Posted on 06/29/2010 5:55:59 AM PDT by InvisibleChurch
In a 5-4 decision this morning, the Supreme Court said that a California law school can require a Christian group to open its leadership positions to all students, including those who disagree with the group's statement of faith. The majority opinion, issued by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, said that Hastings College of the Law's "all comers" policy, which required all groups to open all positions to all students, "is a reasonable, viewpoint-neutral condition on access to the student-organization forum."
The Christian Legal Society (CLS) chapter at the University of California school, Ginsburg wrote, "seeks not parity with other organizations, but a preferential exemption from Hastings' policy."
"Hastings, caught in the crossfire between a group's desire to exclude and students' demand for equal access, may reasonably draw a line in the sand permitting all organizations to express what they wish but no group to discriminate in membership." Ginsburg wrote.
(Excerpt) Read more at christianitytoday.com ...
It’s a state school, so I can’t get too worked about this. Though I can get pretty worked up about the fact that state schools exist in the first place . . .
Amen. Maybe the Christian group will end up foregoing the university recognition and any aid. Or they could ask to join the gay groups on campus instead, and sue if they are denied.
I wonder whether the group could take itself off-campus and off school funding, make membership by invitation only etc. to preserve their right of free association. Perhaps a local church could make facilities available on a weekday when the building is HVACed, lit, and vacant.
All the Court did here was open up new areas of political street warfare by the protestor/activist classes on all sides of the spectrum. Now we will see all the interest groups organizing to infiltrate and subvert those college campus groups which they disagree with. Seculars infiltrating Christian groups. Christian groups infiltrating Islamic and Gay organizations. Islamic supporters infiltrating Jewish organizations. Since the the campus organizations are predominently liberal/Islamic, ultimately this ruling may work to the benefit of conservative/Christians. In any even it makes a mockery of campus groups working on shared interests.
There’s no point at all to having a confessionally oriented group that is not allowed to have confessional membership requirements. I hope they don’t comply with the ruling. They need to achieve fellowship another way.
Ginsburg’s use of “desire to exclude” says it all for me. She disregards the value of any point of view but “neutrality,” which is merely code for anti-Christianity.
What about MUSLIM groups?? Are they exempt?
Freedom of assembly?
Let me guess: the swing vote was Reagan appointee Anthony Kennedy.
Imagine a young Bill Maher at a Bible study....
Time for the parents of the Christian kids to be homeschooled or go to a Christian private school
The world has gone insane.
Are you just now noticing?
Jesus hung out with prostitutes and (gasp) Tax Collectors! Maybe we should look at this as an opportunity to make converts.
No. Just marveling at the various manifestations, and the widespread nature of it.
Too bad, the school having an “all comers” policy, you can’t exclude. But it would now be fun for a conservative Christian to be president of a campus gay group.
Then maybe they’ll realize that an “all comers” policy is stupid. We have different groups because we have different beliefs and interests.
Jesus didn’t hang out w/tax collectors and prostitutes. He preached The Word to them. They followed HIM because they wanted to hear the good news. And He didn’t enter some towns because He knew what was in them. He LIVED by His own Words, don’t cast pearls before swine.
Big difference than the picture you are trying to paint.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.