• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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

texmaster said:
Stop and think about what you just said. That would mean every group would have to tolerate everyone no matter what the senario lest they be accused of discrimination.

This is what you really want?
Click to expand...

If they dont like it, then maybe they shouldnt take STATE funding. Become private and then you can do what you want.
 
texmaster said:
Stop and think about what you just said. That would mean every group would have to tolerate everyone no matter what the senario lest they be accused of discrimination.
Click to expand...

No, it's saying that University doesn't need to be forced to fund a group that practices overt discrimination.

The groups still have a right to discriminate if they so choose. They simply won't receive University funding if they choose to do so.
 
RightinNYC said:
You're missing my point:

FindLaw | Cases and Codes
Click to expand...

No...actually I didn't. I knew exactly what you were implying....and I think my response was appropriate. If you understand the Constitution and equal protection analysis, you know that not every factor is treated the exact same under EP analysis....and while Universities have non-discrimination policies, having a number of criteria for admissions, apart from an SAT score does not violate those policies.
 
disneydude said:
No...actually I didn't. I knew exactly what you were implying....and I think my response was appropriate. If you understand the Constitution and equal protection analysis, you know that not every factor is treated the exact same under EP analysis....and while Universities have non-discrimination policies, having a number of criteria for admissions, apart from an SAT score does not violate those policies.
Click to expand...

So because the court said one thing, you think that anyone who disagrees with any aspect of it doesn't "understand the Constitution and equal protection analysis"? Does that same logic apply to SC decisions that you don't like?
 
Deuce said:
Court: Christian group can't bar gays, get funding - Politics - msnbc.com



Seems like a reasonable decision to me. The first amendment protects your right to discriminate but it does not protect your right to receive public funding or recognition to enable your discrimination. (the Christian group in question excluded homosexuals)

5-4 decision, with the expected conservative/liberal split and Kennedy siding with the liberals on this one. That four supreme court justices think the first amendment protects your right to public funding of discrimination is fairly disturbing.

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.
Click to expand...

Not surprising that the 4 anti-gay-rights, roman catholic, conservative judges dissented.
 
So then can a fundamentalist anti-homosexual agenda Christian join a gay activist group?
 
digsbe said:
So then can a fundamentalist anti-homosexual agenda Christian join a gay activist group?
Click to expand...

Is the gay rights group receiving public funding?
 
digsbe said:
So then can a fundamentalist anti-homosexual agenda Christian join a gay activist group?
Click to expand...

By all means, if they want to do so, then sure...if the gay activist group is getting public funding.
 
digsbe said:
So then can a fundamentalist anti-homosexual agenda Christian join a gay activist group?
Click to expand...

It's up to the group to decide on that. They don't get to decide if they'll be recognized by a University though.

If they decide not to accept the person and they hope to get the University to fund them, it's up the University to decide if they will do so.
 
Tucker Case said:
It's up to the group to decide on that. They don't get to decide if they'll be recognized by a University though.

If they decide not to accept the person and they hope to get the University to fund them, it's up the University to decide if they will do so.
Click to expand...

This is where I feared it would become a too used and abused to oppress groups that the school disagrees with ideologically. It would be a double standard to refuse to fund/acknowledge a Christian group that doesn't accept gays, and then do the opposite to a gay rights group that doesn't accept Christians.
 
digsbe said:
This is where I feared it would become a too used and abused to oppress groups that the school disagrees with ideologically. It would be a double standard to refuse to fund/acknowledge a Christian group that doesn't accept gays, and then do the opposite to a gay rights group that doesn't accept Christians.
Click to expand...

I think it would all depend on the intent of the person joining the group. If the homo wants to join a group for the professional networking or for the benefits of the group, fine. If he wants to join to be a disruption, then the group should have recourse to expel him. Same with the christian wanting to join the gay group. Protest should not be permitted to be carried out from within the group's membership.
 
Hate to break it to you digs, but a lot of gays are Christian.
 
digsbe said:
This is where I feared it would become a too used and abused to oppress groups that the school disagrees with ideologically. It would be a double standard to refuse to fund/acknowledge a Christian group that doesn't accept gays, and then do the opposite to a gay rights group that doesn't accept Christians.
Click to expand...

Why should the groups ideology supercede that of the Universtiy's?
 
roughdraft274 said:
With Hastings College being private (at least I believe it is) why would 4 justices deny their right to fund or defund whatever groups they want?
Click to expand...

Hastings is a public, state-sponsored school. It is part of the University of California system.

I do not like this ruing, it sends a message that the state will determine who a group can like and who they cannot. The groups that the state decides are liking who they want them to like are getting the funding and a unfair advantage over the groups who are not. It violates the Freedom of Association Clause and the Equal Protection Clause.

This is repression of speech, religious and political, and the state should not set these kinds of standards. It plays favoritism.
 
digsbe said:
This is where I feared it would become a too used and abused to oppress groups that the school disagrees with ideologically. It would be a double standard to refuse to fund/acknowledge a Christian group that doesn't accept gays, and then do the opposite to a gay rights group that doesn't accept Christians.
Click to expand...

A few key points:

1. These groups are not entitled to being funded and recognized by the University.
2. I'm not aware of any gay activist group that doesnt' accept Christians, mainly because most of the gays in the US are Christian. But even if that seemingly improbable thing did actually occur... so what? It's the Universities decision to recognize them or not. The ruling is not preventing groups from discriminating. It's allowing the Universities discretion in who they choose to fund. A University can still choose to fund and recognize a Christian group that excludes gays. They aren't being told not to fund and rocognize these groups.
3. If hypocricy occurs, so be it. Make it known amongst the gay-hating Christian community and then they can make the choice to boycottt the school.
 
Alex said:
Hastings is a public, state-sponsored school. It is part of the University of California system.

I do not like this ruing, it sends a message that the state will determine who a group can like and who they cannot. The groups that the state decides are liking who they want them to like are getting the funding and a unfair advantage over the groups who are not. It violates the Freedom of Association Clause and the Equal Protection Clause.

This is repression of speech, religious and political, and the state should not set these kinds of standards. It plays favoritism.
Click to expand...

These groups are not entitled to University money. No rights are violated.
 
I do hope schools across the country stop giving special benefits to individuals and specific housing for grouping of students that participate in continued and repeated gender discrimination in leiu of this ruling.

All those vile sexist discriminating greeks.

I'm unsure how I feel about this ruling in honesty.

In this specific, singular instance, I in general like it.

In a broader sense though, I side with the 4 dissenting justices. Its a vast slippery slope and essentially is setting up a position where PUBLIC schools using PUBLIC funds can discriminate against groups whose message or means it dislikes in regards to the awarding of PUBLIC funds.

Unless this is somehow enforced across the board in Public colleges, IE ANY group that has ANY form of discriminatary entrance or rules regarding any kind of protected group be is gender, sexual orientation, race, etc is forced to be unable to gain any perk. This means if there's an african-american focused club on campus it would not be allowed funding if it did not allow white members, if there is a muslim group that limits the role women can participate in the group they would not be allowed funding, and if there's a christian group that bans homosexuals they wouldn't get funding. It opens up far to much of a slippery slope to allow public universities to pick and choose which discrimination they wish to allow and which they want to condone with the use of Public Funds.

So its one of those situations that on a micro level I agree with but on a macro level I disagree.
 
Last edited:
Zyphlin said:
I do hope schools across the country stop giving special benefits to individuals and specific housing for grouping of students that participate in continued and repeated gender discrimination in leiu of this ruling.

All those vile sexist discriminating greeks.

I'm unsure how I feel about this ruling in honesty.

In this specific, singular instance, I in general like it.

In a broader sense though, I side with the 4 dissenting justices. Its a vast slippery slope and essentially is setting up a position where PUBLIC schools using PUBLIC funds can discriminate against groups whose message or means it dislikes in regards to the awarding of PUBLIC funds.

Unless this is somehow enforced across the board in Public colleges, IE ANY group that has ANY form of discriminatary entrance or rules regarding any kind of protected group be is gender, sexual orientation, race, etc is forced to be unable to gain any perk. This means if there's an african-american focused club on campus it would not be allowed funding if it did not allow white members, if there is a muslim group that limits the role women can participate in the group they would not be allowed funding, and if there's a christian group that bans homosexuals they wouldn't get funding. It opens up far to much of a slippery slope to allow public universities to pick and choose which discrimination they wish to allow and which they want to condone with the use of Public Funds.

So its one of those situations that on a micro level I agree with but on a macro level I disagree.
Click to expand...

So you want a federal mandate instead of state and local control?

Interesting.

Maybe I can help those uneasy about this ruling:
The Christian group was arguing that denying them funding was a violation of their first amendment rights. To rule in their favor, you'd have to set the precedent that religious organizations are constitutionally entitled to public funding.
 
Last edited:
Zyphlin said:
I do hope schools across the country stop giving special benefits to individuals and specific housing for grouping of students that participate in continued and repeated gender discrimination in leiu of this ruling.

All those vile sexist discriminating greeks.

I'm unsure how I feel about this ruling in honesty.

In this specific, singular instance, I in general like it.

In a broader sense though, I side with the 4 dissenting justices. Its a vast slippery slope and essentially is setting up a position where PUBLIC schools using PUBLIC funds can discriminate against groups whose message or means it dislikes in regards to the awarding of PUBLIC funds.

Unless this is somehow enforced across the board in Public colleges, IE ANY group that has ANY form of discriminatary entrance or rules regarding any kind of protected group be is gender, sexual orientation, race, etc is forced to be unable to gain any perk. This means if there's an african-american focused club on campus it would not be allowed funding if it did not allow white members, if there is a muslim group that limits the role women can participate in the group they would not be allowed funding, and if there's a christian group that bans homosexuals they wouldn't get funding. It opens up far to much of a slippery slope to allow public universities to pick and choose which discrimination they wish to allow and which they want to condone with the use of Public Funds.

So its one of those situations that on a micro level I agree with but on a macro level I disagree.
Click to expand...

I agree with you on principle however, like you, I like this ruling in this instance. However, in academic microcosms, the faculty already has plenty of measures to do exactly what you are afraid of without needing to use public funds to do it. But I see your point, totally and will confess that I support this decision because of the specific issue it was ruling on.
 
texmaster said:
Nothing in that statement says sexual orientation must be considered.

You are generalizing to include something that was never stated.
Click to expand...

Equally nothing in that statement that says sexual orientation should not be considered.

So it will be up to how the SCJs interrpret the law.
 
Deuce said:
Maybe I can help those uneasy about this ruling:
The Christian group was arguing that denying them funding was a violation of their first amendment rights. To rule in their favor, you'd have to set the precedent that religious organizations are constitutionally entitled to public funding.
Click to expand...

Or you know, are constitutionally entitled not to be treated different than other groups simply due to their religious beliefs.

But I'm sure your spin works better for your argument so naturally that's the only true way to view it
 
Zyphlin said:
Or you know, are constitutionally entitled not to be treated different than other groups simply due to their religious beliefs.

But I'm sure your spin works better for your argument so naturally that's the only true way to view it
Click to expand...

I think maybe some legislation that defines the level of adherence to government mandated anti-discrimination practices for a group based on how much of their total funding comes from the government.

For instance: Christian group A gets 90% of its funding from public money. Can you really consider it a private organization when the public is footing the bill?

Christian group B gets 5% of its total funding from public money. It should be able to continue any policies it wants as a private organization.
 
Tucker Case said:
These groups are not entitled to University money. No rights are violated.
Click to expand...

If the money is coming from public funds, I believe any school group is entitled to it without political consideration. I suppose the only way I could see not giving this money to the group is that they are a religious organization. Even then, the money is not being distributed for the purpose of religion, it only happens to be that a religious organization is requesting it. I would still have to side with the group.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom