Laura L. Lundquist on Christian Legal Society club at Hastings College of Law barring homosexuals from being full members they have had their funding revoked and the case has gone to court on the basis of discrimination.
“Our nation is becoming more splintered. Groups battle harder against opposing groups and, as a result, the political pendulum seems to be careening in greater and ever-more-abrupt arcs. But now it appears the struggle is occasionally verging on the nonsensical. It is like we have slipped through some celestial rabbit hole into Wonderland where logic is turned on its head.
When one group claims discrimination for not being allowed to discriminate, it seems like we are listening to some bizarre pronouncement by the Queen of Hearts. But that’s what the Christian Legal Society is claiming in its case against Hastings College of the Law in San Francisco. For some reason, one or two members of the U.S. Supreme Court appear to be buying it, to the chagrin of those who have worked for equality. And unlike Alice, they have no way of waking up from this nightmare.
Hastings College, part of the University of California system, has a published policy that student groups receive university funds and privileges as long as all students are allowed to participate. What could be more appropriate for a university where students from many backgrounds and beliefs come together?
No student group had issues with the rule.
Until the Christian Legal Society barred homosexuals from being full members in 2004. With that, Hastings College revoked the group’s privileges.
According to the Citizen, an evangelical publication, the society merely “required voting members to adhere to Christian beliefs.” But it was much more than that because Christian homosexuals still weren’t allowed to be members. The society believes that homosexuality is a choice in spite of an increasing number of studies that show a biological basis for it.
This policy was out-and-out discrimination.
The University of Montana Law School agrees, because it refused funds for the local chapter of the society for the same reason. In June 2009, a federal judge upheld the Law School’s stand.
The society at Hastings College sued the college, claiming that its rights to freedom of assembly, free speech and free exercise of religion were violated. Although the case was thrown out by both district and appeals courts, the Supreme Court agreed to hear it.
Justice Antonin Scalia, like a hooka-smoking caterpillar, asked philosophical questions Monday that had little to do with justice.
“It is so weird … to require this Christian society to allow atheists not just to join, but to conduct Bible classes, right?” Scalia said.
Not that an atheist would bother, but what would be wrong with that? Isn’t that what religions want: to convert people? Is there anything to prevent atheists from walking into most church services or volunteering to read a verse? No.
But that’s not the point. The point is that a college has to allow access for all when funds are provided by all. If a group wants to be exclusive, it can do so with its own funds.
There was no violation of the society members’ right to assemble or practice their religion. The college did not say the group could not meet on campus. It treated the society no differently than any other group, so there was no anti-religious bias.
The society’s attorney argued that groups should be able to exclude based not upon status or race, but on belief. The problem is that beliefs can be anything. Any random passage in a religious text can justify whatever people want to believe, which is why so many religions splinter. Kind of like the nation.
Fortunately, most of the justices are baffled by this absurd case. The Supreme Court’s own blog, SCOTUSblog, said justices were frustrated by the lack of clear facts in the case.
“When (Justice) Kennedy is followed by several colleagues voicing deep doubts about what the facts are, the case begins to look very much like a waste of judicial time,” SCOTUSblog’s Lyle Dennison wrote.
As the Duchess told Alice, “Everything’s got a moral, if only you can find it.”
The moral here is “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”
If the Christian Legal Society wants to be included in college privileges, then they should include all who are interested.”
The group is receiving funds from the college. Odds are that money is coming from the student body. Therefore, the club is acting on behalf of the students of Hastings College. They have no right to discriminate against fellow students. If the group were privately funded then they would have every right to discriminate but that is not the case.
No comments:
Post a Comment