Christian Legal Society v. Martinez

The U.S. Supreme Court will be taking up the case of Christian Legal Society v. Martinez, which arises out of Hastings Law School's refusal to give university funds to a Christian[ist] legal group on campus which seeks to exclude non-Christians and gays from membership - even though their student fees are going to underwrite the Christian organization. I have always been of the opinion that as long as an organization does not take public tax derived funds or in this case student fee derived monies, the organization is free to discriminate as a private organization. However, once an organization starts to accept taxpayer funding or here student fee derived funds, it's a whole new ball game and the right to discriminate, if you will, ceases. Once again, it is a case of bigotry and discrimination bearing a price. In this case, no access to public funding. Sadly, the case is all too typical of Christian groups that want to have their cake and eat it too in the form of acting in a discriminatory matter and then making the targets of such discrimination unwilling provide funding to those who would discriminate against them. The irony, of course, is that some years back when some artists were denied public funding because their "art" was deemed offensive to many taxpayers, conservatives argued that there was no discrimination because the artists in question could do whatever they wanted - they just could not receive public monies. Now that the shoe is on the other foot, the hypocrisy of this Christian organization is palpable. It will be interesting to watch Antonin Scalia try to side with the Christianists - even though he claims his extreme Catholicism never effects his legal rulings (yeah, just like Judy Garland in the Wizard of Oz). Here are highlights from the Washington Post.
*
This specific controversy began at Hastings, part of the University of California, when CLS members asked to become a registered student organization. With that designation, the group could apply for certain funding, send mass e-mails to the student body and participate in an activities fair, among other perks. Hastings said no. The school concluded that because the CLS bylaws barred non-Christians, gays and non-celibate students from serving as officers or voting members, the group violated the school's ban on discrimination "on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, ancestry, disability, age, sex or sexual orientation." The CLS could still meet on campus but could not be a registered club unless it opened its membership to all, even those who didn't subscribe to its beliefs. The group challenged the school, and lower courts supported the Hastings policy as a neutral rule applying equally to all groups.
*
The Hastings dispute is being replicated across the country as cities and states enforce nondiscrimination policies against religious organizations. In Washington, after the District's legalization of same-sex marriage, Catholic Charities decided not to provide spousal health benefits for any new employees in order to avoid penalties for not offering coverage to the same-sex partners of its workers. In Los Angeles, the police department cut ties with a youth group connected to the Boy Scouts because of the latter organization's position against homosexual Scout leaders. In Boston, Catholic Charities stopped its adoption work because of the demand that it not discriminate against same-sex couples. And in Connecticut, the government has barred organizations with anti-homosexual policies from a list of groups to which state employees can give automatic charitable contributions.
*
Ironically, penalizing groups for religious discrimination, in the name of fostering equality, could hamper greater recognition of gay rights. Same-sex marriage, for instance, is unlikely to gain majority support if a vote for gay rights is seen as a vote against the rights of faith-based groups. As we move toward greater recognition of gay rights -- as we should -- we need to assure religious groups that it doesn't mean they will be punished for their views.
*
Personally, I do not buy into some of the statements made in the story. No one should be forced to fund a group that actively discriminates against them. Were the position of Hasting Law School overruled, that is precisely what would happen. If CLS wants student derived funding, then drop the discriminatory membership requirements. Otherwise, discriminate, but do not expect to receive funds derived from those you hate. The University told CLS that it could meet on campus, so the choice the university made seems to be a fair one.