SCOTUS splits sharply on campus Christian argument

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Supreme Court justices seemed to split sharply on whether a law school can legally deny recognition to a Christian student group because it won't let gays or non-Christians join.

The court heard arguments from the Christian Legal Society, which wants recognition from the Hastings College of the Law. Lower courts threw out a lawsuit trying to force the school to make it a campus organization.

Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito questioned the school's lawyer sharply, saying that being forced to admit someone who doesn't share their beliefs was a threat to the group. But Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor pressed the group's lawyer on notion that if they can ban gays, other groups can legally ban women and minorities.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_SUPREME_COURT_CAMPUS_CHRISTIANS?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT


Good to see Sotomayor and Ginsburg seemingly on the same side of another case.

Isn't that sort of like someone who hates Star Trek going to a Trek convention?

Not that I think non-chrisTians or no-Trekkers should be banned from such things.

I know the right wing media slanted it otherwise, but the issue is about this group getting money from the college while actively discriminating against certain student minorities.

:shrug:

they would be very unlikely to attract non Christians, although a few gay Christians might someday apply. Horrors, I guess.

It would seem anything covered by the equal employment or other laws would preclude such groups from legal recognition, although recognition as a school organization is a murkier area. One wonders if this isn't a test case for overturning the equal employment laws at some point, though, and re establishing the right to bar people on the bases of sex, religious affiliation, nationality, race, or any other group that is now protected.

I just wish these crybaby Christian martyrs would center their religion in the church and not the state, whether forcing dogma into civil law or trying to require schools to teach their dogma.

:shrug:

I understand that there are Gay Christians.

At least it kind of makes sense that Gay Christians might want to join a chrisTian organization.


I don't think the group should be allowed to discriminate if it is against their contract with the school under which they receive funds.

I just think it's silly to think that non-chrisTians would want to join.

or the things that the group is associated with.

For example--if the primary purpose of the group is something other than proselytizing, if members of that group were well-known for getting primo internships, or if there is some career prestige associated with being able to put membership of that group on your professional resume, I can see why non-Christians would want to join.

They do exist, after all.

which means that a state-sponsored organization such as a recognized campus organization at a public university, has no business requiring a "statement of faith" for membership.

If I were arguing this case (and no, I'm not a lawyer, but I did approximately 7,847 years of competitive debate in school, so I think I know how to argue a position) I'd emphasize that. Since these "statement of faith" documents for Christian organizations are generally written to exclude non-Protestants as well as non-Christians (writers will generally include specific statements at odds with Catholicism, Mormonism, and other Christian groups they find objectionable) I would personally mention that aspect as well if that is the case with this statement, since this court is disproportionately Catholic.

banned Christians or straights. That would be discrimination and they'd be howling about it.

against others -- according to them being Chrisitan is by definition a discriminatory group.

Of course the country has come down to: how does Kennedy feel about this. His is the only one that counts any more.

Not that they think it is, not that they interpret scripture or religious writings that way, that they can prove it is in the realm of law at the Hastings Law School.

That should be quite the battle.

Choosing whether or not to be a Christian is a choice that we could all agree is a choice.

If they move to say they wish to limit their club to those who express that being gay is wrong, that might work. But, they would have to accept gays who did. It would be interesting to see if they would be that accepting or not.