[quote=“LA Times”]The society chapter formed at the law school in 2004 required members to forswear “unrepentant participation in or advocacy of a sexually immoral lifestyle,” which it defined as sex outside of heterosexual marriage.
The court’s opinion, written by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, said the law school’s decision was reasonable in that the state-funded university requires all groups wearing its endorsement to be nondiscriminatory.
“Hastings, through its [Registered Student Organization] program, is dangling the carrot of subsidy, not wielding the stick of prohibition,” Ginsburg wrote in the opinion, joined by Justices John Paul Stevens, Anthony Kennedy, Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor.
Justice Samuel Alito 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.”[/quote]
The usual load of garbage from the social conservatives on the Supreme Court:
implying this rejection of official status is unfair because “60 other groups were accepted and only one rejected - the Christians” defies logic: did the other 60 discriminate?
this is now “a handy weapon for suppressing speech”; really? How’s that? In the decision text itself:
Yeah and the “liberals” are the “activist” judges. The conservatives are just making shit up here to push a pro-religious, anti-homosexual rights agenda.
[quote=“Chris”]Thankfully Kennedy fell on the side of reason this time.
By the way, the subject title is a little misleading.[/quote]
Yeah thanks someone oughta change it, I tried fitting the text in different ways and got it wrong. How about Supremes rule for UC against X-ian club?
I get it.
In fact, though, the point is that, IF the groups are recipients of government funding, then they have to follow the same non-discriminatory guidelines as all other public organs.
So, yes, there probably ARE women’s clubs, but they aren’t allowed to refuse male applicants.
Just as, I’m sure, there are Jewish groups, and gay groups too.
But they have to allow entrance to, should they pursue it, Irish Catholics and burly Tasmanian heteros, respectively or otherwise .
Or, you know, surrender their spot at the state trough.
They do have a choice.
Sounds fair to me.
Yes, that would make sense. The university is well within its rights not to endorse this club. It isn’t preventing the club being formed, it’s simply not endorsing it. It’s the same as the distinction between suppressing free speech, and refusing to provide a free platform for free speech (a distinction free speech advocates typically find difficult to comprehend).
[quote]So, yes, there probably ARE women’s clubs, but they aren’t allowed to refuse male applicants.
Just as, I’m sure, there are Jewish groups, and gay groups too.[/quote]
Actually I would be surprised. At my university women’s clubs were permitted to discriminate and still received endorsement, funding, and support.
[quote]They do have a choice.
Sounds fair to me.[/quote]
[quote=“Fortigurn”]Actually I would be surprised. At my university women’s clubs were permitted to discriminate and still received endorsement, funding, and support.
[/quote]
[quote=“Fortigurn”][quote]So, yes, there probably ARE women’s clubs, but they aren’t allowed to refuse male applicants.
Just as, I’m sure, there are Jewish groups, and gay groups too.[/quote]
Actually I would be surprised. At my university women’s clubs were permitted to discriminate and still received endorsement, funding, and support.[/quote]
So, your university got it wrong. Neither of mine did.
Why generalize your experience as the rule?
For a negative reason rather than a positive reason. I have never heard of a university refusing to endorse a women’s club on the basis that it is discriminatory, so for me to hear of such a thing would be a surprise. Have you ever heard of a university refusing to endorse a women’s club on the basis that it is discriminatory?
For a negative reason rather than a positive reason. I have never heard of a university refusing to endorse a women’s club on the basis that it is discriminatory, so for me to hear of such a thing would be a surprise. Have you ever heard of a university refusing to endorse a women’s club on the basis that it is discriminatory?[/quote]
Yes, certainly. But it very seldom comes to that.
Most often, clubs must allow anyone to join, but are so specialized/tightly focused that none save members of the targeted community express any interest in joining.
Most often, clubs must allow anyone to join, but are so specialized/tightly focused that none save members of the targeted community express any interest in joining.[/quote]
Well yes, but we’re not talking about those clubs. We’re talking about the clubs which practice discriminatory membership, like women’s gymns and gentleman’s clubs.
Women’s gyms may be considered different if there is an issue of “obscenity” or propriety or whatever (not that I agree with that at all!). And gentleman’s clubs hopefully are not receiving federal funds in any way except through the paychecks of politicians who patronize them, so I think that’s a different issue.
.