I can see the fallout from here! Image Courtesy of WikiCommons
Oh boy, now this one is sure to raise some eyebrows.
This week, the Supreme Court heard a case about actions of the Christian Legal Society at the University of California Hastings College of Law. Their crime? Disallowing gays and lesbians to hold office or vote in their club. UC Hastings was none too pleased about this policy, and pulled the school’s recognition of group. Now law students are doing what they do best…suing.
So we’ve got your Rundown and you’ve got an opinion. We know you do. Come on, let us hear it…
The San Fransisco Chronicle gives us the gist of the matter:
UC Hastings College of the Law and a Christian club that excludes gays and lesbians battled before the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday over whether the school must recognize and fund the group, a clash between a public university’s anti-discrimination policies and a religious organization’s right to set its own standards.
So what’s the “legal” issue at stake here? The good folks at SCOTUSBlog have us covered:
There is, of course, a real constitutional issue lurking in the case: how far can a public college go in trying to ensure equality of educational opportunity for all students, before it winds up intruding on the private beliefs of a group that is not completely open to all comers?
Dahlia Lithwick at Slate.com says that things got a bit heated at the Supreme Court oral argument:
The liberals are for nondiscrimination. The conservatives are certain that liberals plan to infiltrate unpopular Christian groups for nefarious purposes. If there was any hugging, I missed it entirely.
Robert Barnes at the WaPo says there wasn’t exactly a consensus reached after round one:
After a spirited hour of arguments, it was hard to tell whether there was a majority on the court for either of those views
It will be a couple of years until that central issue in the culture wars reaches the court. But two early skirmishes — if not proxy battles — arrived this month…On Monday, the justices considered the rights of a Christian student group to bar gay members from leadership positions.
In a Guest Post at the Baltimore Sun, the Reverend Jason Poling gives his argument:
Students who want to advocate for, say, open marriage, would be free at Hastings to start an organization celebrating, advocating and engaging in the practice. Why can’t a group of students holding a different set of values affiliate accordingly?
You can get the other side of the coin from NYTimes Editorial:
The Christian Legal Society is not being denied any First Amendment rights. It is being told that if it wants an official association with a public university and public money, it cannot deny gays, non-Christians or members of any other protected minority equal rights
The case is essentially identical to one Judge Diane Wood—an Obama high court short-lister–ruled on in 2006. In that case she sided with officials at Southern Illinois University who refused to sanction a CLS chapter on its campus.
So, constituional or no? Tell us! Please!
