Court Rules Against Christian Student Group

I hope that all the christians will want to join the gay legal club @ the college. Watch what happens, when the gay legal club denies membership to the christians based upon their 'gay friendly' membership rules. I hope the christians @ the law school file a lawsuit against the gay legal club based upon religious discrimination if/when it does happen!!

Although I think Qwertz is completely wrong with the rest of his statement (which doesn't have anything to do with the specificity of this article anyway), he or she is completely right with the initial statement, and the Advocate is wrong (to the best of my knowledge): "The Court did not rule that student groups at public law schools must include all comers in order to receive funding, as this article suggests. Instead, the Court held that the school's existing policy, which denied the Christian group funding because it excluded gays, was not unconstitutional under the First Amendment. It said nothing that can be interpreted to require all public law schools to have similar policies." All it is saying in the ruling is that a college or university with certain inclusive standards and the like has the right to deny funding and recognition to those that don't adhere to its own- legal- policies. This is not the same as saying all universities must do the same. Still a good decision.

"How do those guys (and they are, of course, all guys - Roberts, Thomas, Scalia and Alito) hold themselves out as serious scholars of the law? I would love to understand their rationale and how they were able to support their vote in favor of the CLS." The same way that they could hand the U.S. Presidency to George W. F*cktard. THEY'RE ACTIVIST JUDGES!

Re Qwertz: I've heard this ill-conceived idea from Libertarians before. It's the reason I left the Libertarian Party. Were this to ever become reality, I need only look 13 or so years into the future to see this is a very bad idea. I grew up in the "Bible Belt" maybe that's why I see this a problem. Imagine a generation that has grown up in a religious or possibly even a racially-segregated school. They, quite likely, have never had to work with, or even possibly met, someone who disagreed with them on fundamental issues. Now they have to integrate into a work force which will include Jews, Muslims and atheists, as well as cohabitating couples and GLBT people. You think our country is divided now? This is why, even as a childless, single gay man, I'm fine with my property tax dollars going to support public education, which at least will expose them to some diversity.

Qwerty completely distorts what the Supreme Court ruled. It said that schools have the right to insist that its nondiscrimination policies are observed and that groups like the Christian Legal Society cannot force all students to fund their club if all students cannot become members of the club. A very important ruling. The Christian Legal Society can continue to require that all members be heterosexual and believe as they do, but they cannot expect the law school to pay for their events if gay people and nobelievers are excluded.

qwerty, This article didn't suggest that the SCOTUS ruling required the group to "integrate." In fact, this article included the exact line in the majority ruling that expressly stated just the opposite. I think this is the exact ruling everyone should have been hoping for in this case. It is legally just and doesn't seek to discriminate against "us" or "them."

The Court did not rule that student groups at public law schools must include all comers in order to receive funding, as this article suggests. Instead, the Court held that the school's existing policy, which denied the Christian group funding because it excluded gays, was not unconstitutional under the First Amendment. It said nothing that can be interpreted to require all public law schools to have similar policies. The Court was wrong in this instance. The very existence of public education violates everyone's right to free speech. As long as the government is able to hand out taxpayer dollars to preferred groups on the basis of those groups' personal beliefs, the First Amendment will constantly be under attack. Free speech and public education are irreconcilable, and one of them must be abolished.

Hey Advocate, the Christian Legal Society is nondenominational, so it's a bit misleading to have a Catholic crucifix in the illustration.

During the cultural revolution in China, the ruling elite were deemed the "Gang of Four." Hell, we've got our own Gang of Four in Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, and Alito. The cultural reactionaries of the 21st century.

How do those guys (and they are, of course, all guys - Roberts, Thomas, Scalia and Alito) hold themselves out as serious scholars of the law? I would love to understand their rationale and how they were able to support their vote in favor of the CLS. They are either stupid (which, frankly, I doubt with the possible exception of Thomas who I think is genuinely an idiot) or they are being intellectually dishonest (Bingo!). Would they have voted similarly had the CLS voted to ostracize blacks (Thomas? What say you?) or Italians (Alito? What say you?). Precisely the same concept. Different discrimination! Disgusting. Good ruling but disgusting that the Chief Justice of the United States of America would vote thusly.