A group of Christian students is asking the US Supreme Court to strike down as unconstitutional a school anti-discrimination policy that forces them to accept as voting members and potential leaders classmates who do not share their core religious beliefs.
A lawyer for the Christian Legal Society is set to argue on Monday that the school’s policy violates the Christian students’ First Amendment right to freely associate with like-minded individuals who share a common faith.
At issue is a non-discrimination policy that applies to all student groups at the University of California Hastings College of the Law in San Francisco. The policy bars student groups from discrimination based on race, color, religion, national origin, ancestry, disability, age, sex, or sexual orientation.
Hastings officials refused to recognize the Christian Legal Society (CLS) as a registered student organization because they said the group’s faith-based by-laws reflected intent to discriminate against gay and lesbian students and others who do not embrace the group’s religious beliefs. Under the school policy, student groups must agree to accept any student as a voting member.
If you take Caesar’s coin you dance to Caesar’s tune. This is a publicly funded college in a state with strict laws prohibiting public money from being used by organizations that discriminate. If you don’t like that then you need to work to change the law, go to a private school, or simply organize your group as a private student club not affiliated with the university and don’t ask for money from the college.
No one is being being denied freedom of religion, speech, or free association. They are being denied public money to support their beliefs and chosen forms of association. I don’t like the law, but it’s not unconstitutional. That said, I do think that a strong argument can be made that other “religious” groups can not be publicly funded while denying this one. That would be showing an unconstitutional preference for one set of beliefs over another.
In its (probably) unintnded consequences, this policy is anti-minority -any minority, not just Christian. A majority that disliked the presence of any group X could join it in enough numbers to become a voting block that could not be overcome, and either thwart the intention of the authntic members, or shut the group down.
It effectively denies any minority the right to free association in the same degree as the majority has that right.
What do you do when this same rule of “you’re taking Caesar’s coin, you have to abide by Caesar’s rules” starts being expanded to other arenas where you are being granted a public “benefit” by being allowed to conduct certain activities?
Examples coming in the near future: 1. Judges and lawyers will not be allowed to practice law unless they sign an oath affirming they will not belong to any organization that discriminates on the basis of race, sex, national origin. . . . and sexual orientation. [This one is already being pushed by the ABA and “civil rights” groups.]
2. Doctors/nurses will not be allowed to practice medicine unless they agree that they will provide abortions or contraceptive medicine.
3. Hospitals will not be allowed to serve patients unless they agree to provide the “morning after” pill to those who want them. [This one is here now.]
In particular, there is a growing group of people who want Christian believers out of the legal profession, especially as judges.
Jim the Puritan,
Regards your cited examples/hypotheticals,
1. Is clearly unconstitutional. The Government can not prohibit fee exercise of religion or association.
2. If the doctors are accepting government money for their services and or practice that is not beyond the realm of possibility. But I regard Roe v Wade as wrongly decided in any case. If they are in private practice and take no money then I tend to think that would be legally problematic.
3. This comes back again to government money. It’s very hard for the government to dictate the activities of those who don’t take Caesar’s money. Unfortunately there are very very few hospitals that operate without government money of some kind.
All of which brings me back to a point I have been making for years. Religious persons and institutions are setting themselves up for blackmail when we take the governments nickel in whatever guise that may be in. We need to learn to exist without government handouts or any kind of preferential treatment or be prepared for more of the same. And yes, I would extend that even to the tax exempt status of religious bodies or churches. That has already been used as a cudgel against religious groups that did not tow the politically correct line.
Get used to it. It is only going to get worse.
Ad Orientam:
Re
[blockquote] All of which brings me back to a point I have been making for years. Religious persons and institutions are setting themselves up for blackmail when we take the governments nickel in whatever guise that may be in. We need to learn to exist without government handouts or any kind of preferential treatment or be prepared for more of the same. And yes, I would extend that even to the tax exempt status of religious bodies or churches. That has already been used as a cudgel against religious groups that did not tow the politically correct line.[/blockquote]
I totally agree with you on part one of your statement, which is why I have always opposed government “faith based initiatives” and advise that religious organizations not get involved in them.
On the second part, I would agree, if all nonprofits were denied a tax exemption. if you are going to allow nonprofits an exemption, though, I don’t think you can discriminate between religious- and non-religious-based charities. However, see this blog article contra (item #3):
http://blog.goodideas.org/2010/04/03/five-good-ideas-for-helping-nonprofits-interview-with-perla-ni/
But your general point about churches losing freedom because they are beholden to the tax exemption is correct.
[blockquote]Get used to it. It is only going to get worse. [/blockquote]
I entirely agree with you here. As an attorney who represents churches, I have a couple of the “getting worse” cases on my desk right now. I would love to discuss those here because they show we are much further along the slippery slope than a lot of Christians realize, but unfortunately cannot because of their sensitivity.