Tweet
Expect a fundie eruption in 3…2…1. The U.S. Supreme Court said no to the hand of the fundies, refusing to accept a case challenging a lower court ruling on the anti-discrimination policy at organizations recognized by California state universities.
The groups relied on a “religious freedom” argument to justify discriminating against LGBT students — restricting admittance to Christian members only by a fraternity and sorority at San Diego State University. But that argument fell flat.
The justices on Monday are leaving in place a federal appeals court ruling that found that the [non-discrimination] policy doesn’t violate the Constitution. The policy says officially recognized campus groups can’t discriminate based on religion or sexual orientation.
It’s not a Supreme Court decision on the merits; it allows an appellate court decision to stand without taking the case.
The lesson – don’t expect to receive public funds and discriminate. But these bible beaters will keep on trying.
13 Comments
and… it was a split decision with kennedy as the swing vote in our favor.
kennedy, once again, siding with the lgbt community.
hopefully, prop 8 will get to the court fast
Good news, but, as matt says, no thanks to the usual suspects. Thomas, Scalia, Alito, and Roberts are bastards, and bastards they shall remain.
According to Supreme Court rules, “four of the nine Justices must vote to accept a case.” (See http://www.uscourts.gov/EducationalResources/ConstitutionResources/SeparationOfPowers/USSupremeCourtProcedures.aspx)
Sadly, I’m sure you’re right. And I was going to wonder if we had some hope now that this court has awakened to the fact that it has embarrassed itself. Is there any hope of that anywhere?
The Usual Suspects are getting paid good money to embarrass themselves and shame the Court. No, I see no hope.
here’s the reuters story, with the vote breakdown:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/06/28/us-usa-christian-gays-idUSTRE65R4RA20100628
They probably didn’t vote to accept the case because it sounds a lot like the situation presented in “Christian Legal Soc. Chapter of the University of California, Hastings College of Law v. Martinez.” That was decided fairly recently and this case doesn’t sound like it would present any new issues for them to decide.
Just in case you’re wondering, the christian legal society in that case also discriminated on the basis of sexual orientation and their arguments lost at the SCOTUS.
Yup, the Usual Suspects (Roberts, Alito, Scalia, Thomas) dissenting. These guys really shouldn’t even have to show up, we all know how they’re going to vote.
Matt, that’s another case, the one that most likely determined that the appeal was worthless.
yes, dale. you’re right. i was just logging on to correct it. thanks.
I would certainly agree that LGBT students who are Christian should not be denied membership in the organizations.
I don’t know if this came up in the case, but if the purpose of membership by LGBT students was not to forward the Christian nature of the club, but more to disrupt it, due to disagreement with Christianity, then, I wouldn’t be inclined to agree.
It would be like making Occupy encampments have to take Tea Party people inside when they are not there to forward the Occupy cause. The intention being not to aid the Occupy cause but to destroy it or change it.
Again, not being familiar with the case, that may not have even been a factor. You cannot deny someone membership or entrance into a group simply because they are LGBT–that’s a no brainer.
And, I will end by saying I am not Christian and don’t generally agree with their method of operating.
Your argument ignores the fundamental facts of the case. There’s nobody stopping the fraternity and sorority from barring gays and non-christians. Nothing whatsoever stops them from doing that. However, if they do discriminate, they do not get university recognition. Something they are not entitled to.
There’s also the fact that official recognition brings monies from activity fees, which students are required to pay. This christian group is asking the university to underwrite them, while they discriminate against some of the same students who pay for them to operate. If they wanted to operate independently of the university and take no university funds, they are certainly free to do so.