Supreme Court Denies Freedom of Association

[Coyote]

If they get funding from the school, then the school can set the rules as to who can and cannot join. Pretty simple really.

and if the school says limiting membership to one group or another?

See there's the problem with that. Black groups, just as an example , form and no whites want to join, because as I said who wants to join a group where you're not wanted? but a Christian group forms,, and there's always some asshole who wants to join just for NO other reason but cause problems for that group. Anyone who denies this basic FACT is a liar.

Uh...you think that is limited to just some groups? I would propose that ALL restricted groups have members who want to join just to cause trouble. It's human nature.

I deny that basic "fact" - prove me a liar.

 

[ConHog]

If they get funding from the school, then the school can set the rules as to who can and cannot join. Pretty simple really.

and if the school says limiting membership to one group or another?

See there's the problem with that. Black groups, just as an example , form and no whites want to join, because as I said who wants to join a group where you're not wanted? but a Christian group forms,, and there's always some asshole who wants to join just for NO other reason but cause problems for that group. Anyone who denies this basic FACT is a liar.

Uh...you think that is limited to just some groups? I would propose that ALL restricted groups have members who want to join just to cause trouble. It's human nature.

I deny that basic "fact" - prove me a liar.

No, I was just giving examples. I wasn't limiting it to anything.

PS - You actually agreed with my fact, you just misunderstood that I was limiting it to just a few groups.

We're agreed that all groups probably have trouble makers looking to join them; but you have to admit that some groups are "attacked" more often than others.

 

[Bill O'Olberman]

As a private organization theyre free to choose who they want to admit and nobody is denying them the right to do such. However, a official campus organization that recieves school financing and benefits should have to meet all the antidiscrimination requirements of the school, especially since part of the "activities fee" that every college charges their students would be used to fund the group. So if allowed on campus, essentially, a gay student would be paying for the activities of a organization that wouldnt allow them admittance or a right to vote in the organization.

 

[ConHog]

As a private organization theyre free to choose who they want to admit and nobody is denying them the right to do such. However, a official campus organization that recieves school financing and benefits should have to meet all the antidiscrimination requirements of the school, especially since part of the "activities fee" that every college charges their students would be used to fund the group. So if allowed on campus, essentially, a gay student would be paying for the activities of a organization that wouldnt allow them admittance or a right to vote in the organization.

So fucking what? they are free to start a gay society and exclude straights.

 

[Bill O'Olberman]

As a private organization theyre free to choose who they want to admit and nobody is denying them the right to do such. However, a official campus organization that recieves school financing and benefits should have to meet all the antidiscrimination requirements of the school, especially since part of the "activities fee" that every college charges their students would be used to fund the group. So if allowed on campus, essentially, a gay student would be paying for the activities of a organization that wouldnt allow them admittance or a right to vote in the organization.

So fucking what? they are free to start a gay society and exclude straights.

Actually, theyre not free to start a student organization that doesnt allow straight people.

 

[CurveLight]

As a private organization theyre free to choose who they want to admit and nobody is denying them the right to do such. However, a official campus organization that recieves school financing and benefits should have to meet all the antidiscrimination requirements of the school, especially since part of the "activities fee" that every college charges their students would be used to fund the group. So if allowed on campus, essentially, a gay student would be paying for the activities of a organization that wouldnt allow them admittance or a right to vote in the organization.

So fucking what? they are free to start a gay society and exclude straights.

Actually, theyre not free to start a student organization that doesnt allow straight people.

They should be free to create their student organizations. The argument of public funding falls flat on the basis each recognized student organization receives equal funding. That creates a level playing field and gives the student body the freedom necessary to create their own organizations. No recognized student org on a publicly funded campus is "private" but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be allowed to discriminate based on their qualifications because all students are free to create their own organizations.

 

[Bill O'Olberman]

No recognized student org on a publicly funded campus is "private" but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be allowed to discriminate based on their qualifications because all students are free to create their own organizations.

Actually, yes it does (at least at this school). See Christian Legal Society v. Martinez - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[CurveLight]

No recognized student org on a publicly funded campus is "private" but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be allowed to discriminate based on their qualifications because all students are free to create their own organizations.

Actually, yes it does (at least at this school). See Christian Legal Society v. Martinez - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I'm aware of the bullshit ruling. What I'm asking is this:

Since students are free to create their own groups why should the creation and implementation of those groups be hindered and controlled on the sole basis some fellow students are offended or cannot join? Christians who are not bigots are free to create their own group that welcomes gays and the existence of a Christian group that excludes gays cannot stop that.

I guess I'm really disgusted that on State funded college campuses the ideas of exploration, unification based on peer views, and implementation of the Constitution is stamped down for no logical reason. For many students it is their first experiences as an adult and with all the flag waving eroticism over our "Freedoms" the first thing many students learn is the Constitution is just an idea and not an actual lifestyle.

 

[Bill O'Olberman]

No recognized student org on a publicly funded campus is "private" but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be allowed to discriminate based on their qualifications because all students are free to create their own organizations.

Actually, yes it does (at least at this school). See Christian Legal Society v. Martinez - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I'm aware of the bullshit ruling. What I'm asking is this:

Since students are free to create their own groups why should the creation and implementation of those groups be hindered and controlled on the sole basis some fellow students are offended or cannot join? Christians who are not bigots are free to create their own group that welcomes gays and the existence of a Christian group that excludes gays cannot stop that.

I guess I'm really disgusted that on State funded college campuses the ideas of exploration, unification based on peer views, and implementation of the Constitution is stamped down for no logical reason. For many students it is their first experiences as an adult and with all the flag waving eroticism over our "Freedoms" the first thing many students learn is the Constitution is just an idea and not an actual lifestyle.

If a school wishes to lend its name to these organizations it has the right to establish standards and requirements that the groups must adhere to. There is no constitutional or first amendment violation to this because nobody is denying these groups the right to exist, the school is choosing not to recognize them because they fail to adhere to its standards.

 

[Yurt]

my understanding of the ruling is that this is not a denial of association, rather, a denial of 'right to funding'....

unless someone can point something out, i don't see a problem with the ruling. if they want a group and want to be exclusionary, they can have it, they just don't get funding and tbo.....i don't see a problem with that.....

 

[Quantum Windbag]

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court seemed to split sharply yesterday on whether a law school can deny recognition to a Christian student group that will not let gays join, a case that could determine whether nondiscrimination policies trump the rights of private organizations to determine who can — and cannot — belong.

Supreme Court justices split over Christian campus club denied recognition because it bars gays - The Boston Globe

This decision seems counterintuitive to me.

The group has a charter based on what they see as morality, and a specific value system, but the court decides that they must accept all applicants.

"Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. wrote in dissent that the majority ruling amounted to "no freedom for expression that offends prevailing standards of political correctness in our country's institutions of higher learning."

Alito, joined by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, noted that Hastings has more than 60 registered student groups and that in its entire history has denied registration to "exactly one: the Christian Legal Society." Alito said the majority gave public educational institutions "a handy weapon for suppressing the speech of unpopular groups."

Hastings Dean Leo Martinez, who was the defendant in the case, cheered the high court's decision.

"The college's intent has always been to ensure the leadership, educational and social opportunities afforded by officially recognized student organizations are available to all students attending public institutions," Martinez said. "The court's ruling validates our policy, which is rooted in equity and fairness."
Gay rights: Supreme Court rules against Christian student group that excluded gays - latimes.com

Justices broke along liberal-conservatve lines,...Justice Kennedy siding with the liberals.


So, the vegan club has to sit there with the guy eating the McDonald's Double Cheeseburger?

1) can you see this as a strategy to be used by those desiring to break up any group on campus, joining just to disrupt...

and
2) political correctness trumps freedom of religion and freedom of association in America today.

and
3) are we witnessing victory of the collective over individuallity?

I think I am going to go back to school just so I can join clubs I do not like and offend them by being there. It should be loads of fun.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court seemed to split sharply yesterday on whether a law school can deny recognition to a Christian student group that will not let gays join, a case that could determine whether nondiscrimination policies trump the rights of private organizations to determine who can — and cannot — belong.

Supreme Court justices split over Christian campus club denied recognition because it bars gays - The Boston Globe

This decision seems counterintuitive to me.

The group has a charter based on what they see as morality, and a specific value system, but the court decides that they must accept all applicants.

"Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. wrote in dissent that the majority ruling amounted to "no freedom for expression that offends prevailing standards of political correctness in our country's institutions of higher learning."

Alito, joined by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, noted that Hastings has more than 60 registered student groups and that in its entire history has denied registration to "exactly one: the Christian Legal Society." Alito said the majority gave public educational institutions "a handy weapon for suppressing the speech of unpopular groups."

Hastings Dean Leo Martinez, who was the defendant in the case, cheered the high court's decision.

"The college's intent has always been to ensure the leadership, educational and social opportunities afforded by officially recognized student organizations are available to all students attending public institutions," Martinez said. "The court's ruling validates our policy, which is rooted in equity and fairness."
Gay rights: Supreme Court rules against Christian student group that excluded gays - latimes.com

Justices broke along liberal-conservatve lines,...Justice Kennedy siding with the liberals.


So, the vegan club has to sit there with the guy eating the McDonald's Double Cheeseburger?

1) can you see this as a strategy to be used by those desiring to break up any group on campus, joining just to disrupt...

and
2) political correctness trumps freedom of religion and freedom of association in America today.

and
3) are we witnessing victory of the collective over individuallity?

What part of the highlighthed text above do you NOT understand? Had this religious group NOT affiliated itself with the school, there would have been no issue.

How about the fact that the policy was clearly discriminatory in that the only group ever denied funding under the policy was the Christian group that was actually open to homosexuals, as long as they accepted the premise that unrepentant homosexuality is a sin. Why don't you go to that school and start a PETA group so I can come in and show crushing videos while you are trying to have your meetings?

 

[Coyote]

How about the fact that the policy was clearly discriminatory in that the only group ever denied funding under the policy was the Christian group that was actually open to homosexuals, as long as they accepted the premise that unrepentant homosexuality is a sin. Why don't you go to that school and start a PETA group so I can come in and show crushing videos while you are trying to have your meetings?

How do you know that?

Did any other groups prohibit membership?

Btw - it is still discrimination.

It's like saying a black organization will only allow whites if they curl their hair and paint their faces black.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Of course not....but does that mean the school have have it's very own arm of the KKK as well?

It does now, because universities will have to allow any group that is willing to allow anyone to join access to their facilities and give them funding. that should make for some interesting meetings. One fo the big problems both conservatives and liberals forget to consider is the unintended consequences of the things they like to have government force down our throats. I will guarantee that once the full impact of this decision is considered there will be zero schools actually using an allcomers policy, they will simply allow groups to detiremine membership criteria, and allow little pockets of discrimination to exist because it is actually the most harmonious way to run an open society.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

From your link:

The Christian Legal Society chapter had sued UC Hastings College of the Law, arguing that denial of school recognition and of access to state funding and facilities violated the group's 1st and 14th Amendment rights to free speech, expressive association and the free exercise of religion.

The group wanted access to state funding for crying out loud...

Actually, all they wanted was to be recognized as an official group by the school. The funding issue was not the basis of the complaint, it just got thrown in somewhere along the way, possibly as a result of the stipulation that recognized the university policy as an all comers policy, and not as specifically applying to groups that excluded homosexuals.

 

[PoliticalChic]

my understanding of the ruling is that this is not a denial of association, rather, a denial of 'right to funding'....

unless someone can point something out, i don't see a problem with the ruling. if they want a group and want to be exclusionary, they can have it, they just don't get funding and tbo.....i don't see a problem with that.....

The decision referred to funding and 'recognition.'

Not much more one can take away.

 

[CurveLight]

Actually, yes it does (at least at this school). See Christian Legal Society v. Martinez - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I'm aware of the bullshit ruling. What I'm asking is this:

Since students are free to create their own groups why should the creation and implementation of those groups be hindered and controlled on the sole basis some fellow students are offended or cannot join? Christians who are not bigots are free to create their own group that welcomes gays and the existence of a Christian group that excludes gays cannot stop that.

I guess I'm really disgusted that on State funded college campuses the ideas of exploration, unification based on peer views, and implementation of the Constitution is stamped down for no logical reason. For many students it is their first experiences as an adult and with all the flag waving eroticism over our "Freedoms" the first thing many students learn is the Constitution is just an idea and not an actual lifestyle.

If a school wishes to lend its name to these organizations it has the right to establish standards and requirements that the groups must adhere to. There is no constitutional or first amendment violation to this because nobody is denying these groups the right to exist, the school is choosing not to recognize them because they fail to adhere to its standards.

"Lend its name?" Just so we are clear, we are talking about tuition-paying, class-attending students, correct?

The school is violating the Constitution by saying "Student groups have free speech and assoiciation of what we approve of."

Giving funding to one group and denying funding to a different group on the grounds of not liking their politics is discrimination.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Because it is a private organization?

Not by a long shot. All of them receive federal funding and you know it.

As individuals, they are all paid by tax dollars for serving their country. As an organization, the CBC is a private entity. Are you always this obtuse?

The CBC is a private group that both receives public funding and uses government buildings for its meetings.

Congressional Black Caucus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

But, please, keep defending the blatant discrimination and use of my tax dollars to support it, while simultaneously denying me the right to do the exact same thing. I enjoy laughing at hypocrites.

 

[CurveLight]

my understanding of the ruling is that this is not a denial of association, rather, a denial of 'right to funding'....

unless someone can point something out, i don't see a problem with the ruling. if they want a group and want to be exclusionary, they can have it, they just don't get funding and tbo.....i don't see a problem with that.....

Okay. By that logic the students denied recognition should have their tuition and fees reduced. Why the hell should their money go to funding other groups when their groups gets nothing?

The school should have an equal fund system in place so all students have the same opportunities to form their own groups and receive recognition. Or, the school should not fund any student groups at all and reduce everyone's tuition.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Because it is a private organization?

Not by a long shot. All of them receive federal funding and you know it.

Don't make people do your homework for you. Quit spouting stuff like you know what you are talking about when you clearly don't.

About CBCF-The Congressional Black Caucus Foundation, Inc.

The Congressional Black Caucus Foundation, Inc. (CBCF) is a nonprofit, nonpartisan public policy, research and educational institute that aims to help improve the socioeconomic circumstances of African Americans and other underserved communities.........

............CBCF programs are supported by fundraising events and the generous support of our corporate partners. To better expand and sustain its research efforts, and to enhance its leadership education programs, CBCF is establishing a multi-million-dollar endowment to provide support for its efforts not just for one year, or even one generation, but also in perpetuity.

The CBCF is not the CBC, but it was fun watching you try.

Now I get to laugh at another hypocrite.