

[Lou Budvis]

None of these groups should get any funding. If someone wants a student group, the members should have to pay for all of it.

[OldDeckHand]

"None of these groups should get any funding. If someone wants a student group, the members should have to pay for all of it."

"Funding" in this instance, means being allowed to meet on campus. That's "funding" according to the US Supreme Court. Do you still think "none of these groups should get any 'funding'"?

[Wyatt's Torch]

Correct. From NRO's Bench Memo's:

Despite what you might read in the mainstream media, the court did not rule that the “classic” nondiscrimination policy (which is in force in hundreds of universities) trumped the student group’s right to freedom of association. That issue was left unresolved. Instead, the Court ruled that the all-comers policy (which is in force virtually nowhere) was constitutional — but only if it had been applied equally to all groups on campus.

So CLS has not yet lost its case. Despite an unfavorable ruling on the all-comers policy, it can still prevail on remand if it proves that the university did not apply the policy to all student groups but instead specifically targeted CLS. We have powerful evidence that the university has, in fact, targeted CLS.

[Westbrook]

Any group filing 501-3c papers is agreeing to government regulation.

Churches and religious groups should stop participating in any government programs.

Bite the bullet, pay the taxes.

If worse comes to worse, sell the buildings and meet in homes and town hall basements.

[Cedar]

Jesus said: “You will be hated by all men for My name’s sake.”

Nothing unusual here. Jesus said things like this would happen. It’s probably best if the group just meets off-campus anyway. They would have much more liberty.

[ElkGroveDan]

This will quickly result in a situation where every group is funded/chartered except conservative Christian faiths. Once that happens then there will be a chance to appeal under the Establishment clause. Unfortunately it would seem that due to this recent decision we have to go all the way down that road before we can make our case.

[Rockitz]

I think that’s exactly what God would want us to do. Christians are called to be salt and light in this world and if they continue cloistering themselves in Christian-only groups, there’s no way to reach those who don’t know Jesus Christ.

[Steelfish]

Correct- The case was sent for remand. CLS may still prevail under the “accept all-comers” policy if it could show that Hastings applied this only to them and not the other student groups.

[left that other site]

This is why I have NEVER accepted public grant money for my art.

Even my work with “Special Needs”, Elderly, and Foster Children ALL is done with Private Money.

No Gub’mint Money, no Gub’mint Control!

[cva66snipe]

Same would apply to churches who took Caesars money for Bushes Faith Based Program which are government funded. They would also have to hire gays even as their preachers. Some of us said this was exactly what would happen if it passed. It's best no church or Christian group take even a cent from fed than to ever be under it's control.

[Mrs. Don-o]

What you say is true. But it also means you can't use campus meeting rooms, stick a flyer on a campus bulletin board to advertise events, use campus internet to publicize your activities, --- it means you essentially "disappear" and leave the public square (which you helped pay for) to the exclusive occupation of those who despise your values.

Unless--- as others have said --- you make a tactical decision to join some other geoup "en-masse' and take it over. This could be a good season for Christian Merry Pranksters...

[PapaBear3625]

Two edged sword. This ruling can be used to defund the radical Muslim Student Associations across the United States.

Not necessarily. It says "The Supreme Court says a law school can legally deny recognition to a Christian student group that won't let gays join". The ruling does not necessarily COMPEL the school to be even-handed in who it denies, it only says the school may deny recognition.

[Tatze]

This makes sense to me, on one point. If you want to be a private group and exclude members by whatever criteria you want, then don’t expect government funding. With government funding comes many strings attached. Accept funding, lose your right to an exclusive membership.

Although, as long as they fund themselves, I think they should be a university recognized organization!

[OldDeckHand]

"Although, as long as they fund themselves, I think they should be a university recognized organization!"

Right, and you're not alone in your position as witnessed by numerous posts on this thread. BUT, the only "funding" given to this group by the university is the classroom/facility that they were allowed to meet in as well as the perks that come along with being formally recognized by the university. Without that recognition, these students could not use the campus to meet, nor could they use university communication systems to post information about their club.

Essentially, the Court is saying if you're a group who wants to meet on campus, then you have to abide by the university non-discrimination policy. The "funding" is really a red herring.

[tsomer]

it means you essentially "disappear" and leave the public square (which you helped pay for)...

There's the point-- the activity fees, etc.

What about forcing students to hand money to organizations they object to on religious or moral grounds?

Has this already gone through the courts?

[OldDeckHand]

"What about forcing students to hand money to organizations they object to on religious or moral grounds? "

I'm not quite sure what you mean. Can you give an example of a group or organization that a student might be compelled to join, but they might have philosophical or religious differences with?

Besides tuition, parking, housing books and other matriculation fees, I can't think of any other mandatory "group" fees.

[Grunthor]

“The Supreme Court says a law school can legally deny recognition to a Christian student group that won’t let gays join.”

Love the sinner, hate the sin.