There’s breaking news from the U.S. Supreme Court, which in a 5-4 decision has decided against the Christian Legal Society in its effort to challenge the reigning orthodoxy at Hastings Law School in California. According to the Associated Press:
An ideologically split Supreme Court ruled Monday that a law school can legally deny recognition to a Christian student group that won’t let gays join.
The court turned away an appeal from the Christian Legal Society, which sued to get funding and recognition from the University of California’s Hastings College of the Law.
The CLS requires that voting members sign a statement of faith and regards “unrepentant participation in or advocacy of a sexually immoral lifestyle” as being inconsistent with that faith.
But Hastings said no recognized campus groups may exclude people due to religious belief or sexual orientation.
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.
“In requiring CLS — in common with all other student organizations — to choose between welcoming all students and forgoing the benefits of official recognition, we hold, Hastings did not transgress constitutional limitations,” said Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who wrote the 5-4 majority opinion for the court’s liberals and moderate Anthony Kennedy. “CLS, it bears emphasis, seeks not parity with other organizations, but a preferential exemption from Hastings’ policy.”
That’s correct–CLS did seek an exemption (the term “preferential” is simply pejorative) from the school’s policy, based on the organization’s unquestionably religious character and convictions. Such exemptions have, in the past, been routinely granted in various settings because the United States has typically recognized the unique place of religion in society. It has long been recognized that for the state to demand that people violate their religion-based beliefs requires an extraordinarily high standard. For instance, churches are routinely exempt from laws that ban discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, because it is seen as a violation of conscience to require an organization that believes homosexual conduct to be wrong to hire someone engaged in exactly that conduct.
What Ginsburg and her colleagues are saying is that now, in order to receive benefits routinely conferred on other groups, religious organizations must knuckle under to the the prevailing state orthodoxy regarding homosexuality. The potential pernicious effect of this ruling is enormous–you can look for the Freedom from Religion Foundation, for example, to take this and run with it in their effort to have tax exemptions denied churches. You can also look for the religious left to use this as a way of advancing their agenda, as the Rev. Barry Lynn says in an e-mail that just came to me:
Americans United for Separation of Church and State praised today’s Supreme Court ruling upholding a policy at Hastings College of the Law that prohibits school-subsidized student clubs from engaging in religious discrimination.
“This decision is a huge step forward for fundamental fairness and equal treatment,” said the Rev. Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United.
Continued Lynn, “Religious discrimination is wrong, and a public school should be able to take steps to eradicate it. Today’s court ruling makes it easier for colleges and universities to do that.”
If I read that correctly, what Lynn seems to be saying is that in his view, religious organizations must toe not just the state’s line on sexual orientation, but the United Church of Christ’s line (Lynn is a UCC minister). In other words, religious discrimination is wrong, but only when practiced by people who don’t buy into Lynn’s view of homosexuality. Discriminating against religious believers in traditional sexual ethics, on the other hand, is hunky-dory. Expect more of this–lots more–out of both the religious and secular left in the days ahead.
June 28, 2010 at 7:03 pm
This case illustrates perfectly what the radical homosexual activists want. They don’t want tolerance. They want the elimination of criticism whatsoever. Why didn’t these gay students form their own club?
Here’s one thing that might happen, and it’s right up the Left’s alley.
The people who were once prohibited from joining groups or having leadership positions will join in large numbers to ensure they win leadership positions. At that time, they’ll just rewrite the rules and eliminate the very reason for the club’s existence in the first place.
And it’s just lovely how a non-discrimination policy is used to discriminate.
Perhaps it’s time for these groups to lose their funding. That’s the fair solution. And that should reduce tuition as well.
June 28, 2010 at 7:32 pm
When I was a student years ago, we had a similar problem. The solution offered to us was to be sponsored by the chaplain’s office. While we had severe problems with the chaplain’s office, they sponsored the erotic film festival on campus, we felt this was the only solution available to maintain the status as a student group. We never considered taking this to court, but the Christian legal society being what it is… I suspect they may have had a similar option at Hastings, though I don’t know. I do know that in our situation the open requirement for student groups and leadership thereof were inconsistent with those of our Christian group. More problems followed, but solutions were found eventually after I graduated. Though, there was a period even under the chaplain’s office that the fellowship had to meet in the church across the street before some agreement was reached. I don’t know the details, as I was no longer a student them, and it has been a while. I’m getting too old.
June 28, 2010 at 10:26 pm
[...] A Blow to Freedom of Religion « The Reformed Pastor [...]
June 29, 2010 at 8:23 am
This is one more warning sign that parents, churches, and church youth leaders need to stay involved and relationally connected to the kids when they go off to school. It was already a bad assumption to think that kids going off to college would find or naturally gravitate to other Christians via campus clubs, societies and student groups that would act as a safe support system on campus. While some do, most don’t. But now, it increasingly won’t matter whether they do or don’t, because before long, the Christian clubs will lose much of whatever made them distinctively Christian in the first place. That’s gonna up the ante on the folks back home to develop relationships with the kids that can become a support system even from a distance. Youth and college ministries need to be ahead of the curve here and take a good look at their ministry philosophy and approach in light of what’s coming down the pike.
June 29, 2010 at 12:33 pm
Do the benefits of “official recognition” include funding from Hastings, which is part of a public university system? If so, then taxpayer money would be used to support an organization that discriminates. Of course churches are exempt from discrimination laws, but they’re not asking for taxpayer money, either.
June 29, 2010 at 10:30 pm
Jason,
I agree that we as a church need to be prepared to minister to college and university students if there are no student Christian groups. Even if there are, most are only para-church organizations, so the church still needs to be involved with their students and with some form of campus outreach.
Christine, certainly a Christian group “discriminates” based on truth. The world, which includes the secular state school Hastings, does not think that truth, or the truth, is a basis for making decisions, so of course they would not support a Christian group. It really shouldn’t surprise us. My experience, 25 years ago, was that the school wouldn’t support a Christian group with Christian standards. There are, however, ways to make a student group work even with these restrictions. In our case, there really wasn’t much money or funding available from the school, except for use of the facilities. I don’t know about Hastings.