Supreme Court: Separation of Church and State

This was not much of a news event but in some regards a rather significant ruling for the present court.

The subject matter involving gays and the Christian viewpoint and the requirements set by the University and its denial issued to the CLS and the courts ruling does seem a little contrary to the present courts agenda - Kennedy made it a surprise ending for the closing session.


A surprise / expected ruling - any opinions? ...and a just one.

 

If a person wants to join a group they should be allowed religious belief or sexual orientation shouldn't matter everyone is human they are entitled to their own beliefs

 

I think Satanists should be allowed to join Christian groups. They should also make sure they allow Zionists into the Muslim groups.

 

The decision is not what the organization may restrict but what the university may restrict in recognizing and funding the organizations that wish to join in the Universities functions. Sort of a catch 22 from one to the other.

Between the two rulings this year where the court allowed a cross to remain as a quasi national monument and todays ruling - the ruling allowing the university to set guidelines for all entities including religion is far the greater in consequence not only to the separation of church and state but an affirmative action and not what would be expected from the present Conservative Court as to what they would prefer to become law.....saved for the final day of their session signifying indeed its greater importance.

 

So the school says if it is a school group anybody can join. Simple solution for any group that wants to limit its members, don't be an official school affiliated group. Personally, I have no problems that my tax dollars do not pay for groups to hate me that I can't join. (not this group but I can certainly imagine some) Nobody is telling them they can't be a group and think however they want - they just can't use the school to give themselves credibility while discriminating in contradiction with the school's policy.

 

I looked up the student organizations recognized by Hastings. If you scroll down to the very bottom of the page, it says "All student organizations are open to all currently enrolled students of UC Hastings College of the Law."

I suppose the Hastings Democrats are required to accept Republican members, the Hastings Women's Law Journal needs to accept men, and the Iranian Law Students Association will accept members from any nationality, or they will cease to be recognized.

 

That is correct.

from the Women's Law Journal Bylaws:

 

Why are my tax dollars going to private institutions? I've got a better solution. Lets cut off the flow of taxpayer dollars to private institutions and let them make whatever wacky rules they want. If they want to force the on campus PETA organization to accept the top students involved with animal testing, so be it! If they want to force the campus vegan society to accept the guys from the wrestling team on a pure creatine diet, so be it! I 100% agree with you. My taxpayer dollars and my government should not be anywhere near these decisions.

 

Isn't Hastings a State school, not a private one?

Don't worry, I am one of the few who think the huge deficits in CA is about the only thing we have that can reign in government spending. Government, once it gets power, never gives it back willingly.

 

Bah, you are right. Funny that I've never thought of Hastings as UC Hastings. Fine. Let there be no discrimination by organizations which are subsidiaries of the state. I agree. It will still be funny to watch the red meat diet people join PETA(assuming they have a school group) and pull out a tin of pate.

I'm a fan of our UC system, though I have to plead ignorance as to how exactly their books are handled. The cheap seats are supposedly reserved for California residents only. All others pay tuition comparable to other Universities of equal quality. They also generate revenue through the standard research grants as well as corporate and government sponsored research. I'd venture a guess they have other inflows as well, via generous donors and alumni. Its hard to believe with so many inflows, the organization really needs to lean heavily on taxpayer dollars. Its not like they ever fail to to turn away the lions share of people who apply(they aren't short on customers).

 

Private organizations should be able to limit membership, but publicly funded organizations should have to obey the strictures of political correctness.

Are we all agreed upon that? Yea? Nea? Show of hands?

 

All I know is that I want the right to join the state sponsored anti-browntwn group. The private one, well, depending on how they behave I will be behave accordingly.

So, I guess that is a "Yea" vote no matter how I spin it.

 

The ruling might alleviate the Republican disapproval of Elena Kagans decision not to allow military recruiting admission to the Harvard Law School as well - coincidently in regards to the same group of people.

The dissent from Alito may also be of interest as in his confirmation hearing the justice was praised for the opposite view - a timely prid pro co between the two Administrations.

 

Ahh, the slippery slope. There it is.

"prid pro co"?

 

I am a yea in principal, but probably a Nea in practice. The ski club cant fill up non-paying members or there would be no ski-trips. The running club may accept paraplegics, but they may never be chosen for competitions. The PETA group may accept members of the lobby for animal testing, but if those members show up to PETA rallies with pro-animal testing signs, there will be chaos. Same with Israelis in Muslim students groups. What do you really think the outcome of forcing groups like this one to accept rabid Zionists would be? Answer: Violence.

 

Not at all, that issue was about federal funds. Obviously a school which accepts U.S. Government funds should not be allowed to ban the U.S. Military from it's campus.

The Supreme Court ruled unanimously that Kagan was wrong on that issue and now that asshat Barack Obama has decided to put this anti-Constitutionalist on the very same court that kicked her out on her ear for gross incompetence.

 

Ops, maybe he should reconsider - what about Harriet Meyers as an excellent choice from Bush only to be put down by her own kind - something women may grow to resent about the Republican Senators.

 

Meh... she was killed for lack of judicial experience... which it looks like Kagan will get a pass on.

 

I completely agree with the bylaws, it wouldn't make any sense to exclude men. In fact, it would be counterproductive.

In regards to the Christian Legal Society, I agree with the ruling but surprised that it was so close. "The court on a 5-4 judgment upheld the lower court rulings saying the Christian group's First Amendment rights of association, free speech and free exercise were not violated by the college's decision."

 

More good news: http://epaper.hindustantimes.com/ArticleImage.aspx?article=01_07_2010_019_020&mode=1