Page 14 of 28 FirstFirst ... 4121314151624 ... LastLast
Results 131 to 140 of 271

Thread: Court: Christian group can't bar gays [and] get funding

  1. #131
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Redneck Riviera
    Last Seen
    07-09-11 @ 06:11 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,728

    Re: Court: Christian group can't bar gays [and] get funding

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    Much like people were criticizing Tex earlier for supporting this when he'd be against it for an islamic group, how many people here are simply focusing on "CHRISTIANS!" or focusing on "BAD TO GAY PEOPLE" and would react differently if it was the same situation but with different groups that didn't instill those feelings in you?
    I could care less what group is involved. If they receive public dollars, they are not allowed to discriminate in terms of membership. That means that straight people, if they are so inclined, can join a gay club. It means that boys can join the local breast cancer awareness club (and at my daughter's high school, they do).

    If you want a private club that plays by your prescriptive rules, start it with your own money on your own property. The end.

  2. #132
    Norville Rogers
    Kernel Sanders's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Last Seen
    07-23-12 @ 10:20 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    3,730

    Re: Court: Christian group can't bar gays [and] get funding

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    I think the point of contention was the following:

    Statement of Faith | CLS

    Was a requirement for membership, and that violates the schools rules for RSO's. They have other groups that receive RSO status that have strong and opposite opinions, so the actual issue wasn't the point of view of the group. It was that they act to exclude anyone who doesn't conform to their point of view. No groups that receive RSO are allowed to do that, according to the rules in place.
    That isn't actually true. The dissenting opinion shows a few examples of clubs that exclude people (political, ethcnic, etc clubs). However the christian group's lawyers stipulated that an "accept all students" rule was in place and enforced, which seems to me to be the reason they lost the suit.

    RightinNYC posted an article on the matter

    Quote Originally Posted by RightinNYC View Post
    As to the OP, some more analysis on the case:

    SCOTUSblog » Analysis: A fatal stipulation
    Without that stipulation, I think Hastings would have lost

  3. #133
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Redneck Riviera
    Last Seen
    07-09-11 @ 06:11 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,728

    Re: Court: Christian group can't bar gays [and] get funding

    Money Quote:
    As the case unfolded before the Supreme Court, the Justices appeared to be uncertain just what the policy was. So, before agreeing to hear the case, they called for the record that the lawyers had made in lower courts. The most important discovery the Court made in going through that record, it turned out, was that the Society’s lawyers had agreed to a joint stipulation that the policy was an “all-comers” policy — that is, recognition was available to any student group at Hastings Law that allowed any student to take part in that group, including rising to leadership.

  4. #134
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,966

    Re: Court: Christian group can't bar gays [and] get funding

    Quote Originally Posted by Catz Part Deux View Post
    I could care less what group is involved. If they receive public dollars, they are not allowed to discriminate in terms of membership. That means that straight people, if they are so inclined, can join a gay club. It means that boys can join the local breast cancer awareness club (and at my daughter's high school, they do).

    If you want a private club that plays by your prescriptive rules, start it with your own money on your own property. The end.
    As I said though, the issue is not just about membership but dictation of a required belief and or behavioral standard to maintain status as a member of the club.

    For example, it appears gays were allowed to join this club, they just had to be able to sign the faith requirements and adhere to the behavioral requirements which included promoting or engaging in a repententless sinful lifestyle.

    Or, in another example...

    If a College Democrats club had a behavioral requirement that individuals had to sign a paper swearing to not attend any political rallies or make any public non-scholaristic related statements in support of views opposite that which is held by the Democratic Party, would that be okay or not?

    Or

    If a group focused around presenting community service had an agreement stating that individuals would not violate any campus rules or regulations or any government rules and regulations or they would lose membership.

    Would those be okay to you and able to get funding?

  5. #135
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,966

    Re: Court: Christian group can't bar gays [and] get funding

    Quote Originally Posted by Catz Part Deux View Post
    Money Quote:
    But I saw nothing in the suggested requirements of that club that specifically bars homosexuals from ptoentially gaining a leadership position, they just could not participate or promote homosexuality without repentence.

    Granted, nearly impossible, but that is an ACTION that's being required not necessarily denying someone for being gay.

  6. #136
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,966

    Re: Court: Christian group can't bar gays [and] get funding

    Quote Originally Posted by Kernel Sanders View Post
    That isn't actually true. The dissenting opinion shows a few examples of clubs that exclude people (political, ethcnic, etc clubs). However the christian group's lawyers stipulated that an "accept all students" rule was in place and enforced, which seems to me to be the reason they lost the suit.
    Wait, I'm confused....

    At one moment you're saying there were clubs that got funds that didn't accept all students but instead excluded them....while at the same time you're saying the Christian Group stated there was an enforced "Accept all students" rule?

    If there was an "Accept all students" agreement, how were there groups that didn't accept all students and yet got funding?

    Or am I misunderstanding something?

  7. #137
    Banned Goobieman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Seen
    03-22-15 @ 02:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    17,343

    Re: Court: Christian group can't bar gays [and] get funding

    Quote Originally Posted by Deuce View Post
    On the plus side, this gives some hope to the folks waiting on overturn of California's Prop 8, as it shows that Kennedy wont automatically side against homosexuality. Overturning Prop 8 is a much bigger decision, though, so how he ends up in the inevitable Supreme Court case remains to be seen.
    Not if Breyer actually believed what he said in his dissent in the recent case that incorporated the 2nd against the states:

    "Given the empirical and local value-laden nature of the questions that lie at the heart of the issue, why, in a nation whose constitution foresees democratic decision-making, is it so fundamental a matter as to require taking that power from the people?...What is it here that the people did not know? What is it that a judge knows better?"

  8. #138
    Matthew 16:3

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere and nowhere
    Last Seen
    06-24-17 @ 05:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    45,603

    Re: Court: Christian group can't bar gays [and] get funding

    Quote Originally Posted by Kernel Sanders View Post
    That isn't actually true. The dissenting opinion shows a few examples of clubs that exclude people (political, ethcnic, etc clubs).
    I didn't see anything in the dissenting opinion that showed that these clubs actually excluded people by rule.

    Only that they had political, ethnic, etc focuses. The key is that membership was open to all even though the club had these types of focus. One wouldn't have to actually adhere to teh group's professed ideology in order to belong to the group. That wasn't a requirement for membership for any of the groups.

    CLS had a requirement for membership that wouldn't allow access to all. One must sign a document that they would adhere to the CLS professed ideology in order to be a member of CLS.

    They were asked to remove that requirement in order to get RSO status and they refused.

    They could still have adhered to the same professed ideology as a group without requiring members to sign a oath that they too adhered to those views. If they had doen that, they would have been granted the RSO status.

    People are allowed to "self-exclude" through this policy that HAstings set up, but groups cannot purposefully exclude while getting RSO status.

    In essence, CLS decided that they wanted to **** themselves and pretend it was descrimination.
    Last edited by Tucker Case; 06-30-10 at 05:07 PM.
    Tucker Case - Tard magnet.

  9. #139
    Norville Rogers
    Kernel Sanders's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Last Seen
    07-23-12 @ 10:20 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    3,730

    Re: Court: Christian group can't bar gays [and] get funding

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    Wait, I'm confused....

    At one moment you're saying there were clubs that got funds that didn't accept all students but instead excluded them....while at the same time you're saying the Christian Group stated there was an enforced "Accept all students" rule?

    If there was an "Accept all students" agreement, how were there groups that didn't accept all students and yet got funding?

    Or am I misunderstanding something?
    There was no accept all students rule. When the Christians sued, however, Hastings started to claim there had been. The Christian group's lawyers stipulated that this claim was true, even though it was not. That stipulation was used to rule against the Christians. It was an error on the Christian group's lawyers side.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tucker Case View Post
    I didn't see anything in the dissenting opinion that showed that these clubs actually excluded people by rule.

    Only that they had political, ethnic, etc focuses. The key is that membership was open to all even though the club had these types of focus. One wouldn't have to actually adhere to teh group's professed ideology in order to belong to the group. That wasn't a requirement for membership for any of the groups.

    CLS had a requirement for membership that wouldn't allow access to all. One must sign a document that they would adhere to the CLS professed ideology in order to be a member of CLS.

    They were asked to remove that requirement in order to get RSO status and they refused.

    They could still have adhered to the same professed ideology as a group without requiring members to sign a oath that they too adhered to those views. If they had doen that, they would have been granted the RSO status.

    People are allowed to "self-exclude" through this policy that HAstings set up, but groups cannot purposefully exclude while getting RSO status.

    In essence, CLS decided that they wanted to **** themselves and pretend it was descrimination.
    The dissenting opinion notes a few groups that had the following in their charter.

    For example, the bylaws of the Hastings Democratic Caucus provided that “any full-time student at Hastings may become a member of HDC so long as they do not exhibit a consistent disregard and lack of respect for the objective of the organization as stated in Article 3, Section 1.
    This allows racial/political groups to exclude members who don't line up with their message. So the club's membership was not open to all, along with some similar groups.

  10. #140
    Matthew 16:3

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere and nowhere
    Last Seen
    06-24-17 @ 05:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    45,603

    Re: Court: Christian group can't bar gays [and] get funding

    Quote Originally Posted by Kernel Sanders View Post
    The dissenting opinion notes a few groups that had the following in their charter.



    This allows racial/political groups to exclude members who don't line up with their message. So the club's membership was not open to all, along with some similar groups.
    But that doesn't force them to adhere to its message and proclaim it as their own. CLS should have used a similar requirement instead fo requiring peopel to actually adhere to their message.
    Tucker Case - Tard magnet.

Page 14 of 28 FirstFirst ... 4121314151624 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •