In other words, it’s not really open to Christians. It’s open to a rigidly defined kind of Christian that ONLY excludes gays. They pick the one thing gays cannot shed and exclude them for that one thing.

I agree that Alito is off the mark.

As someone who works for a non-profit, if you solicit funds, you find that there’s usually a trade off. Some donors may want this or that changed, or need this or that type of recognition. Smart folks are prepared to negotiate.

It makes perfect sense that if you want university money, you should be following university policies.

As it should be. Private organizations are entitled to discriminate but they’re not entitled to have the government or other organizations support and subsidize their discrmination.

Timothy said “This would suggest that cities who wish to limit their public subsidies to only those organizations that do not discriminate are free to do so. Indeed, this seems to directly contradict the decision of the jury in Philadelphia.”.

Yes, it most certainly suggests that and it most certainly contradicts the decision of the jury in Philadelphia. There have been a number of cases where the boy scouts have claimed a right to subsidization and all have ruled that they have a right to discriminate but not a right to be subsidized while they discriminate. The philadelphia case is the exception to the well established precidents in this area because the jury there didn’t concern itself with the intricasies of the law and voted based on their personal preferences.

Timothy said “In his rebuttal, Alito found this case to be exactly similar to Dale in that the policy forces organizations to accept members with whom it does not wish to associate.”.

Nonsense. The CLS isn’t being forced to accept any members it does not want, it is simply being denied subsidization and recognition. They’re entitled to have discriminatory membership rules but they’re not entitled to have any governemnt or other organization support that discrimination.

Timothy said “The court confirmed its position that attempts to differentiate between behavior and identity (in religious terms, “love the sinner, hate the sin”) as distinctions without difference:”.

Right on. The “love the sinner, hate the sinner” line is absurd. When someone commits a crime we don’t punish the sin, we punish the sinner. God doesn’t send the sin to hell, he sends the sinner to hell.

Alito said “In the dissent’s view, by refusing to grant CLS an exemption from the Nondiscrimination Policy, Hastings violated CLS’s rights, for by proscribing unlawful discrimination on the basis of religion, the policy discriminates unlawfully on the basis of religion.”

That’s just dumb. Its the same as saying tolerance requires tolerating intolerance – that tolerance requires allowing people to murder those they don’t like.

This to me sums up the problem nicely. I am surprised that the minority of the court didn’t get it– or chose not to.

“But, on the other hand, I fear that broad interpretation may lead to an inability for any organization to control its own identity. ” This is what any group faces– inifltration from theo utside. But this is what dmeocracy is for– people get to vote and decide whop will lead them, what direction the group is going, and so forth. Theoretically, fundamentalists could infiltrate the board of Sf Gay Pride, but the membership would have to deicde whether this is the direction they want to go, and whether they will fund it or not. This is just democracy in action.

If this were not about gay people, but about some other group, there wouldn’t even be a question here.

As Molly Ivins would say, ya gots to dance with them that brung ya. If CLS doesn’t want to include gay people– not that any would join, most likely– then they don’t need to accept college money. If gay people do join, they can seek to change the rules of the club in either case.

(NTS: Maybe Hastings should have simply passed another rule… anyone who demands to be free of the non-discrimination policy shall not — personally — be covered by it. Oh, the hypocritical dilemma.)

But agree, the SCOTUS decision is in interesting one; particularly given the bullying history of the group involved. (I’ve been following them for awhile… sadly.)

Hastings made it clear that the CLS-affiliated group could continue “use of Hastings facilities”. But Hastings was also “precluded from utilizing students fees to fund its activities” unless this group behaved like everyone else.

Just for the hell of it, I’ve gone over to Hastings and reviewed the by-laws for the existing student associations. Regardless of where any of these may have started from, years ago, it seems clear that current by-laws for the recognised student groups all conform to the non-discrimination policy. The problem for this student group may not be the students at Hastings itself per se, but the policies of an outside group (CLS) that they decided to abide by.

And guess what: you don’t have to be Jewish to join the Jewish Law Students Association.

But “HJLSA will promote activities related to Judaism on campus; provide a forum for Jewish students to meet and network; and represent the interests of Jewish students to Hastings’ administration.”

Note how non-prescriptive that is. It doesn’t anticipate a need to be discriminatory in order to meet those goals. (Actually, I dare say much of those goals would be best achieved if the participation of non-Jewish students was actively encouraged.) It doesn’t even dare nominate who is a Correct Jew, and who’s a splitter. The outrage.

The Black Law Student Association is perhaps an even more pointed example, given it has also adopted the Constitution of an outside body (National Black Law Student Association). Neither seem to feel obliged to enact a “No Whiteys Allowed” policy to achieve the goal of advancing the interests of black law students. Wow, how stunning. Are they both insane!

The Hastings OutLaw group itself seeks to “promote a positive atmosphere at Hastings … educate the community at large … alleviate and eradicate homophobia, transphobia, racism, sexism, and other affronts to the dignity of individual human beings.”

Straight people aren’t excluded. Nobody has to sign a pledge to engage in homosexual behaviour. I presume Christian-identifying(c) people are already active full members, and nothing precludes them from being so. The horror. GLBTQ&W members must feel absolutely sick to their stomach at every OutLaw event what with those smelly people included and all.

I suspect that where the CLS-affiliated group has overstepped the mark is in trying to control by exclusion the absolute (private) environment they are in, and demanding access to funds that seek to provide for otherwise for an entire (public) student body. They don’t seem to be advocating on behalf of anyone, against more like it, and exclude even Christians who refuse to be as dogmatic as they are. Egh, no people. We’re not here to fund your own Special Private Friendship Circle. Do that on your own dime. Have you tried Facebook?

Whatever will such people come up with next … faith-based funding?

need simply be independent of such organizations.

If “Christian student group” of law students can meet in a church, without any affiliation with Hastings that would make them accountable to the non-discrimination policy. If they don’t want money with strings (like non-discrimination policies) attached, raise their own on their own.

It is an interesting thing that homophobes insist on being able to attend glbtq events, ala the Minneapolis pride parade, and also insist on being able to keep GLBTQ people from attending their events.

The SCOTUS decision simply applies the same standard that allowed an anti-gay man to annoy people at the Minneapolis pride parade to GLBTQ students at a college financially supporting a student club for Christians.

And since some GLBTQ people are Christians, and it is likely that some of the students who wanted to participate were Christian as well as gay,

Christian Legal Society can either learn to play fair, or take their ball and go home.