Court: School can Refuse to Fund Christian Group
[Guest post by DRJ]
In a case involving San Francisco’s Hastings College of Law, the Supreme Court ruled today that the school could refuse to fund a Christian group that violates the school’s nondiscrimination policy by excluding gays. Writing for the majority (the liberals and Justice Kennedy), Justice Ginsburg said the Christian group effectively sought preferential rather than equal treatment by seeking an exemption from the nondiscrimination policy.
Justice Samuel Alito’s dissent described it as “a serious setback for freedom of expression in this country.”
— DRJ
Yay! Muslim groups will have to allow jews, and atheist groups will have to allow evangelical christians, and minority groups will have to allow white supremecists! Let the subversion begin!
starboardhelm (94c0da) — 6/28/2010 @ 3:39 pm“…Muslim groups will have to allow jews…”
As if that’s ever going to happen,
AD - RtR/OS! (7166b6) — 6/28/2010 @ 4:25 pmor that they would be penalized by our courageous EduCrats for refusing to do so.
Are all the comments going to be this stupid? The court said they could discriminate all they want to, they just can’t get school funding to do so.
So refreshing to see conservatives stand up for rights for all. The disdain constantly expressed here for any and all educational institutions–except of course, for private Christian ones–is remarkable. Elitism goes both ways.
JEA (46211f) — 6/28/2010 @ 6:17 pmForgive me if I’m wrong but this was not about access — it was about endorsement and support?
Daddy please buy me a Christian Association.
nk (db4a41) — 6/28/2010 @ 6:23 pmNo.
Well, then, I’m suing you.
JEA is about as sharp as a bowling ball.
JD (308d62) — 6/28/2010 @ 6:28 pm“In a case involving San Francisco’s Hastings College of Law, the Supreme Court ruled today that the school could refuse to fund a Christian group…”
That’s o.k. by me, as long as the Christian Group isn’t forced to fund the University of California.
Dave Surls (9a6ba2) — 6/28/2010 @ 6:35 pmAccording to FIRE the ruling is narrow and only applies to a University that requires all student groups to accept “all comers”, a policy that is exceedingly rare.
CLS may yet prevail if it can show that Hastings singled out CLS while allowing other student groups to discriminate.
http://thefire.org/torch/#12003
aunursa (484069) — 6/28/2010 @ 6:53 pmFire is a stand-up organization.
JD (308d62) — 6/28/2010 @ 7:03 pmI wouldn’t mind it if I knew the leftist judges also would not — as one example — force a private organization like the Boy Scouts of America to accept homosexuals as troop leaders—as the court almost did in a 5-to-4 ruling several years ago. And if those same leftist judges then also wouldn’t make it easy for ambulance-chasing lawyers to sue organizations like the Boy Scouts for having allowed people into their group to begin with who ended up molesting children.
Mark (411533) — 6/28/2010 @ 8:22 pm3.Are all the comments going to be this stupid?
— Is that a challenge? or a boast?
Icy Texan (cc6f45) — 6/28/2010 @ 8:28 pmAny chance I can get a ruling that I am not required to fund or otherwise support the University of California?
Have Blue (854a6e) — 6/28/2010 @ 10:25 pmWhat part of “Do not judge.” is so difficult to understand? Or that adulterous woman, what again was the injunction associated with her? And that fellow Christians claim to follow, didn’t he associate with “tax collectors and sinners”?
Christians, why condemn others? Who grants this authority? Are ambassadors for Christ now authorized to condemn on his behalf?
Maybe Paul with his special dispensation did teach specifically against the self-indulgence of homosexuality. Regardless, one sinner beating another sinner over the head with some book does not honor the memory of Christ.
BTW, I disagree with the Supremes’ ruling. But I also disagree with Christian snobbery that impedes spreading the message of redemption. By all means teach accurately and biblically about homosexuality. But do it with intent to persuade, not to p*ss them off so they’ll leave.
exdeadhead (70d054) — 6/28/2010 @ 11:11 pmbowling balls are dangerous on the foot if you mishandle it.`**
James Thomas (5d4ca5) — 9/30/2010 @ 12:03 pmbowling balls are quite dangerous to the hands of a newbie and untrained bowling player~`”
Styrofoam Sheets (82801d) — 10/18/2010 @ 3:33 amThis sort of thing needs to happen! Simply letting the quota happen isn’t acceptable. Generally this will allow you to take the inititive to make things happen.
Dave Mancino (aad126) — 1/22/2011 @ 4:40 pmNice read, I just passed this onto a colleague who was doing a little research on that. And he actually bought me lunch since I found it for him smile So let me rephrase that: Thank you for lunch!
Tonda Schwager (fa3258) — 6/16/2011 @ 11:41 amHi Vaughn Cowell,
I find your post interesting and would like to subscribe to your newsletter. Please email me details at cheepvi@gra.L0L1TA$.com. Gracias.
carlitos (49ef9f) — 9/7/2011 @ 5:05 pm