1 BREAKING NEWS! Paulie C. is here to troll.

And yes, i refer to myself in the third person.

2
Would they exclude Muslims for, you know, beating women and killing their children?

3 a student group that limits officers and voting members to those who share its core religious commitments.

Can the school Muslim group limit officers and voting members to those who share its core religious commitments?

4 I voted no cause me hates gays, atheists, and non-Christians.

5
Would Planned Parenthood hire me, a pro-lifer? If not, why not?

6
It is frustrating to look at zombie Ginsburg and know she is "deciding" legal issues.

7 3 Yeah, Heather that's what I was thinking. What about their gay/lesbian/transgender group? Do they count? What about the women's group? Do they allow men? Either every group or none.

8 So ... is the Congressional Black Caucus about to be disbanded?  They rejected an application by the idiot Steve Cohen, just because of his skin color.

I can't imagine that the student group even comes close to the discriminatory policy of the CBC.  Not even in the same universe.

Personally, I defer to our right to free association, which is one of the true foundations of individual liberty, above any idiotic claims of discrimination in all of these cases.

9 6 Cut it out. She is only mostly dead. She isn't truely dead. At least when she's full zombie she will want to eat everybody's brain.

10 As stated  above, what are the other groups on the campus that receive the 250?

11 The non-discrimination policy is itself discriminatory because it discriminate against groups that exist based on virtually any membership criteria.  For example, if a group was established to function as a support group for tall people and that group refused admission to people with dwarfism, that would be discriminatory as well, would it not?

12 “It is frustrating not to know what is before us,” Kennedy said in the opening minutes. And Justice Stephen G. Breyer, who had said with the same frustration that the case had become one of “great unclarity,” asked plaintively in the closing minutes: “What do I do with this case?”

--------------
When have these two ever had a problem with making decisions when there are "unclarities" in application!?

13

Well it depends.

Do the other groups at Hastings seeking funding excluding individuals? If so, you have your answer.

 

14 Give them an excuse and they avoid the Constitutional question like the plague, and it looks like they've got more than enough excuse to bow out of this one. So don't expect any sort of useful ruling from the court.

15 (I take the position that school-funded student groups for every race, religion, age, gender, family status, national origin, hobby, and fetish is another reason college costs are out of control...students who want to be social can form clubs with their own money and the internets, and students who just want to study can stop being charged a thousand dollars a year in "activity fees."  But that said...if you have to be into S&M to vote and be an officer in the school bondage club, the Christian clubs should get the same deal.)

16 Obviously they have a right to free association, but can they ask for public money? If they decide that they can't then none of these racial or sex orientation groups should get public money---evah.

17 For example, if a group was established to function as a support group for tall people and that group refused admission to people with dwarfism, that would be discriminatory as well, would it not?

I would rephrase it in terms of a women's group, and then ask Sotomayor for her opinion.

18

I voted yes for one reason and it may not be valid anymore. When I was in college we had a black student union. You had to be black to join it and it was given some money and space by the University.

If it wasn't for that I would vote no. If you are going to ask for money from someone you should follow their rules. Claiming entitlement to subsidies regardless if you meet the qualifications is just wrong in my opinion, as are subsidies.

19 For example, if a group was established to function as a support group for tall people and that group refused admission to people with dwarfism, that would be discriminatory as well, would it not?

Posted by: Hussein the Plumber at April 19, 2010 02:50 PM (RkRxq)

Discriminatory basketball teams to be disbanded! 

I was joking, but Title IX isn't far from this sort of insanity.

20 First off I will say that this group will definitely lose this one based on nothing more than changing their stance on a matter already settled in court.  Whoever their lawyer is should be fired for that alone.

On the actual facts of the case though, if the school was prohibiting the group from forming they may have a case. But they have nothing on the issue of asking for subsidies from the school.

They have a "right" to exclude members who don't hold with their beliefs (freedom of association) and they have a "right" to hold their own religious beliefs as long as those beliefs do not represent an immediate danger to others,

But, they do NOT have a "right" to public funds or access to public property.

21 What do you think?

It depends...
[Runs screaming from room, hands over ears]

22  It is frustrating to look at zombie Ginsburg and know she is "deciding" legal issues.

Last month, she actually spoke out with a cranky: "I am alive" just to remind us.

23 What is the point of a "group", if it cannot differentiate itself through membership requirements?  

 

24 since you asked,...
My understanding is that this is an issue because they receive federal money. Why? That is the problem. Stop giving money to schools.

NPR this morning made it sound that only the Christian group at the school discriminates and that the main issue was gay rights. Well, I wonder if gays are trying to join just to screw with the Christians. If so then i hope their dicks fall off.

25

They're free to form and have any by-laws in their charter as they see fit. And that includes any provisions regarding exclusion of potential members.

But they sure as hell can't ask for public funding if their stated purpose is to exclude.

26 No.  They have a right to pursue their religion and to assemble in that pursuit, but they don't have a right to use school funds or resources to do so.

27 Ruth Bader Ginsberg wants to know if this will help the eugenics movement.

28

It argued that the group is asserting a constitutional right to a public subsidy.

Yeh, I'm stuck right there.

If you want to keep people out, then you don't get the "we don't keep people out" funds.

What am I missing here?

29 gays are a protected class...i can't see barring gay christians from the group.....a gay atheist and gay non christain can be barred but the gay christian? i don't think so.......

30 They have a right to pursue their religion and to assemble in that pursuit, but they don't have a right to use school funds or resources to do so.

Is the school Muslim group getting school funds or resources?

31
But the group isn't infringing on anyone's rights. They are merely holding a position or belief.

So the issue here is the restriction of thoughts and beliefs.

32 But, they do NOT have a "right" to public funds or access to public property.

Posted by: Vic at April 19, 2010 02:53 PM (QrA9E)

But it isn't really a question of public funds as much as it an arbitrary determination by the school not to allow this one group.

Frankly, for $250 I would tell the school to "go to hell", but it's the principle that the school doesn't have the right to use public funds, that they direct, in order to forward their own personal preferences for the "proper" associations.

33 I voted no, on condition that if Hastings is publicly financed it applies this rule to ALL student groups (esp. those based on religion/race/gender).  If Hastings is private well then I guess anything goes.

34
This is the Boy Scouts case all over again.

35
Is the school Muslim group getting school funds or resources?
Posted by: HeatherRadish at April 19, 2010 02:57 PM

I don't know - is there a Muslim group and, if so, is it a group to study Islam that is open to all or is it a group of people who swear a vow to obey Islam?  If it is the former, I see no problem with getting school resources to do that as what you essentially have is an anthropology group.  If it is the latter, then it would be the same as this case and they should not receive funds. 

Groups and school programs get around discrimination policies all the time by ensuring that their mission is one thing without restricting its membership. 

36 I need more coffee, I guess.  If I vote yes on the poll, am I with the student group?

But that aside, not knowing these intricate law things, you can bet your bottom dollar that the purpose behind the policy is to attack the Christian group.

After you win that bet, you can bet that they would look the other way if a campus gay group required their officers to be gay.

Congratulations you now have 4 dollars to be confiscated by the obama administration.

37 Meh, stupid case and stupid litigants (why did the group stipulate the rejection was view point neutral and then bring a 1st Amendment claim?).

It seems the religious element is secondary or at least just the case that was offered. I mean, could the Irish Club keep out those filthy Englishmen? Probably not and you have the same case.

SCOTUS 1st Amendment jurisprudence sucks, including or maybe especially the intersection of public institutions and religion.

Throw it all  out and start over!

38 Is the school Muslim group getting school funds or resources?

According to the law school's brief, several religious groups are recognized and abide by the nondiscrimination policy including

Hastings Catholic Law Students Association, Hastings Jewish Law Students Association, J. Reuben Clark Law Society, and Law Students Christian
Fellowship.

It also notes that Hastings Outlaw (the gay campus group) also abides by the nondiscrimination policy.

No word on Muslims.

39

Is the school Muslim group getting school funds or resources?

If there is a Muslim group and it's receiving the funds, do they exlude others from joining?

That's the real question.

40 If the Supreme Court tosses back this case without resolving some of these constitutional issues, it will be one of the most costly refusals to give $250 in travel funds EVAR.

I am going to ignore the Constitutional issues (can't sleep Lemon test will eat me) and focus on the failure to make a complete record in the court below.

Here's what I want to know - why was that stipulation entered into between the parties?  How the test is applied is rather fundamental.  If the school says "oh hey it's viewpoint neutral" but gives funding to say a GLSA group who won't let a member of the Federalist Society in, well, that's a weeeeee bit important.  So was the stipulation actually voluntary or did a lower court judge helpfully suggest to the parties that they should do that?  An organization can claim it's viewpoint neutral all it wants but reality is frequently different.  If the stipulation was entered voluntarily, what the hell was counsel thinking?

41 @39
lacey, I think Gabriel is saying that the other religious groups do not exclude based on religion/sexual preference. 

42

I think if we are giving money to the christian group, we should be giving it to the wiccans and satanists as well.

BTW, not that anyone here would give a crap, but the dean said in an interview on Sunday he'd deny funds to any group who discriminated. He was asked by the interviewer if that meant that black groups would have to admit a white supremacist and he replied yes.

43 Dismiss as improvidently granted and tell the district court to have a trial.

44 But it isn't really a question of public funds as much as it an arbitrary determination by the school not to allow this one group.

That is not what was stipulated in the beginning. The argument was whether or not they could get the funds and hold meetings on school property (e.g. use school resources).  There was no mention that the school refused to allow them to form a group at all.

Also, I note many people make an issue for whether or not other groups such as Muslims get the funds and are able to use school resources. If they discriminate in a manner that goes against the school requirements then they too should not be funded by the school.

Even if they are, then the school is wrong and should be held accountable.  Just because they are wrong on one score doesn't make it right to be wrong on another score.

45 Rush unloads on the Media and Bill Clinton

46
what's to stop the govt from taking away a church's tax exempt status if the church doesn't follow the govt's arbitrary rules, for example, not allowing a rabbi, or a homo, or a skinhead to be a member?

We're coming to a point where mandated inclusion infringes on our civil rights -- the two don't jibe.

47

Can the school Muslim group limit officers and voting members to those who share its core religious commitments?

 

My question also.  And I would suspect that any muslim group would be sucking all they could out of the school's funds.  (That'll teach the infidels!)

48 41 Right. That's exactly my point.

49 Racism, straight up.

50
BTW, not that anyone here would give a crap...

you're right, so STFU, dunce

51 I see two wrongs make a right, again.... There is free tax payer dollars at stake here folks. That means if you are required to be a Christian to get them, then we have free taxpayer money going to support a religion. Not kewl. Stop complaining that other groups are not complying with the law (a fact that has not been established). But if some Muslim group or atheism group its getting free tax payer dollars and requiring its officers to be muslim or atheist or whatever, go after their funding too. The proper response is not to ask for a place on the government teat too.

52 As a lot of people are saying, it would be nice to know what the other organizations are doing about limiting membership, if anything, though snarking that just the muslims might do being it too and the school is ok with seems excessive, since there are several other groups i would put ahead of the muslims as limiting their membership. Since federal money is apparently involved, the Court may be fine with the School requiring any approved organization meet its requirements re "nondiscrimination". 

53 the dean said in an interview on Sunday he'd deny funds to any group who discriminated. He was asked by the interviewer if that meant that black groups would have to admit a white supremacist and he replied yes.

I'm sure that's true.  I'm also sure that if that white supremacist behaved inappropriately in the group - disrupted meetings, fought each and every thing the group tried to do, worked counter to the group's charter - they could kick that person out. 

Same thing with the gay group.  If a person who was opposed to homosexuality on whatever grounds, religious or whatever, joined the gay rights group and then proceeded to proselytize his/her anti-homosexuality beliefs at meetings, that person would be kicked out.

My understanding of this case is that groups can determine who the members are based on the performance of those members in the group's stated mission, but they can't a priori stop people from joining using a litmus test like religion or sexual preference. 

54 what's to stop the govt from taking away a church's tax exempt status if the church doesn't follow the govt's arbitrary rules,

Having a 501-3(c) non-profit rating is not the same thing as receiving funding from the government contrary to what the media keeps saying when they are talking about organizations they don't like. 

55 Listen, I always try to put myself in the place of the person who has the biggest stake in an issue. If was are still a capitalist free society, then we have to protect the right of free people to enter into contracts. How would you feel if you built a whole f-ing school and some half dead asshole in a robe starts telling you how to write up the handbook?

If the gov (by way of the first amendment) can tell this school what rules it can make then the gov is to big. first they tell it what extracurricular groups are allowed, then they tell it what color to paint the shithouse. The college should be able to come up with whatever rules it wants. If it decides it is in it's business interests to require all groups using school facilities have a one legged midget as president, then they should be allowed.

So I think the college should be allowed to make whatever rules it wants, and if the Christians don't like it they can start their own damn school.

56 According to the law school's brief, several religious groups are recognized and abide by the nondiscrimination policy including

Hastings Catholic Law Students Association, Hastings Jewish Law Students Association, J. Reuben Clark Law Society, and Law Students Christian Fellowship.

It also notes that Hastings Outlaw (the gay campus group) also abides by the nondiscrimination policy.

No word on Muslims.

Posted by: Gabriel Malor at April 19, 2010 03:02 PM (Mi2wf)

What does this mean?  That they have members who do not fit the descriptions of the groups (officers, even)?  Or that they have never had the problem of having to reject peopel who didn't belong from trying to join?  If the Hastings Jewish Law Students group had 80% non-jews join it, then it wouldn't really be a Jewish Law Student group anymore.

I find these claims of "non-discrimination" of the other groups to be patently ridiculous, as anyone with a brain could figure.  Clearly, the gay group would be worthless if it was made up of 95% non-gays who didn't care about anything gay.  Without discrimination, there is nothing, unless people exercise some decency and self-control, but we know that the left does the exact opposite.

This sort of claim by the school - only to be believed by someone with an IQ in the teens - is why I hate lawyers.

57 How about letting students keep their activities fee and then they can pay for their own travel?

Why do fully-grown adults need someone to pay for their after-school activities?

58 Dismiss as improvidently granted and tell the district court to have a trial.

Oh man.  There was a huge case here in PA that was just DIG'd after extensive briefing and oral arguments.  I know one of the lawyers involved and he spent a weekend getting blind drunk after the dismissal order came down since it wasted more or less a year of his life and a fuckton of money for his client.  He didn't even care that this meant he won since the lower court ruling was upheld. 

59 I find these claims of "non-discrimination" of the other groups to be patently ridiculous, as anyone with a brain could figure.  Clearly, the gay group would be worthless if it was made up of 95% non-gays who didn't care about anything gay.  Without discrimination, there is nothing, unless people exercise some decency and self-control, but we know that the left does the exact opposite.

I disagree.  It depends on what the mission of the group is.  If the mission of the group is to promote an understanding of and acceptance of homosexuality, to study the history of homosexuality, and/or to provide platforms for famous homosexual activists to come and give lectures, then I could easily imagine many/most of the members not being homosexual. 

If the mission of the group is to provide a dating service for homosexuals then, yeah, you'd want the majority of members to be gay.  On the other hand, if that's the mission of the group, I doubt an educational institution would necessarily grant them official status. 

60 This seems similar to the "move into the airport flight path because property is cheaper there, then complain about the noise" move.

The school's nondiscrimination rules pre-existed the group's founding. They are not, on their face, contrary to public purpose. They weren't secret, or applied inconsistently. Therefore the group is bound by them and should be laughed out of court. That they're at the SCOTUS now is ominous.

If the rules had been enacted as a response to the group, all of these lovely constitutional issues could get a run-through....but this doesn't seem to have been the case.

61

 If it decides it is in it's business interests to require all groups using school facilities have a one legged midget as president, then they should be allowed.

So I think the college should be allowed to make whatever rules it wants, and if the Christians don't like it they can start their own damn school.

 

Not if the school is recieving Fed. funds.  You take Fed money, you've just made a deal with the devil...and you do what the devil tells you to do.

62 Same thing with the gay group.  If a person who was opposed to homosexuality on whatever grounds, religious or whatever, joined the gay rights group and then proceeded to proselytize his/her anti-homosexuality beliefs at meetings, that person would be kicked out.

Posted by: Y-not at April 19, 2010 03:09 PM (Kn9r7)

But that is just the group discriminating.  TO allow someone in as a member, but only to speak the official words, is kind of odd.  When it comes down to it, that is a full-on speech code at the group, dictated by the group's charter, or the serving officers, as even a legitmately gay guy could be against gay marriage and a member of the gay group.

There is no logical way out of the school's insanity.  Groups must be allowed to discriminate in their membership.  TO deny this basic right, and basic part of human nature, is to try and make robots of people.

63

Groups must be allowed to discriminate in their membership.

Uh huh.

But then demand public funding while doing so?

That's where the argument goes off the rails.

64 But that is just the group discriminating.  TO allow someone in as a member, but only to speak the official words, is kind of odd.  When it comes down to it, that is a full-on speech code at the group, dictated by the group's charter, or the serving officers, as even a legitmately gay guy could be against gay marriage and a member of the gay group.

Yes, but it's discriminating based on behavior and the behavior that I was citing in my example was being a non-participatory, obstructionist member.  In other words, the group has a mission and a purpose.  If the member in question spends all of his or her time working counter to that purpose, then they are not a good member and should not be in the group.

They could start their own group that is about celebrating traditional marriage etc, but they do not have a right to disrupt the gay group.

Now, if that person was a Mormon and therefore people assumed he/she was against homosexuality but he/she never said anything, then (1) the Mormon should be allowed to join the group with the expectation (2) they would participate in the group.

That's why student groups have to have stated missions, goals, organizational structure, etc. 

65 ....and, I should add, there should be a general rule of law that says that you cannot force someone to give public money to a group (unless an award for damages). The remedy for the group not getting their travel payment should be limited to denial of other travel payments to other groups. It's quite irksome that the default position of the courts seems to be "squander public resources."

66

But then demand public funding while doing so?

That's where the argument goes off the rails.

Posted by: laceyunderalls at April 19, 2010 03:20 PM (pLTLS)

If others are getting it, then they have every right to demand it.  Personally, I wouldn't want my group to take any public money, but I also don't want public money used to exclusively push left-wing idiocy.  I'd rather see no groups getting any public funds, at all.  But, as that won't happen, better to push this point and show the asinine arguments of the left for what they are.

67 Hastings can't describe how they go about making these decisions - they're not going to admit that they simply pick the groups they like and support to receive funding. Of course, if colleges and other schools didn't fund any activities at all and made all of these groups rely solely on private donations, this problem would be solved. Tuition money = books, teachers, administration and infrastructure - not "student activities." But that would interfere with their mission to turn your children into left wing social activists, Greenpeacers and tolerance Nazis using tuition funds. So instead Hastings hectors the Supreme Court for a ruling covering their asses for playing political favorites. How about requiring "a strong showing" or "substantial justification" ? That should cover their asses as they throw tuition money around like campaign donations.

68 That's why student groups have to have stated missions, goals, organizational structure, etc.

Well, yeah, if you use Earth Logic.  Earth Logic is, sadly, utterly irrelevant to First Amendment case law. 

69
Wasn't this the main reason the Left had a conniption over Bush's Faith-Based Initiatives? They hated the idea of govt working with religious groups, i.e., Christian groups, without strings attached.

The Left likes strings, they do.

70 The first rule of First Amendment case law is that there is no rule!

71 discriminating based on behavior

Is believing in God a behavior?  Is homosexual activity a behavior?  Is bowing toward Mecca five times a day a behavior?

72

That's why student groups have to have stated missions, goals, organizational structure, etc. 

 

Yeah.  That's why I was a member of the "Drink, Drunk, Drag-out Society" when I was in college.

73 Yes, but it's discriminating based on behavior and the behavior that I was citing in my example was being a non-participatory, obstructionist member. In other words, the group has a mission and a purpose. If the member in question spends all of his or her time working counter to that purpose, then they are not a good member and should not be in the group.

So, people can be tossed out of these groups for disagreeing with any part of the group charter? That's a bit constraining, wouldn't you say?

They could start their own group that is about celebrating traditional marriage etc, but they do not have a right to disrupt the gay group.

The non-Christian can start his own non-Christian group.

Now, if that person was a Mormon and therefore people assumed he/she was against homosexuality but he/she never said anything, then (1) the Mormon should be allowed to join the group with the expectation (2) they would participate in the group.

What's the point of being allowed to speak ... so long as one doesn't speak?

That's why student groups have to have stated missions, goals, organizational structure, etc.

Posted by: Y-not at April 19, 2010 03:22 PM (Kn9r7)

That's why groups have the right to discriminate in their membership. It is a right of humans to associate with those we want to, whatever our determinations are.

74 55: If Hastings was a private school, that would be a good argument. Unfortunately (from it's Wikipedia entry): Hastings has a unique relationship with the University of California. In 1878, when Justice Serranus Clinton Hastings gave $100,000 to the University of California to start the law school bearing his name, he imposed two conditions: the school must remain in San Francisco near the courts; and it could not be governed by the Regents of the University of California. Thus the school's leader (who holds the dual titles of chancellor and dean) must obtain funds directly from the California State Legislature, unlike other UC institutions, which receive money from the Regents.

75

If others are getting it, then they have every right to demand it.

No, no they don't. They most certainly do not if their stated purpose is to discriminate.

But if you want to take that stance, you're free to. Of course I'll assume if that you'd feel the same way if the atheist group decided to ban any and all Christians, Jews, Hindus, etc, etc -or- if the LGBT forbade heteros and then demanded funding for their administrative expenses.

76 When you take the funds you accept the attached strings. You can't have it both ways.

77 I voted no.

When you want money from someone, you pretty much dance to the tune they call.

The school didn't say they couldn't exist or have their meetings. The school simply said they wouldn't pay for it.

I don't see a violation here, as long as the school is consistent in its policy.

78 A lot of you folks have a misunderstanding of what the law mandates on discrimination.

A group or private club can "discriminate" in any manner it desires as far as membership goes. That being said, they are not automatically qualified for public funding if they do.

This is one of the last areas where the courts have upheld the ability to discriminate based on race and/or sex.

Look at Augusta National as an example.They still will not allow women members and women have not been successful in getting in either. 

79

I think this is why the federal government shouldn't be funding education. There's no way to reach a decision that does not involve enormous bureaucratic oversight of recipients of federal money. That and the fact that they have no authority to do so. Let the states deal with education. Cut the federal purse/apron-strings.

The best indication that something is a bad idea is that it has bad results.

80 Correct me if I'm wrong, but CLS's argument never stipulated that the application of the rule was viewpoint neutral:

http://tinyurl.com/yygq63a

"Next, CLS filed a motion for preliminary injunction, with a supporting legal brief and with supporting evidence, including constitutions of other student organizations — organizations that had similar religious rules as CLS but had not been de-recognized. This motion asked the court to order Southern Illinois University to recognize CLS while the case was pending."

81

>>>No, no they don't. They most certainly do not if their stated purpose is to discriminate.

There is no such thing as "a group" without discrimination".  Groups need to have boundaries.

>>>But if you want to take that stance, you're free to. Of course I'll assume if that you'd feel the same way if the atheist group decided to ban any and all Christians, Jews, Hindus, etc, etc -or- if the LGBT forbade heteros and then demanded funding for their administrative expenses.

Posted by: laceyunderalls at April 19, 2010 03:35 PM (pLTLS)

A religious person has no business demanding entrance to an atheist group.  And I would prefer that none of these groups got any funding - as they are all adults and can pay for themselves.  But, if the left are going to fund their own groups with public funds, then others ought to have their groups funded as well.

I just find the idea of groups that cannot bar entrance based on any relevant criteria, that the group determines, to be the weirdest notion. It is unnatural and contrived.  People have to come to grips with the fact that there are groups that don't want them, and that is life.

82 Typically these funds are taken from student fees, so they aren't "public monies" at all. 

It is unclear to me how the required "statement of faith" "excludes gays, atheists, and non-Christians" - is it just an affirmation of Christian faith, or does it specifically "exclude" others or require members to affirm they are not in those categories?

It seems an affront to say student activity fees may subsidize the "Transgendered Christian-hating Communist Society"  because that group "doesn't discriminate" . . . but not a Christian group.

I expect the Libertines will, as usual, be working closely with the atheists on this.

83 Typically these funds are taken from student fees, so they aren't "public monies" at all. 

Posted by: Adjoran at April 19, 2010 03:46 PM (3hg5M)

That case would be even worse than public funding, since that would be the students' own money being used for others' groups but not allowed for what they wanted.

84 Seems pretty simple to me, the group wants it their way (because the other groups do without oversight) and get public funds, and the school is actively discriminating against probably the only group that wouldn't violate their own little political correct hypocrisy.

yes, I know this doesn't have any thing to do with actual law.

85

In between, the Court went on a spirited, but mostly unrequited, search for the real-world facts about how the Hastings College of Law in San Francisco decides when to allow a student group to gain official campus recognition, and thus access to some money and to the school facilities.

Sheesh, guys. It's easy. Leftist groups get money. Conservative ones don't.

86

But, if the left are going to fund their own groups with public funds, then others ought to have their groups funded as well.

But progressoverpeace, you assume with this premise the leftist groups discriminate in the same manner.

 

87

The Christian group should just include the same clause that the campus La Raza group did. Scroll down for the bolded part.

GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
THE ASSOCIATION SHALL BE AND IS COMMITTED TO ACHIEVING AND PURSUING THE FOLLOWING OBJECTIVES:
1. Establishing a sense of community amongst Raza students on campus through Political, Social and Cultural events and through academic support.
2. Developing competent Raza attorneys to achieve representation in the legal community and to aid our respective Fbza communities through effective legal representation and leadership.
3. Fostering and developing links to the Raza communities so as to develop an identity between the Association and the Raza communities.
4. Integrating Raza students within the decision-making process apparatus at Hastings so as to have a determining effect on recruitment and other administrative policies that affect Raza students.
5. Promoting cultural, political, and social awareness within the Association and the Hastings community.
6. Creating and maintaining a viable and supportive Raza Alumni network

ARTICLE I1
ANTI-DISCRIMINATION
It is the policy of this Association not to discriminate on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, ancestry, age, sex, sexual orientation or disability. This clause shall not be interpreted in any way to conflict with the goals and objects of the Association as outlined in Article I. This clause will follow the university's antidiscrimination policy.

88 In a perfect world with a real court none of this would be an issue. The federal government would not be allowed to make any funding of State schools and therefore would not be able to dictate any terms.

By the same token though, no State school would be able to discriminate on the basis of race, religion etc.

Private schools would receive no State support and would be able to do anything they wanted.

89

The Iranian group has a similar clause to the La Raza group.

SECTION3: Any member may be removed from menibership for violation of the purposes of the organization by a two-thirds vote of the membership.

90

This really is a stupid lawsuit. All you have to do is pust a clause in there that allows for a removal of a member violates the basic goals of the organization.

That's what all these other groups are doing.

If an athiest wants to join your group; let him. If he spends every meeting screaming that God doesn't exist, you can remove him. Same for gays, same for anyone.

91 Am I mistaken in my memory of this?  I thought I read that the group was, in fact, disbanded.  If this is the case, then the college screwed the pooch on this one.  If it is a case of not getting money, but having the availability of using college facilities, logos, or icons, then that doesn't seem to reach discrimination status to me.  However if any group that has in it's bilaws that any person can be excluded for any reason is getting college support, then the college loses on first ammendment issues.

92 Related: Supreme Court Strikes Down Constitution

93

This really is a stupid lawsuit. All you have to do is pust a clause in there that allows for a removal of a member violates the basic goals of the organization.

That's what all these other groups are doing.

Posted by: Warden at April 19, 2010 04:29 PM (QoR4a)

Sure, they could just do that, but why sacrifice integrity for the leftist shits at the school?  Discriminating by vote is no different than discriminating by charter, though it's honest when done through the charter.

I still don't understand why anyone thinks that a heterosexual should want to, or expect to be allowed to, join a gay group - or anything else along these lines.

94 Here's the litmus test:

Go to any "public" university and find the local Muslim Brotherhood or Muslim Student Alliance or Palestinian Organization and see how many Jews or Christians or Atheists are serving as officers or voting members.

Not that this will happen in a rational world like we have today...

95

Sorry, progressforpeace. I just can't get that worked up over it. They're asking for federal funding, so they have to play by the rules.

If someone joins in order to undermine them, then they can have that person removed. If they wish to exercise their right to free association, then they can pass on the funding.

I'm with some of the other posters - all this stuff should be privately  funded anyway.

96

>>>Sorry, progressforpeace.

OVER!!  progressOVERpeace.  It's a statement of what society's priorities should be - and the progress is real, technological progress, not the silly social progress that the leftist turds talk about.

>>>I just can't get that worked up over it. They're asking for federal funding, so they have to play by the rules.

I'm just saying that the rules are stupid and senseless - meaning that they aren't really "rules" but jokes.

>>>If someone joins in order to undermine them, then they can have that person removed. If they wish to exercise their right to free association, then they can pass on the funding.

Someone wanting to join a group that they are not part of (a hetero wanting to be in a gay group) is as clear an intent to undermine as one can get, so I'm not sure what distinction people are trying to draw.

>>>I'm with some of the other posters - all this stuff should be privately  funded anyway.

Posted by: Warden at April 19, 2010 04:45 PM (QoR4a)

I'm with all of you on that, but, given the fact that federal money is being disbursed, that does not allow the school to funnel that money to their preferred groups, based on asinine reasoning.

97

eh .. brainfart. Isn't there some bullshit leftwing group called Progress for Peace?

98

Someone wanting to join a group that they are not part of (a hetero wanting to be in a gay group) is as clear an intent to undermine as one can get

I can actually see some hetero lefty doing this to demonstrate that he's down with the cause.

Or a guy joining a women's rights group and holding a candle at a rape vigil to try to score some tail.

99 Isn't there some bullshit leftwing group called Progress for Peace?

Posted by: Warden at April 19, 2010 04:53 PM (QoR4a)

Probably.  The left has destroyed the word "progress" (the basis of Western civilization) like they've destroyed most other important words.  But, I've been using this internet pseudonym since the wee beginning and I refuse to let the leftists push me out of it with their ongoing rape of the English language.

100

I can actually see some hetero lefty doing this to demonstrate that he's down with the cause.

True, though he could just start a new group: heteros down with homos. And the gay group can let him in, if they want.  But, my point is that they are perfectly within reason to deny membership to anyone who is not gay.

Or a guy joining a women's rights group and holding a candle at a rape vigil to try to score some tail.

Posted by: Warden at April 19, 2010 04:56 PM (QoR4a)

That's what drives many men to the left.

101

All "War on Christianity" hype aside, this is an unavoidable problem with the Free Exercise clause. What do you do if somebody comes up with a religion requires that they do things that are illegal? "Free Exercise", if taken at face value, would be a loophole that would allow you to bypass any other law.

If we are to have rule of law at all, the other laws have to take precedence over the "Free Exercise" clause, and I would be really surprised if Court decided otherwise. If the same standard is not applied to other campus groups, than it certainly should be.

Last I heard, this was not like the UK, where, IIRC, they have been crazy enough to allow some application of Shiara law as some sort of parallel legal system. (Didn't I hear of something like that in Canada, too?) And the UK has an official state church, for crying out loud!!

102 As much a fan of free speech as I am, I would have to side with the school on this one. Nobody is forcing the students to attend this particular school; they could (potentially, at least) find one that's less restrictive.

103 I'd have to say no. The group has a right to speech and religion. Neither has been infringed upon. Denying public funds hardly abrogates their 1st Amendment rights.

104 Everyone keeps mentioning funds.  I doubt if funds have much to do with the issue.  It is the ability to use school premises for meetings, etc. that is the issue.  And since these are students who have paid their tuition (through the nose, I might add), they should be able to use the facilities for their group.  Besides, if these other groups say they don't discriminate, they are lying.  OTOH, it could be that they don't overtly discriminate.  They just don't allow people not like themselves in on the QT all the while saying they re an open society.  As posters above have said, what is the use of having a society for your beliefs if you don't have a membership of like-minded people.  This is the same kind of minds that won't let the ROTC on campus because they are against the DADT enacted by congress.  They receive public funds and still are able to discriminate. These academic libs reallly cherry pick their opponents and issues.

105 104 Barbara: I agree with what you're saying but still want the colleges out of this quagmire in general - don't let any student group use college facilities. Otherwise, someone has to get into the business of determining who can and can't use them, and you get what we have here. We San Diegans pay fat taxes and give whopping perks and tax breaks to our Convention Center, local hotels and Qualcomm Stadium but that doesn't mean I can hold a Tea Party at one of those places and make the jillion Obamabots that live here pay for it. BTW, we can't make them pay for anything else, either, but that's another post.

106 How is this any different than the cases of law schools trying to keep military recruiters off campus, but still get their federal funding?  They wanted their cake and to eat it too.  Here, the student group wants its travel funds from the school, but not to abide by the school's non-discrimination policy.  The $250 comes with strings attached, just like the federal funds came to the school with strings attached.  Someone distinguish the two please.

107 Someone distinguish the two please.

Posted by: g21in45 at April 19, 2010 06:44 PM (7m/sa)

The military is an integral and fundamental part of the United States, having national security as one of the only legitimate responsibilities of the federal government.  To deny the military the right to be on campus, while sucking up tens, if not hundreds, of millions of public funds, is quite different from a group just being a group (i.e. having boundaries) and wanting the same $250 that other groups get.

The leftists, as usual, lose both sides of the same argument.  They love doing that.  And it's funny how the law schools are the ones who don't know jackshit about the law.

108 A State School's anti-discrimination policy doesn't trump an individuals 1st Amendment right of freedom of religion. Assuming incorporation under 14th Amendment blah, blah, blah, yada, yada, yada...