tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13873773.post3159818107763670073..comments2023-09-17T08:45:50.720-04:00Comments on Stuff Out Loud: Weird: CLS vs. MartinezLarryhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04886866662463467215noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13873773.post-25313982663149851742010-06-28T16:06:12.110-04:002010-06-28T16:06:12.110-04:00Here's the overload part. As I understand it, ...Here's the overload part. As I understand it, the dissent was based on several issues (summarized):<br /><br />1. The basis given originally was changed three times, so that the court case now was not based on the original reason. The non-discrimination policy was the original reason, which later became an "accept all comers" policy. By the time it reached SCOTUS, it was an "accept some comers" policy, based on "neutral and generally applicable membership requirements unrelated to ‘status or beliefs.’” (p. 57 in PDF). So it went from "You can't discriminate" to "you have to accept everyone" to "you can reject members so long as it is not based on belief or status" (particularly related to the same-sex issue).<br /><br />2. The policy is not viewpoint neutral. It discriminates against CLS based solely on their viewpoints, a standard which is not applied to other RSOs. From the dissent: "Only religious groups were required to admit students who did not share their views" (p. 67). Neither environmental nor animal rights groups were obligated to accept those who did not share their views. Furthermore, "The adoption of a facially neutral policy for the purpose of suppressing the expression of a particular viewpoint is viewpoint discrimination" (p. 80), which means that creating a neutral policy is discriminatory when the purpose of it is to discriminate.<br /><br />3. The policy is not equally applied. The dissent gave several examples; here is one: <i>For example, the bylaws of the Hastings Democratic Caucus provided that “any full-time student at Hastings may become a member of HDC <b>so long as they do not exhibit a consistent disregard and lack of respect for the objective of the organization</b> as stated in Article 3, Section 1.” App. to Pet. for Cert. 118a (emphasis added)</i>. Other examples are the American Trial Lawyers Associations, the Vietnamese American Law Association, Silenced Right (a pro-life organization). On this basis, the dissent argues that Hastings does not use an "accept all comers" policy for all organizations. In fact, the dissent points out that the law school itself doesn't use an "accept all comers" policy with respect to students and faculty. When this was pointed out to Hastings during the litigation, they went back and enforced the policy on student organizations which, in the words of the dissent, "suggest, if anything, that Hastings had no accept-all-comers policy until this litigation was well under way."<br /><br />So in the end, while I am not paritcularly troubled from a Christian point of view, it is an interesting to case to me from a legal point of view. It seems (and I am willing to be corrected by my legal friends) that this is naked religious discrimination under the guise of non-discrimination.Larryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04886866662463467215noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13873773.post-91182707667613981192010-06-28T16:06:03.811-04:002010-06-28T16:06:03.811-04:00WARNING: Possible information overload coming.
I ...WARNING: Possible information overload coming.<br /><br />I had heard of the case only briefly before I read the opinion this morning. My understanding, based on the opinion, is that it is not just about funding (which the dissent says "plays a very small role in this case." It points out that most of what CLS requested was cost-free (p. 61 of PDF). It is also about facility usage, communication channels, not to mention the general principle involved. The dissent calls this a "serious setback for freedom of expression in this country" (p. 85 of PDF). <br /><br /><br />Like you, DMD, I don't think they have a right to be funded, but I don't see any reason for the school to fund any organization such as this. Hastings did believe they were not obligated to recognize CLS because of their policies, and that was the dispute: Can Hastings single out a religious belief based group for different treatment? CLS (and the dissent) answered that in the negative.<br /><br />To Jim, yes they can meet elsewhere (even on campus). But I think there is a bigger principle of the freedom of association and expression going on here. (And I am not a big fan of free speech. I think most people would be better off shutting up, not speaking up.)Larryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04886866662463467215noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13873773.post-45287076158569339282010-06-28T15:11:53.059-04:002010-06-28T15:11:53.059-04:00I don't see this as any kind of setback for re...I don't see this as any kind of setback for religious based groups. <br /><br />The solution simple: 1.) Meet off campus & 2.) Don't accept funding from the school. <br /><br />---- <br />Not a big deal ... but it is weird .... not wierd. <br /><br />Always appreciate your blog!Jim Peethttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07649414726939918803noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13873773.post-73825225160596112642010-06-28T14:53:50.509-04:002010-06-28T14:53:50.509-04:00I only have a general familiarity with this case, ...I only have a general familiarity with this case, but I think the key is funding. CLS wanted funding from the school, so the school believed it was obligated to not allow funds to be used due to CLS's policies.<br />I am open to correction on the facts of the case and my viewpoint on it, but I am inclined to agree with the decision. IOW, CLS was not barred from holding its religious beliefs, but was told that it would not receive approval that gave them access to funds. I don't think they have a right to be funded (but, as I said, I'm open to correction on it).<br /><br />DMDAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com