• 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

So, you don't believe that any behavior should be illegal? Homosexuality = drug trafficking = homicide to you? Wow. I'm not sure how to help you.

Its not what I believe Catz. Its this decision you are so supportive of that says it.

You can't even spell the concept, much less articulate an understanding of discrimination.

Oh for God's sake put your Captain Spellcheck tights in the closest. Of all the petty 4 year old comments.

You keep repeating like a parrot that I don't understand the word discrimination.

Let's look at it


treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit: racial and religious intolerance and discrimination.


Now, explain in your words how you are not discriminating against someone who believes what NAMBLA believes and you exclude them from your group.

For once in your life answer the question.
 
I say take all government money out of our schools. maybe then we might see some parody in what is being taught.


j-mac

I completely agree. We would see complete parody if we removed government money from school. I'm glad to see you're finally coming around on that.
 
Thats the same thing.

So if a NABMLA memeber wanted to join a liberal group and they denied them they should loose funding because that would be "descrimination"

If the NAMBLA member isn't doing anything to conflict with the rules and regulations of the club, I see no reason to not let him join. If he gets up at the rallies and starts yelling about how ****ing children should be legal, then I'm sure he violates a rule of our club and we have a reason to boot him. Furthermore, just because he shows up at the meetings doesn't mean we have to do a damn thing to make him feel welcome.
 
If the NAMBLA member isn't doing anything to conflict with the rules and regulations of the club, I see no reason to not let him join. If he gets up at the rallies and starts yelling about how ****ing children should be legal, then I'm sure he violates a rule of our club and we have a reason to boot him. Furthermore, just because he shows up at the meetings doesn't mean we have to do a damn thing to make him feel welcome.

But what rule would that be? What rule could you propose that would not be classified as discriminatory? Thats the problem I have which such a general statement to these groups.
 
They would have to present a logical defense that proved that not engaging in homosexual sex acts while still calling oneself a homosexual is, in and of itself, sinful according to the bible. A very difficult thing to try and prove using the bible since the homosexual culture didn't exist back then. If they can't defend ther posiiton logically, it isn't valid logically.

Ah, so the school should be given the power to dictate whether or not a particular clubs religious views are correct, and more precisely that a persons or groups religious views are "logical"?

Really?

Sorry, it comes down to it that deciding whether or not a clubs use of discrimination is "abitrary or not" is in and of itself an arbitrary decision made by individuals in the administration.
 
But what rule would that be? What rule could you propose that would not be classified as discriminatory? Thats the problem I have which such a general statement to these groups.

"Anyone who publicly advocates positions antithetical to the platform of the Young Democrats Club within their official position as a member of said club will be expelled from the club."
 
But what rule would that be? What rule could you propose that would not be classified as discriminatory? Thats the problem I have which such a general statement to these groups.

There could be minimum mandatory issues of decorum at meetings.

There could be rules regarding showing up to a certain number of events.

There could be rules regarding being respectful to your fellow members.

There could be rules regarding behavior at group activities.

Etc.

There's a large difference between discriminating in regards to allowing membership based on views and beliefs, and taking action against members whose ACTIONS violate defined rules
 
"Anyone who publicly advocates positions antithetical to the platform of the Young Democrats Club within their official position as a member of said club will be expelled from the club."

Bingo.

You can't discriminate against peoples views, beliefs, or protected status's (race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, etc) in regards to MEMBERSHIP.

That said, all members have to abide by the rules of the club. For example, I'd have an issue with this group denying homosexuals entry into their group. I wouldn't however have an issue with them saying that members of this group that are found publicy advocating for policy or political positions contrary to the views held by the club could potentially be expelled from membership.

So for example, a homosexual person would be welcome to join, however he can't go to a gay marriage rally and expect to remain in it.

This goes back to my comment that membership in situation where you don't want discrimination to happen for clubs should be absolutely open, however that doesn't mean that there won't be ways for clubs to have defacto discrimination. It'd be similar to a club focusing on black political issues allowing in someone that is white, but kicking him out if he spoke out publicly against affirmative action.
 
"Anyone who publicly advocates positions antithetical to the platform of the Young Democrats Club within their official position as a member of said club will be expelled from the club."

Isn't that what the christian group said? And they were rejeted funding based off that.
 
Bingo.

You can't discriminate against peoples views, beliefs, or protected status's (race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, etc) in regards to MEMBERSHIP.

That said, all members have to abide by the rules of the club. For example, I'd have an issue with this group denying homosexuals entry into their group. I wouldn't however have an issue with them saying that members of this group that are found publicy advocating for policy or political positions contrary to the views held by the club could potentially be expelled from membership.

So for example, a homosexual person would be welcome to join, however he can't go to a gay marriage rally and expect to remain in it.

This goes back to my comment that membership in situation where you don't want discrimination to happen for clubs should be absolutely open, however that doesn't mean that there won't be ways for clubs to have defacto discrimination. It'd be similar to a club focusing on black political issues allowing in someone that is white, but kicking him out if he spoke out publicly against affirmative action.

As an aside, I've always wanted to start a "european-american culture club" just to see what people do.
 
There could be minimum mandatory issues of decorum at meetings.

There could be rules regarding showing up to a certain number of events.

There could be rules regarding being respectful to your fellow members.

There could be rules regarding behavior at group activities.

Etc.

There's a large difference between discriminating in regards to allowing membership based on views and beliefs, and taking action against members whose ACTIONS violate defined rules

But thats exactly what the christian group said. Homosexuality by its very nature violated the rules they put in place.

And they were ruled against.

You can't come up with a law to exclude any person without it being classified as decriminatory.
 
Isn't that what the christian group said? And they were rejeted funding based off that.

You know what, I went back and reread this article...

Interesting, thank you tex...need to gather my thoughts
 
But thats exactly what the christian group said. Homosexuality by its very nature violated the rules they put in place.

And they were ruled against.

You can't come up with a law to exclude any person without it being classified as decriminatory.

They can still have their and the University doesn't have to support it. I bet the Unversity alredy has a policy on homosexuality contrary to the clubs.
 
They can still have their and the University doesn't have to support it. I bet the Unversity alredy has a policy on homosexuality contrary to the clubs.

Right. The point I'm making isn't about the existense of the clubs, its the ability to gain access to public funding without forcing a group to accept all personal choices people make.
 
You know what, I went back and reread this article...

Interesting, thank you tex...need to gather my thoughts

Not a problem.

If you come up with a law they can make up to get around accepting all forms of behavior I'm all for it. I just don't see how considering the ruling's language about descrimination.
 
Okay, this is weird, and I think I'd like to see the actual rules of this club.

In one instance it seems to be saying that gays could join, they'd just need to sign the same statement all voting members do that state that regards participation or advocacy of immoral lifestyles as inconsistant with the faith beliefs of the club. I would have zero legal issue with this really. It doesn't bar people from joining, but it clearly details the faith of the club and if you don't agree with the clubs views don't join it. Its not KEEPING people from joining, it just means to join you have to agree with the club. To me this would be no different than having a Young Democrats club and requiring voting members to sign a statement that they will not activitly advocate for views inconsistant with the DNC's platform.

Its that whole free market thing. If you don't want discrimination then you should have to let anyone join, but groups should still be free to have their group views, goals, and activities. If you don't like those activities, don't join it...but know the oppertunity is there.

If these people were actively just denying the allowance of gays into the group no matter what, even if they repented their participation in the life style daily and signed the faith statement, then it would definitely be discrimination because they are not open admission and the signing statement is obviously just a smokescreen.

Additionally, if it was found that the group was violating its own rules and standards by arbitrarily enforcing them, allowing people who knowingly were unrepentant participators of sexually immoral lifestyles, such as having premaritial sex, but disallowing homosexuals then I'd say there'd be grounds for the school to revoke their funding as most campus's I've seen have rules regarding the creation of clubs and the gaining of funding that a club must actually be fulfilling its charter....and not upholding its own rules would NOT be fulfilling its charter.

So this is really tricky and I think i'd need more information.

Were they actively disallowing gays? Or did they simply have a requirement for voting rights that was done in such a way that it would be difficult for homosexuals to honestly and volunteerly go along with it?
 
Right. The point I'm making isn't about the existense of the clubs, its the ability to gain access to public funding without forcing a group to accept all personal choices people make.

Well before the law equal we are all and if a club is seem kind of public money they have to abide by that. And I would also be willing to bet the school has a non discrimination policy
 
Last edited:
And really, what it comes down to in regards to discrimination for me is this...

There are federal, and then there are state, laws in regards to protected status's. Gender, Religion, handicap, ethnicity, etc are routinely part of this. In many states sexual orientation is also one (I'm blanking, is it one in regards to federal law?).

If you're going to say that all clubs must be fully open and that you have a non-discrimination rule in regards to campus clubs to get campus funding, then my view would be that no club for any reason...no matter if someone thought it was a "legit" reason or not...could discriminate against people of the protected groups denoted as such by federal, and that state's, laws.

This means you could have a club that discriminates for membership in regards to political views, GPA, hobbies, etc. However you could not have clubs getting funding discriminating based on race, or male or female, or potentially straight/gay.

However, that would not keep such clubs from being able to be formed and recognized, only not recieving money.

So its one of those things where if you're going to go with a non-discrimination policy, go with a standard that's already essentially defined in the law.

Ultimately, as i said, it wouldn't matter, as just about any particular protected group could be defacto discriminated against in regards to a club by tailoring the clubs activities and rules in such a way that its just not attractive to those outside of who its meant for.
 
Last edited:
Forgive me for stating the obvious at this late point, but it suddenly struck me. Why would a Christian group wish to discriminate against members?

I guess they missed 1 Timothy 1:15 during bible study:

Here is a trustworthy saying that deserves full acceptance: Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners--of whom I am the worst.

Is the Christian club suggesting that they are without sin?

If so, then why do they need Christ?

Mark 2:17 And hearing this, Jesus said to them, "It is not those who are healthy who need a physician, but those who are sick; I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners."

I can't help but think that they need a remedial class on Jesus 101.
 
Last edited:
Forgive me for stating the obvious at this late point, but it suddenly struck me. Why would a Christian group wish to discriminate against members?

I guess they missed 1 Timothy 1:15 during bible study:

Is the Christian club suggesting that they are without sin?

If so, then why do they need Christ?

I can't help but think that they need a remedial class on Jesus 101.

I think the key line of their statement is in regards to "unrepentant".

Essentially, those they believe are sinners who have no issue with their sin, embrace their sin, promote their sin, advocate their sin, think there's nothing wrong with their sin, and feel they have no need for forgiveness of their sin nor feel that they should repent for it.

Essentially by adding in unrepentant, they are not condemning all sinners, but simply sinners who refuse to acknowledge their sin or attempt to correct their sinful ways but instead fully and completely indulge in it without apology or desire for absolution.

Additionally, I'm no scholar but I'm pretty sure the bibles a rather large book, made up by more than a few individual lines, and that attempting to take a few lines about jesus's personal acts and suggesting that if individuals do not act exactly like jesus in all ways shapes or forms that it is impossible for one to be "christian" in practice.
 
Last edited:
Additionally, I'm no scholar but I'm pretty sure the bibles a rather large book, made up by more than a few individual lines, and that attempting to take a few lines about jesus's personal acts and suggesting that if individuals do not act exactly like jesus in all ways shapes or forms that it is impossible for one to be "christian" in practice.

Actually, the self-righteousness of the existing religious class (in contrast to their inner sinful behaviors) was a theme that Jesus Christ returned to again and again. That's why there are so many mentions of scribes/pharisees, and it is the underlying message of, for instance, the parable of the Good Samaritan.

Furthermore, the absolute fallen and sinful nature of mankind is THE MESSAGE OF THE BIBLE. The entire Old Testament is a representation of man's inability to save himself through his own perceptions of righteousness.

Romans 3:23 is a pivotal verse for evangelicals:

For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God.

That verse, in a single sentence, sums up the very reason that Christ needed to come to earth and die on the cross. It is paramount to evangelicalism.

By disregarding their own sinfulness before God, and focusing only on the sinfulness of gays/lesbians, these believers bring themselves into condemnation by God.

Another key aspect of Christian thought is that only Christ is the judge. Someone could easily be a believer in Christ, and feel that they were made by Christ to be gay. Why does this club feel that only a fundamentalist interpretation of doctrine is allowable? If they want university sponsorship, that means that they have to be open to all people who state that they are Christians. Their choice to be so narrow in their interpretation.
 
Last edited:
Okay, this is weird, and I think I'd like to see the actual rules of this club.

In one instance it seems to be saying that gays could join, they'd just need to sign the same statement all voting members do that state that regards participation or advocacy of immoral lifestyles as inconsistant with the faith beliefs of the club.

If this is the case, I feel that in order for the University to refuse to fund them, the UIniversity would also have to refuse to fund any other group that requires a standard of behavior.

The only exception being if there were members who were actively participating or advocating immoral lifestyles (such as premarital sex or living with their boyfriend/girlfriend out of wedlock, which even without the sex occuring advocates an immoral lifestyle according to Christian beliefs) who were not being removed from the club, while homosexuals were being removed from the club.

But if the only reason the University denied funding and recognition to this group was over that requirement, and they don't do this with other groups that have similar requirements (many fraternities have behavioral expectations, for example), then I absolutley disagree with the University's decision to not fund the group.

However, I'm not totally sure I disagree with the court's decision, though, since i do think the University should have some discretion on who gets funded, and the opposite ruling would have prevented them form having that discretion.
 
Actually, the self-righteousness of the existing religious class (in contrast to their inner sinful behaviors) was a theme that Jesus Christ returned to again and again. That's why there are so many mentions of scribes/pharisees, and it is the underlying message of, for instance, the parable of the Good Samaritan.

Furthermore, the absolute fallen and sinful nature of mankind is THE MESSAGE OF THE BIBLE. The entire Old Testament is a representation of man's inability to save himself through his own perceptions of righteousness.

Romans 3:23 is a pivotal verse for evangelicals:

That verse, in a single sentence, sums up the very reason that Christ needed to come to earth and die on the cross. It is paramount to evangelicalism.

By disregarding their own sinfulness before God, and focusing only on the sinfulness of gays/lesbians, these believers bring themselves into condemnation by God.

Another key aspect of Christian thought is that only Christ is the judge. Someone could easily be a believer in Christ, and feel that they were made by Christ to be gay. Why does this club feel that only a fundamentalist interpretation of doctrine is allowable? If they want university sponsorship, that means that they have to be open to all people who state that they are Christians. Their choice to be so narrow in their interpretation.

All well and good, but its not the states job or the colleges job to dictate how these people perform thier religion.

This is the problem I think most are having with this.

The facts its religious to me is irrelevant.

Should any group [x] that has rules in regards to its membership that require an adherance to a group held belief or behavior in order to have voting rights be able to recieve group funding from a university.

This could be a religious group forcing members to agree to hold to a specific belief about homosexuality or hell, about working on sundays.

This could be a political group forcing members to agree to hold specific public views regarding a political view point.

This could be a racial group forcing members to agree to participate in a certain number of rallies regarding their particular race.

This could be an honors group forcing members to agree to maintain a 3.5 GPA with no more than 1 class missed a semester.

This could be a citizenship group making people agree to meeting a certian behavioral expectations.

Whether you agree with the NEED or the legitimacy of the requirement or not, to me, is irrelevant, what is relevant is the general notion of a group requiring a certain agreement of a belief or behavior to maintain membership.

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?
 
If this is the case, I feel that in order for the University to refuse to fund them, the UIniversity would also have to refuse to fund any other group that requires a standard of behavior.

Yeah, that's kind of what I'm leaning to and what I've been saying. As long as this is evenly enforced by the University I don't have as big of an issue with it.

The only exception being if there were members who were actively participating or advocating immoral lifestyles (such as premarital sex or living with their boyfriend/girlfriend out of wedlock, which even without the sex occuring advocates an immoral lifestyle according to Christian beliefs) who were not being removed from the club, while homosexuals were being removed from the club.

According to SOME Christian beliefs. Here's the thing. I don't think its the College's place to determine whether a standard of behavior is legitimate or not, let alone be a theologin. If you want to allow standards of behavior I could make a club requiring people to wear clown noses at all times. The College could think that's ****ing ridiculous, but if they're allowing standards of behavior and its not violating a law they should allow it. Its not the colleges place to say "You're interpriting your religion wrong!"

The ONLY other way I'd say it would be okay is if the campus has generic laws of its own. For example, lets say its not in a state where sexual preference is a protected class...but in regards to the college itself it IS. In that case, clubs actively saying "Homosexuals can not join" would be against school policy, and would give grounds for the school to act without removing the allowance for standards of behavior. However, if the club had a policy regarding membership that was not DIRECTLY stopping homosexuals from joining, but made it highly unlikely, then I'd say it'd have to be allowed.

But if the only reason the University denied funding and recognition to this group was over that requirement, and they don't do this with other groups that have similar requirements (many fraternities have behavioral expectations, for example), then I absolutley disagree with the University's decision to not fund the group.

Yep. Though I've found mixed information in regards to school funding for fraternities. Some do it, some don't. You also get into the dicey situation...what about perks OTHER than school funding, such as housing, use of facilities, etc.

However, I'm not totally sure I disagree with the court's decision, though, since i do think the University should have some discretion on who gets funded, and the opposite ruling would have prevented them form having that discretion.

I do think they should have some discretion, I just think it needs to be relatively consistant and measurable. For example, if they wanted to use discretion in giving more funds to larger clubs, that'd be fine. If they want to give more funds to clubs that provide services to the community rather than special interest clubs, that's fine. Its when you get into allowing them discretion of going "We don't like the purpose of your club so we're not giving you money" or "We don't agree with an ideological viewpoint of your club so we're not giving it money" that begins to cause me to give pause.
 
OK, I'm actually reading the court's decision itself right now:

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1371.pdf

It seems that the school had a policy in place that stated "Hastings requires that [RSOs] allow any student to participate, . . . regardless of [her] status or beliefs. For example, the Hastings Democratic Caucus cannot bar students holding Republican political beliefs".

An important part of the Decision:

"Private groups, such as fraternities and sororities,commonly maintain a presence at universities without official school affiliation."

I see nothing wrong with the decision in light of these facts. I was was under the impression Sororities and fraternities received school funding. If they don't there's no problem here. And using this particular School's rules, it would be impossible for them to receive funding while remaining all-male/all-female.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom