![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
gridloreEvangelical law students sue Hastings
The Christian Legal Society sued UC Hastings College of the Law on Friday for refusing to recognize a student chapter on its campus because the organization bars gays, lesbians and non-Christians as members.
The suit, filed in U.S. District Court in San Francisco, accused the law school of violating the students' rights of free speech and freedom of religion by requiring all officially recognized student clubs to comply with the school's nondiscrimination policy. The policy requires equal treatment regardless of race, sex, religion or sexual orientation, among other categories.
snip
The suit seeks a court order declaring Hastings' policy unconstitutional and requiring the school to recognize the student chapter, the Hastings Christian Fellowship. Recognition would make the chapter eligible for school activity funds and for inclusion on campus bulletin boards, events calendars and other official outlets.
OK, kids, let me explain this to you slowly.
You are free to assemble. You are free to exclude anyone you like from your little clique. But if you want state funds, you follow the state's rules. Simple as that. The state is under no obligation to assist exclusionary groups, and yes, a Republican could join the campus Democrats if he wanted to.. that's the rule.
What amazes me is that these morons are law students, and evidently not one of them have heard that in cases involving the Boy Scouts, courts have ruled all the way up to the nine wise men in Washington that groups that receive public funding can be required to meet qualifications set by the state. You don't like the requirements, you don't get the money. Simple as that. The BSA's refusal to bend is one of the reasons the organization is drying up.
The Christian Legal Society sued UC Hastings College of the Law on Friday for refusing to recognize a student chapter on its campus because the organization bars gays, lesbians and non-Christians as members.
The suit, filed in U.S. District Court in San Francisco, accused the law school of violating the students' rights of free speech and freedom of religion by requiring all officially recognized student clubs to comply with the school's nondiscrimination policy. The policy requires equal treatment regardless of race, sex, religion or sexual orientation, among other categories.
snip
The suit seeks a court order declaring Hastings' policy unconstitutional and requiring the school to recognize the student chapter, the Hastings Christian Fellowship. Recognition would make the chapter eligible for school activity funds and for inclusion on campus bulletin boards, events calendars and other official outlets.
OK, kids, let me explain this to you slowly.
You are free to assemble. You are free to exclude anyone you like from your little clique. But if you want state funds, you follow the state's rules. Simple as that. The state is under no obligation to assist exclusionary groups, and yes, a Republican could join the campus Democrats if he wanted to.. that's the rule.
What amazes me is that these morons are law students, and evidently not one of them have heard that in cases involving the Boy Scouts, courts have ruled all the way up to the nine wise men in Washington that groups that receive public funding can be required to meet qualifications set by the state. You don't like the requirements, you don't get the money. Simple as that. The BSA's refusal to bend is one of the reasons the organization is drying up.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 23 Oct 2004 01:38 (UTC)no subject
Date: 23 Oct 2004 07:40 (UTC)First, why exclude non-Christians? Seems to me that calling an organization "Hastings Christian Fellowship" would serve to keep anyone hostile to Christianity from joining. Why make it a formal rule?
Second, why ask silly questions about sexual orientation of new members. Do they require any evidence? How do they tell? Station a group of gay men near the entrance and ask them to use their gaydar to detect any queers? This sort of rule just amounts to bigoted posturing on the part of the leadership of the organization. If it doesn't mean anything, why include it? Just to be a dick?
Some days the biggest downside to being part of one of the biggest religions on the planet is explaining "You know, we aren't ALL like that" every time I turn around.
no subject
Date: 23 Oct 2004 08:22 (UTC)I chaired a student board that had to assess all student organizations at a UC for whether or not they were "political, religious or ideological" and thus did not meet the Smith v. Regents standard for using public funds or facilities. It ate three months of my life and amounted to a field final in bureaucracy.
Most obnoxious result: the Muslim Student Association was nearly forbidden from using the Student Center facilities for their five times a day prayers. We had to come up with some really creative B.S. to allow them, and the Christians, and the other religious groups, to continue to check out facilities on the same schedule as the other organizations. But no money ever went to the religious groups (including Bahai) and the ideological groups (including Amnesty International and the Libertarians, whom we spanked for violating their own charters by asking for government support.)
The rules were crystal clear. Anyone could attend a student group meeting, as long as they were a student or invited by the group. No one could disrupt a student group meeting, as they were public meetings and thus protected by Penal Code. So if a Christian really wanted to watch the Muslims pray, he could -- but if he disrupted their prayers, STRIKE THREE, YOU'RE OUT!
The Hastings group is wrestling for the right to use mandatory student activity fees, which are a mandatory tax on all students. This $30 to $50 per student, times number of students, ends up parceled out to student organizations, mostly to buy refreshments.
As for activity boards, we always had extras that could be used for any purpose (the only way to prevent the official ones from being overrun with housing and sales fliers.)
no subject
Date: 23 Oct 2004 13:21 (UTC)As for the other stuff, though, all true and fair.
But to hear Pat Robertson & his ilk tell it, this is a Christian country, founded by and for Christians, and the rest of us are all here on sufferance. And they're all operating from that premise. They insist that there is no separation of church and state, or differences between private and public funding and forums.
no subject
Date: 23 Oct 2004 17:30 (UTC)But to hear Pat Robertson & his ilk tell it, this is a Christian country, founded by and for Christians, and the rest of us are all here on sufferance.
Y'know, one wonders what a group of the Puritans and their ilk would make of people like Pat Robertson.
Tho i suppose i can't talk, i'm from a country founded by and for criminals.
no subject
Date: 24 Oct 2004 17:54 (UTC)We did a unit on the Puritans for American History (I homeschool my son). He would have fit in in some ways and not in others. They were just as conservative about some things, but he would have scandalized them in a great many ways.
Tho i suppose i can't talk, i'm from a country founded by and for criminals.
Ah, Australia? I sometimes think you guys have the better deal of it, in terms of history that is. It's all out in the open. We in the States have our fair share of nefariousness and nogoodniks, but it's all very couvree and whitewashed with the veneer of Ol' Glory.
no subject
no subject
Date: 24 Oct 2004 08:06 (UTC)Gessi