Wednesday, March 21, 2012

SCOTUS chases Christian groups off campus

Interesting to see if Christians are also now barred from posting notices and handing out flyers on campus. Such a ban would be such a flagrant breach of the 1st Amendment that no court would approve the ban, I would hope.
The Supreme Court has turned down an appeal from Christian groups that challenged a discrimination policy at California state universities.

The justices on Monday are leaving in place a federal appeals court ruling that found that the policy doesn’t violate the Constitution. The policy says officially recognized campus groups can’t discriminate based on religion or sexual orientation.

A Christian fraternity and a sorority at San Diego State University sued in 2005, arguing that the policy violates their religious freedom. The groups are restricted to Christian members.

CSU denies official recognition and funding to student organizations that discriminate on the basis of race, religion, gender, national origin and sexual orientation.

The Christian groups at San Diego State argued that the policy itself was discriminatory for two reasons: The ban on gender-based admissions doesn’t apply to sororities and fraternities, and secular organizations are allowed to make viewpoint-based distinctions – an immigrants’-rights group, for example, can exclude opponents of immigrants’ rights and still receive funding.

“The university did not tell the Democratic club it must be led by a Republican, or the vegetarian club it must be led by a meat-eater, but it did tell Christian groups that they must allow themselves to be led by atheists,” David Cortman of the Alliance Defense Fund, a lawyer for the religious groups, said Monday.

Source

It's all about queers again, of course. Every rule must be broken and every principle set aside to promote their especially protected status

29 comments:

Anonymous said...

SCOTUS = Fail!

This bodes poorly for the upcoming ObamaCare hearing.

Anonymous said...

This is exactly what radical gay activists want, to use the courts to force the acceptance of their lifestyle on everyone. They don't dare leave it to the will of the people, or even the legislators, as they know the overwhelming majority of people are against what they do.

This is how the courts have turned gays into a special class with special laws and protections beyond those enjoyed by the rest of society. All this does is build anti-gay hatred.

Donate to AIDS research. Not for a cure, but for a better/faster way to spread it.

Anonymous said...

"Donate to AIDS research. Not for a cure, but for a better/faster way to spread it."

You sir, are a vile human being. Must be a Christian.

Anonymous said...

ANON 8:17, You sir, are no better. You were correct that it is vile to wish AIDS on anyone. Then you lowered yourself to the same level by implying Christians think that way. What's it like to hate all the time?

Anonymous said...

What about the special protections and rights of religious groups and churches, not least their tax advantages and rights to religious schools with state assistance, and acting as political/social pressure groups, yet objecting to "gay activists" having a say in the world. "What's sauce for the goose....etc."

Anonymous said...

"What's it like to hate all the time?"

Pretty damn good, I must say. However, I only hate conservatives. And you and your ilk hate liberals. Call us even.

Anonymous said...

So if JayJ thinks it's appropriate to call homosexuals "queers", what term does he have for christians? A rhetorical question of course since he's obviously so biased in his comments, especially against gays, secularists and so-called leftists.

Anonymous said...

It is perfectly appropriate to call them queers. They call themselves queers and there was even a TV program called Queer Eye.

Anonymous said...

His comments also make it clear he's very anti-British, but perhaps that's an example of the pathetic and tiresome "ex-colonial syndrome", also exhibited here by some US Americans.

Anonymous said...

4:07 Clearly the context that JJ used "queers" was in no way neutral or indeed sympathetic, and obviously in the original derogatory way (which the gays have tried to reverse by adopting it).

Anonymous said...

JonJ's constant selection of anti-gay topics is a bit "suspicious", especially as he claims to be non-religious!

Dean said...

Anon 3:31

Actually some do take the Christian view of 'hate the sin, love the sinner'.

Personally I don't hate liberals even though they irritate me. They are a sad lot who, in the main, are afraid to live their own lives, and cannot deal with those who believe differently than themselves. They want a parent to care for them and make sure that everyone lives as they do. They assign that parenthood to our government.

While I disagree with most of their agenda, the liberal penchant for denying conservatives free speech, and their willingness to use obscenity and profanity as a means of denigrating opponents I don't hate them. I feel sorry for them.

Anonymous said...

Yeah, like religious people don't want a parent-figure to take care of them and even refer to it as Father in Heaven!! And for everyone else to live as they do (ever heard of proseletyzing or missionary work, not to mention taking part in local and national politics?)

Anonymous said...

"I feel sorry for them (liberal).

Boo hoo hoo. An anticipated conservaturd response.

Dean said...

Anon 4:39 - missionary work: 'would you care to listen/join'
liberal: "I know you don't want it, but you're going to get it anyway."

Anon 4:41 - "conservaturd" - you make my point quite well. Thank you.

Anonymous said...

Yeah right - the christian message was just about a polite "would you care to listen" - how risible!!

Anonymous said...

"you make my point quite well. Thank you."

And YOU keep responding to my trollish comments. YOU have wasted YOUR time responding. LOL. I do this for FUN.

Uno Hu said...

This is a prime example of Hurricane Katrina in a tea cup . . ., no make that a demi tasse cup. So the college declared that Christian clubs could not "by rule" exclude atheists or other undesirables from officer positions (and keep their student organization recognition and funds)?? Now's the time for that deep breath and relax, don't hyperventilate.

How are the officers chosen? Presumably by election of the members? (If the college appoints the club officers, that would be a different question, and the club would be well advised to abandon recognition by a corrupt administration.) So what chance is there, despite the prohibition of a rule prohibiting undesirables for being officers, that such a person would ever be elected a club officer by the membership who recognized that he stood against what they stand for and organized for?

High dudgeon is required only for high indignities. This is an itty bitty one even to this Christian.

Anonymous said...

The Christian groups need to get off the fucking campus and set up someplace away from the academia fascist juntas. Let the damn muslims and other satanic groups be on campus, the Christians will find the right groups. If off campus,when one of satans children come knocking they can be arrested for trespassing.

Bird of Paradise said...

Shame on those judges shame on them

Anonymous said...

Anon 1028, correct. Just set up nearby and let it be known that the administrations are not friendly towards Christians. Make it a taboo thing to be part of a Christian group. You'll find converts galore. Christians suffering persecution is part of the tradition. Build off that. Make it out be that you are there to fight the man.. the man being the administration.

JR said...

I have never had any dislike of homosexuals. My late sister was one. What I object to is the way they are privileged.

And if they can describe themselves as queer I see no reason for me to do otherwise.

"Gay" is often a misnomer. I have seen some pretty sad ones after an AIDS diagnosis

Anon 2:25 said...

Anonymous 2:47 said...
"You sir, are a vile human being. Must be a Christian..."

Actually, i'm like you. A jew.

Anonymous said...

So turns out the France shooter was a muslim. Guess who quickly the media will drop that story.

Bird of Paradise said...

SCOTUSthe ROMANS the PHILLASTINES little diffrence in these pagan reptiles

Anonymous said...

JR actually said that gays are privileged? In what way does he think they have more freedoms and opportunites than heterosexuals? Can they marry each other in the same way? Can they adopt children in the same way? Can they avoid being attacked because they are gay? Can they never hear abusive remarks about them because they are gay (including from officials of so-called Christian churches, and of course muslims)? And it was only a few years ago they could be arrested in a "gay bar" etc. And anyone even suspected as being "gay" (like having a gold earring) could be stopped from entering the US as a tourist from Europe! Enough said here but there could be more said on that subject!

Anonymous said...

Perhaps JJ just envies the personal freedom to go to a gay bar and meet a hot guy in the backroom!

Anonymous said...

Fuuny, I would have thought is would take some level of an amendment to excise freedom of religion from the Bill of Rights. Apparently, all it takes is for a single judge to decide to and nine more judges to remain silent. The light of America begins to go out with a silent whimper.

Anonymous said...

"JR actually said that gays are privileged?"

What do you expect from a bigoted blowhard?