|
Published: December 15, 2009
“Completely unreasonable and unconstitutional”
University of California law school’s refusal to recognize Christian legal group reaches U.S. Supreme Court
The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to review a case filed by the Christian Legal Society at the University of California Hastings College of Law in San Francisco. After the law school denied recognition to the society and cut off funding from student fees in 2004, the group filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court challenging the decision.
In April 2006, a federal district judge granted the law school’s motion for summary judgment, dismissing the suit. The Christian Legal Society appealed the ruling to the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, where a three-judge panel upheld the lower court’s ruling in March 2009. The group then appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which agreed to take up the case on Monday, Dec. 7.
In a statement issued by the Christian Legal Society following the Supreme Court’s decision to hear the appeal, the society said Hastings College of Law had unconstitutionally discriminated against it “because the group requires all of its officers and voting members to subscribe to its basic Christian beliefs.”
 The San Francisco Chronicle reported that a law student could be denied membership in the Christian Legal Society if the student “advocates or unrepentantly engages in sexual conduct outside of marriage between a man and a woman.” The law school said such an exclusion violates a Hastings policy “barring discrimination on the basis of race, national origin, religion and sexual orientation,” according to the Chronicle.
But the Christian Legal Society argues that the Hastings policy itself violates the society’s constitutionally protected “right of expressive association” and its “right to be free from viewpoint discrimination.”
“Public universities shouldn’t single out Christian student groups for discrimination,” said Kim Colby, senior counsel with the Christian Legal Society’s Center for Law & Religious Freedom. “All student groups have the right to associate with people of like-mind and interest. We trust the Supreme Court will not allow Hastings to continue to deprive CLS of this right by forcing the group to abandon its identity as a Christian student organization.”
“Christian students have the right to gather as Christians for a common purpose and around shared beliefs,” said Alliance Defense Fund senior legal counsel Gregory S. Baylor of the ADF Center for Academic Freedom. “It’s completely unreasonable -- and unconstitutional -- for a public university to disrupt the purposes of private student groups by forcing them to accept as members and officers those who oppose the very ideas they advocate.”
The Christian Legal Society “requires voting members to sign a statement committing to ‘orthodox’ evangelical Protestant or Catholic beliefs,” the Chronicle reported, noting that “the case could affect public universities around the country. It puts the Supreme Court in the middle of a long fight by conservative Christian activists, who say their constitutional rights are violated when they are forced to tolerate views that run counter to their religious beliefs.”
"This is about a blanket exclusion of gay and lesbian students and students who don't hold what the Christian Legal Society describes as orthodox Christian beliefs," Ethan Schulman, an attorney for Hastings College of Law told the Chronicle. "If they're going to use public money and public facilities, they have to be open to all interested students."
The Supreme Court is expected to hear arguments in the case in Spring 2010, with a ruling likely to be issued in June of next year. The justices may have agreed to hear the case because lower courts have issued conflicting rulings on the issue. The Chronicle cited a similar lawsuit by the Christian Legal Society against Southern Illinois University. “Under a 2007 settlement in that case, the university said it would recognize the group and its policies,” reported the Chronicle.
Posted Tuesday, December 15, 2009 12:12 AM By Charles O'Connell
This is the tail end of the militant secularization process that began with 1962's Engle v Vitale case banning school prayer. The world which hates us because it hated Christ must either be converted to us or destroy us. Although there are intervals of temporary respite, there is no middle way, no appeasing both God and mammon. This conflict goes much deeper than a mere legal case. The opposition won't be satisfied until they believe we're destroyed.
|
Posted Tuesday, December 15, 2009 12:18 AM By Dave
Anyone with the necessary level of achievement may apply and be admitted to the University of California.
There have been skin head Nazis that attended Hastings but they cannot spread their diseased beliefs through a University sanctioned group. Christians are no different if they seek to spread their foul dogma of hatred and discrimination based on sexual preference.
|
Posted Tuesday, December 15, 2009 4:07 AM By WOODY GUIDRY
THE ALLIANCE DEFENSE FUND has a history of being able to flush out the incredible denseness of those who yet retain the creative imagination to color the flag every shade except except the red, white and blue. REMEMBER THE ADF!!!
|
Posted Tuesday, December 15, 2009 5:10 AM By Peter
I just wanted to note that it is very interesing that they require "voting members to sign a statement committing to ‘orthodox’ evangelical Protestant or Catholic beliefs.” What about Anglican, Lutheran, or my own Faith, Eastern Orthodox?
|
Posted Tuesday, December 15, 2009 5:28 AM By St. Christopher
An interesting case. On one hand, the SCOTUS could say that a public school funded activity must be open to all, which would lead to absurd results. On the other hand, the SCOTUS could say that all groups funded by public schools have a point of view (or else why have them); as long as that viewpoint did not advocate unconstitutional behavior, it must be permitted to exist. To deny their existence would itself be content-driven. Good luck Christian students. Satan will be watching.
|
Posted Tuesday, December 15, 2009 6:14 AM By Jon
The sodomites are at the gate.
|
Posted Tuesday, December 15, 2009 9:20 AM By Dan
To Peter-- I think the mentioning of Evangelical or Catholic does not preclude other Christian groups -- just those that reject clear Biblical teachings on sexuality. To Dave (12:18am) -- your equating historic Christianity with Nazism is the bigorty behind the Law School's discrimination in the first place. You have proved their point.
|
Posted Tuesday, December 15, 2009 12:51 PM By anon
Someone ought to SUE the U.S. Supreme Court
|
Posted Tuesday, December 15, 2009 1:17 PM By Life Lady
Those who struggle with same-sex attraction disorder suffer with a frame of mind that is based in irrational thinking in the first place, so anything that they would say to bolster their point of view is not based in rational thought, or in rational fact. Therefore, their thinking and point of view is distorted. That is not the basis for hatred, but pity. So, Dave, no rational thinking person, let alone a staunch Christian, would hate you, or anyone else. Christianity is based on love, love of God and love of neighbor. Believe it or not, no one hates anyone on this side of the fence. So, all of us Christians, who live the truth found in God, in Christ, love you, and every other poor soul that is struggling with same-sex attraction. Even if we were all to drop the flag of Christ, and just look at the science, same-sex attraction or acting on those urges is unsupportable, scientifically, because there is nothing that is complimentary about that act. So, get a grip on some sanity, and try, really hard, to get down on your knees and pray for guidance and repent. Time is running short, no one is ever guaranteed tomorrow, but we must all be prepared for it, whether it comes to us in this world, or the next.
|
Posted Tuesday, December 15, 2009 7:33 PM By Tom P
Dave, get a grip on life. When Christians express their disgust and revulsion at the sodomite lifestyle and practices, this doesn't mean they hate sodomites. They just hate what sodomites do to and with each other.
|
Posted Wednesday, December 16, 2009 12:52 AM By Marco Luxe
Does anyone else have a problem with the statement: "...conservative Christian activists [ ] say their constitutional rights are violated when they are forced to tolerate views that run counter to their religious beliefs.”
Forced to tolerate views!?!? What hubris! It must be blessed to be so confident in one's beliefs, yet so ignorant of one's shortcomings as a fallible human being.
You would think the CLS would encourage gay law students to join, knowing that the tenets of their "orthodox" Christianity are true and persuasive enough to convert "those" sinners.
Yes, hubris, but with more than a whiff of insecurity in their faith's righteousness, as it seems all too easily corrupted by an open membership policy.
|
Posted Monday, December 21, 2009 7:20 PM By B. It or Not
Believe It: Atheists Sue Catholic Church. By Aaron Short
Monday, December 21, 2009 6:12 PM EST.
Charging that the Catholic Church should lose its tax-exempt status, a consortium of atheists and Catholic activists filed two lawsuits against Brooklyn Bishop Nicholas DiMarzio, Assembly member Vito Lopez (D-Williamsburg) and the Catholic Diocese over their role in producing a recorded message sent to Williamsburg’s registered voters less than a week before they went to the polls.
Led by NYC Atheists President Kenneth Bronstein and New Jersey-based priest abuse activist Reverend Robert Hoatson, the suits allege that DiMarzio violated Internal Revenue Service laws by recording a political message sent to voters in a hotly contested City Council election, which could cost the Church privileges enjoyed by its nonprofit status.
|
© California Catholic Daily 2009. All Rights Reserved.
|