Supreme Court rules against college Christian group's ban on gays

[kallend 1,644]

www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE65R4RA20100628

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[JohnRich 4]

Yeah, but it's still okay to ban felons and loonies.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Such official recognition qualifies campus groups for funding and other benefits.

Seems pretty simple. They can set standards for who gets money.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Andy9o8 0]

Things (including SCOTUS rulings) come in odd pairs. I hope that now that they can't ban them, they don't try to shoot them.

[wolfriverjoe 1,351]

Quote

Quote

Such official recognition qualifies campus groups for funding and other benefits.

Seems pretty simple. They can set standards for who gets money.

Yep. The school didn't say that they couldn't meet, just that they woudn't have official recognition. And for a group that openly discriminates against those they feel engage in "unrepentant sexual conduct" and those who refuse to endorse a "statement of faith", I have no problem with that lack of recognition.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE65R4RA20100628

sheesh - another 5-4 decision that should have been an obvious decision. The Presidents of the past may have had trouble getting their pick to stick in line, but the last batch seemed as ideological as ever, with only a couple willing to stray back and forth.

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

another 5-4 decision that should have been an obvious decision.

If it was slam-dunk obvious, it wouldn't have been a 5-4 decision. "Obvious" is in the eye of the beholder.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

another 5-4 decision that should have been an obvious decision.

If it was slam-dunk obvious, it wouldn't have been a 5-4 decision. "Obvious" is in the eye of the beholder.

yeah, yeah, you've posted that a dozen times already.

[kallend 1,644]

Quote

Quote

Quote

another 5-4 decision that should have been an obvious decision.

If it was slam-dunk obvious, it wouldn't have been a 5-4 decision. "Obvious" is in the eye of the beholder.

yeah, yeah, you've posted that a dozen times already.

I guess he has to, since some people fail to get it the first 11 times

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

I guess he has to, since some people fail to get it the first 11 times

Yes, now that you're on the losing side, you're suddenly quite unwilling to make any sort of opinion yourself, and say that only they can.

Maybe that works for you.

The SC tends to track with prevailing opinions, so stating that you believe in guns, or in gay marriage, or in the past, interracial marriage, is actually important. If 1% of the country cares about a matter, they may not even hear the case.

[kallend 1,644]

Quote

Quote

I guess he has to, since some people fail to get it the first 11 times

Yes, now that you're on the losing side, you're suddenly quite unwilling to make any sort of opinion yourself, and say that only they can.

Losing side of what? I think the SC made the correct decision (not that my opinion, or yours, matter in the slightest).

Sometimes you get carried away with yourself.

Like when you attributed to me some dates that others actually chose, and couldn't bring yourself to admit that your were wrong.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Nightingale 0]

The College isn't interfering with the students' freedom of association or freedom of religion, as the school's not saying they can't have their group, just that the school doesn't want to pay for it if all students can't benefit from the option of membership. This seems logical to me. People should be free to practice their beliefs, but they should not expect someone who disagrees with them to pay to help them.

I remember when I was in college there was a big stink about the University refusing to endorse the Association for Gay and Lesbian Awareness (AGLA), as it's a Catholic school. The school's solution: "We're no longer endorsing any clubs." Everyone lost there.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

The SC tends to track with prevailing opinions,...

Ohhhhhhhh, is that why they call it, stare decisis?

I'm glad you're here to teach me stuff.

[Southern_Man 0]

Quote

The College isn't interfering with the students' freedom of association or freedom of religion, as the school's not saying they can't have their group, just that the school doesn't want to pay for it if all students can't benefit from the option of membership. This seems logical to me. People should be free to practice their beliefs, but they should not expect someone who disagrees with them to pay to help them.

I remember when I was in college there was a big stink about the University refusing to endorse the Association for Gay and Lesbian Awareness (AGLA), as it's a Catholic school. The school's solution: "We're no longer endorsing any clubs." Everyone lost there.

Student activity fees often pay for activities that individual students find objectionable. A student can no more refuse to fund groups they disagree with than we can withhold the portion of our taxes that go to fund war or welfare or gun control or other actions that individual taxpayers find objectionable.

If this was a private school I would say the school had an almost absolute right to not fund the group. In this case the school is a public school, though, so this is government action. A private school, such as your university, has less responsibility.

Without reading the entire opinion (which I am unlikely to do) I would question if this overturns http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosenberger_v._University_of_Virginia which said public universities may not engage in viewpoint discrimination.

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

[skyrider 0]

So , they also going to make Frat's and Sorority's accept all who want to join?

[skyrider 0]

Math club, must accept students with low IQ's
Chess club, same rule, Debate club, same rule, Everyone can now play football
Same goes for all school sports!

If this is what they call giving "equal rights", not "Special rights", then it only makes sense all school funded organisations Must follow suit!

[timmyfitz 0]

Quote

Losing side of what? I think the SC made the correct decision (not that my opinion, or yours, matter in the slightest).

Do you think the SC made the correct or incorrect decision for the matter of the second amendment? You seem willing to give your opinion here(whether it matters or not) but you are unwilling to give an answer in the other thread.

If I remember correctly you chose not to state your opinion in the other thread because you said your opinion didn't mater. Although your opinion still doesn't matter you seem give it here quite freely.

[billvon 2,426]

>So , they also going to make Frat's and Sorority's accept all who want to join?

Well, the college could certainly do that if they wanted to. The frats and sororities could also refuse any benefits from the school if they so choose. Then they could do whatever they wanted as well.

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

The College isn't interfering with the students' freedom of association or freedom of religion, as the school's not saying they can't have their group, just that the school doesn't want to pay for it if all students can't benefit from the option of membership. This seems logical to me. People should be free to practice their beliefs, but they should not expect someone who disagrees with them to pay to help them.

I remember when I was in college there was a big stink about the University refusing to endorse the Association for Gay and Lesbian Awareness (AGLA), as it's a Catholic school. The school's solution: "We're no longer endorsing any clubs." Everyone lost there.

So because some students raised an issue of institutional ethics and/or legality, the institution responded by having a tantrum. Sounds like that school in MS that canceled the prom rather than let the lesbian student bring a girl as a date. Group punishment is a very effective way of provoking internecine sanctions (it's not infrequently done in military training). In each case, the school is the one misbehaving, but the objecting student gets ostracized. A very potent deterrent directed at other potential dissidents. How very ethical of the school to behave that way. WWJD?

[wolfriverjoe 1,351]

Quote

Math club, must accept students with low IQ's
Chess club, same rule, Debate club, same rule, Everyone can now play football
Same goes for all school sports!

If this is what they call giving "equal rights", not "Special rights", then it only makes sense all school funded organisations Must follow suit!

Most schools allow any who wish to join the Math, Chess or Debate clubs to do so. The less capable may not be picked to compete in tournaments, but they can still be members of the club. And have the opportunity to learn and improve.

Many schools offer Junior Varsity or intramural teams for those who couldn't make the Varsity teams. Again, it give all the opportunity to participate, learn and improve.

"There are NO situations which do not call for a French Maid outfit." Lucky McSwervy

"~ya don't GET old by being weak & stupid!" - Airtwardo

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Quote

Math club, must accept students with low IQ's
Chess club, same rule, Debate club, same rule, Everyone can now play football
Same goes for all school sports!

If this is what they call giving "equal rights", not "Special rights", then it only makes sense all school funded organisations Must follow suit!

Most schools allow any who wish to join the Math, Chess or Debate clubs to do so. The less capable may not be picked to compete in tournaments, but they can still be members of the club. And have the opportunity to learn and improve.

Many schools offer Junior Varsity or intramural teams for those who couldn't make the Varsity teams. Again, it give all the opportunity to participate, learn and improve.

Well at least schools with administrations who actually belive they are educators and who wish to be inclusive.

In some places.... they seek to be EXCLUSIVE to many who do not fit the narrow minded administrators litmus tests.

[Nightingale 0]

Quote

Quote

The College isn't interfering with the students' freedom of association or freedom of religion, as the school's not saying they can't have their group, just that the school doesn't want to pay for it if all students can't benefit from the option of membership. This seems logical to me. People should be free to practice their beliefs, but they should not expect someone who disagrees with them to pay to help them.

I remember when I was in college there was a big stink about the University refusing to endorse the Association for Gay and Lesbian Awareness (AGLA), as it's a Catholic school. The school's solution: "We're no longer endorsing any clubs." Everyone lost there.

So because some students raised an issue of institutional ethics and/or legality, the institution responded by having a tantrum. Sounds like that school in MS that canceled the prom rather than let the lesbian student bring a girl as a date. Group punishment is a very effective way of provoking internecine sanctions (it's not infrequently done in military training). In each case, the school is the one misbehaving, but the objecting student gets ostracized. A very potent deterrent directed at other potential dissidents. How very ethical of the school to behave that way. WWJD?

As for WWJD, personally I don't think the club was acting in a very Christian manner by refusing an opportunity for ministry and not allowing everyone to participate and hear the Christian perspective on the law. Didn't Jesus go out and minister to prostitutes and other sinners? Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought all that was required for salvation in Christianity was faith in Jesus, not living a perfect life, since that isn't possible for any of us. It seems like the student organization in question took a positive opportunity to share Christianity and turned it into something very negative. If someone is interested in hearing a Christian message, why would a Christian say no?

As for my school, what ended up happening was that the students rallied around the club rather than ostracizing them, which I think surprised the heck out of the university, who was just expecting the problem to go away. Many students, not just club members took to wearing black t-shirts saying "The AGLA is an unrecognized organization at *college*", and it brought the university a lot of bad press in the school paper, which is not only read on campus but sent to alums. It took a year or two, but the university eventually decided they would officially sanction no clubs, but any "student run group" having a certain amount of members was entitled to a bit of funding roughly equivalent to the student body fees paid by the students in the group and a place to meet on campus.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Without reading the entire opinion (which I am unlikely to do) I would question if this overturns http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosenberger_v._University_of_Virginia which said public universities may not engage in viewpoint discrimination.

It's not discriminating against the viewpoint. It's discriminating against the club's exclusion of potential members.

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

As for my school, what ended up happening was that the students rallied around the club rather than ostracizing them,

Good for them! Probably attributable to their greater maturity compared to HS students. But it's nice to hear.

(As I recall, in the MS prom case, when the school just outright canceled the prom, the lesbian student took a lot of shit from her fellow students: "Thanks for ruining our prom", etc.)

[Nightingale 0]

Quote

Quote

As for my school, what ended up happening was that the students rallied around the club rather than ostracizing them,

Good for them! Probably attributable to their greater maturity compared to HS students. But it's nice to hear.

I think part of it was maturity, and part of it was that the school itself made a huge effort to create community among the students, and the students felt that that sense of community was violated because of the university denying a group that represented a part of the student body and actively attempting to create divisiveness. Even students who were very much against homosexuality opposed the university's actions, feeling that the university drew much more attention to the club by causing problems than if the club was allowed to exist without administrative opposition.