As I mentioned in passing, the Supreme Court dealt the anti-gay Christianists a major set back in its ruling yesterday that upheld Hastings Law School's decision to bar the Christian Legal Society as a recognized student organization because of CLS's failure to comply with the school's non-discrimination policy. The case is Christian Legal Society v. Martinez, 08-1371. CLS requires that members sign a "statement of faith" and regards "unrepentant participation in or advocacy of a sexually immoral lifestyle" - read homosexuality - as being inconsistent with that faith.” Happily, Justice Ginsburg who wrote the majority opinion correctly noted it was CLS that wanted special rights compared to other organizations which complied with the non-discrimination policy. But then, hypocrisy is always the norm with Christianists who seek to depict themselves as victims even as they persecute others. ABC News has some highlights on this ruling which correctly defeated CLS's effort to make public funds underwrite its religious based discrimination. Here are some highlights:*
An ideologically split Supreme Court ruled Monday that a law school can legally deny recognition to a Christian student group that won't let gays join, with one justice saying that the First Amendment does not require a public university to validate or support the group's "discriminatory practices."
*
"In requiring CLS — in common with all other student organizations — to choose between welcoming all students and forgoing the benefits of official recognition, we hold, Hastings did not transgress constitutional limitations," said Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg , who wrote the 5-4 majority opinion for the court's liberals and moderate Anthony Kennedy. "CLS, it bears emphasis, seeks not parity with other organizations, but a preferential exemption from Hastings' policy."
*
[T]he decision is a large setback for the Christian Legal Society, which has chapters at universities nationwide and has won similar lawsuits in other [lower] courts.
*
[Justice] Kennedy said "the era of loyalty oaths is behind us." "A school quite properly may conclude that allowing an oath or belief-affirming requirement, or an outside conduct requirement, could be divisive for student relations and inconsistent with the basic concept that a view's validity should be tested through free and open discussion," Kennedy said.
*
Justice John Paul Stevens was even harsher, saying while the Constitution "may protect CLS's discriminatory practices off campus, it does not require a public university to validate or support them."
*
Stevens, who plans to retire this summer, added that "other groups may exclude or mistreat Jews, blacks and women — or those who do not share their contempt for Jews, blacks and women. A free society must tolerate such groups. It need not subsidize them, give them its official imprimatur, or grant them equal access to law school facilities."
*
What further defeats may befall Christianists in the wake of yesterday's decision is yet to be seen. An article in The Advocate suggests that some faith based initiatives which have involved religious organizations receiving taxpayer funds yet being allowed to discriminate against other citizens/taxpayers. Here are a few highlights:
*
The decision has even more important implications for LGBT rights, however. The court’s analysis strongly supports the position that when the government provides funding to private groups, it can require that the recipient agree not to discriminate against LGBT people. This is significant because for years, faith-based groups providing purely secular social services funded by government contracts or grants have maintained that they have a right to discriminate against LGBT people despite receiving public funds. The court’s decision suggests that faith-based grant recipients have no right to a special exemption from nondiscrimination requirements.
*
The court’s decision will provide strong ammunition in challenges to laws that claim to regulate conduct but in fact discriminate against LGBT people, such as the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy.
*
Monday’s decision is a serious defeat for antigay groups that have been working aggressively to establish the radical proposition that antidiscrimination laws—particularly those that include sexual orientation — violate the First Amendment. At the same time, antigay groups have mounted an aggressive propaganda campaign, falsely claiming that basic equality protections pose a threat to freedom of speech and religion. The court’s holding Monday will help put a stop to those efforts to roll back crucial antidiscrimination protections for LGBT people.
*
The decision has even more important implications for LGBT rights, however. The court’s analysis strongly supports the position that when the government provides funding to private groups, it can require that the recipient agree not to discriminate against LGBT people. This is significant because for years, faith-based groups providing purely secular social services funded by government contracts or grants have maintained that they have a right to discriminate against LGBT people despite receiving public funds. The court’s decision suggests that faith-based grant recipients have no right to a special exemption from nondiscrimination requirements.
*
The court’s decision will provide strong ammunition in challenges to laws that claim to regulate conduct but in fact discriminate against LGBT people, such as the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy.
*
Monday’s decision is a serious defeat for antigay groups that have been working aggressively to establish the radical proposition that antidiscrimination laws—particularly those that include sexual orientation — violate the First Amendment. At the same time, antigay groups have mounted an aggressive propaganda campaign, falsely claiming that basic equality protections pose a threat to freedom of speech and religion. The court’s holding Monday will help put a stop to those efforts to roll back crucial antidiscrimination protections for LGBT people.
No comments:
Post a Comment