Supreme Court Denies Freedom of Association

[Quantum Windbag]

This case hadvery little if anything to do with Freedom of Association.

The court held that the University of california (A Public Institution of Higher Learning) was under no legal obligation to use University Funds (Public Funds) to support any organization that engages in discriminatory practices, which is what the organization in question did.

The First Amendment "Establishment of Religion or the Free Excerice thereof." The State cannot use public to promote private religious practice.

The organziation in question is NOT forbidden from holding meetings, students of the University of California are free to attend such meetings. But the organization in question, as long it engages in discriminatory practices cannot receive money from the University of California, which under it's own by-laws states that no funds from the University can be used to promote or engage discriminatory actions.

Congratulations, you just totally misrepresented the decision of SCOTUS.

 

[SFC Ollie]

Did I or did I not hear that this case was not yet over? I thought I heard (in passing) that the SC actually remanded this back to a lower court. Or was that a similar case?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Hmm...who's screaming and crying?

Did any of the other groups prohibit, limit or ban any groups from membership? Looking at the charters of several on the list posted earlier it does not appear so.

If all of the other 60 student groups can comply with University requirements, are you suggesting that the Christian group should have special treatment?

Not at all, I celebrate the fact that KKK members can join the NAACP campus groups and disrupt the meetings. More diversity is the only possible answer to racism.

Ah....more strawmen

There is nothing in the ruling that allows for disruptions or disorderly conduct in those meetings, only that they can not be banned.

Yet you seem to single out this one group for special treatment - every other group complies with campus rules, but this one doesn't want to.

The KKK would disrupt the meetings simply by sitting there and saying nothing, something which the dissent pointed out.

They were complying with both campus rules and established law which states that students have the right to form private groups, and use campus facilities, even if they were exclusionary. This decision changed the rules and prohibits some groups equal access to university facilities. That money thing you and others keep tossing up is the real red herring, as the amount of funds is only a token amount, and had no bearing on the decision. This policy is specifically designed to exclude religious groups, and was, until this decision, unconstitutional because it specifically targeted this group because of its religious beliefs, that is disparate impact on this group, and it violates federal law and previous court decisions. But keep think I am tossing up red herrings by pointing out the logical conclusions of it.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Its not "denying funding to a different group on the grounds of not liking their politics" it is denying funding because they fail to meet the colleges anti-discrimination policy and would deny other tuition-paying, class-attending students the ability to join or vote in the student organization.

You can have your opinion about the policy but its just that, an opinion. The opinion of SCOTUS however is the correct interpretation of law. And if the students of the school do not like the policy they can... go to another school where the policy doesnt exist. Yeah economic freedom.

Yes it is based on not liking their politics of excluding gays. There is absolutely nothing stopping students from forming a group that accepts gays so the anti-discrimination red herring is a distraction. Equality should not be based on whom may be offened and that is the problem with this philosophy. The school is denying freedom of association and that is violating the Constitution.

No it's not they're just refusing to give them money and recognition. Neither of which they are entitled to.

Wrong again.

All student groups re legally entitled to recognition and use of school facilities. At least they were, now only the ones who are religious are denied access.

 

[ConHog]

Yes it is based on not liking their politics of excluding gays. There is absolutely nothing stopping students from forming a group that accepts gays so the anti-discrimination red herring is a distraction. Equality should not be based on whom may be offened and that is the problem with this philosophy. The school is denying freedom of association and that is violating the Constitution.

No it's not they're just refusing to give them money and recognition. Neither of which they are entitled to.

Wrong again.

All student groups re legally entitled to recognition and use of school facilities. At least they were, now only the ones who are religious are denied access.

Same as the jerkoffs who want to destroy the BSA. It's an all out war against Christianity.

 

[Father Time]

No it's not they're just refusing to give them money and recognition. Neither of which they are entitled to.

Where does the money for the groups come from?

Well in the case of the UA, which is a land grant university , it comes from donations and such. Not government money.

Once you give it to them it does indeed become their money to use.

 

[Father Time]

Not at all, I celebrate the fact that KKK members can join the NAACP campus groups and disrupt the meetings. More diversity is the only possible answer to racism.

Ah....more strawmen

There is nothing in the ruling that allows for disruptions or disorderly conduct in those meetings, only that they can not be banned.

Yet you seem to single out this one group for special treatment - every other group complies with campus rules, but this one doesn't want to.

The KKK would disrupt the meetings simply by sitting there and saying nothing, something which the dissent pointed out.

They were complying with both campus rules and established law which states that students have the right to form private groups, and use campus facilities, even if they were exclusionary. This decision changed the rules and prohibits some groups equal access to university facilities. That money thing you and others keep tossing up is the real red herring, as the amount of funds is only a token amount, and had no bearing on the decision. This policy is specifically designed to exclude religious groups, and was, until this decision, unconstitutional because it specifically targeted this group because of its religious beliefs, that is disparate impact on this group, and it violates federal law and previous court decisions. But keep think I am tossing up red herrings by pointing out the logical conclusions of it.

Well you are spew flatout bullshit. You and I both know they didn't discriminate over religion so knock it off.

Now apparently one of the rules is you can't be exclusionary. They broke that rule they don't get free money from the college. Simple. Don't like they are free to finance themselves.

 

[Father Time]

No it's not they're just refusing to give them money and recognition. Neither of which they are entitled to.

Wrong again.

All student groups re legally entitled to recognition and use of school facilities. At least they were, now only the ones who are religious are denied access.

Same as the jerkoffs who want to destroy the BSA. It's an all out war against Christianity.

You honestly think no one would have a problem with discrimination against gays and atheists? You honestly think everyone secretly wants to destroy Christianity, and that to do so they're attacking the Boy Scouts which isn't even a religion?!

 

[ConHog]

Wrong again.

All student groups re legally entitled to recognition and use of school facilities. At least they were, now only the ones who are religious are denied access.

Same as the jerkoffs who want to destroy the BSA. It's an all out war against Christianity.

You honestly think no one would have a problem with discrimination against gays and atheists? You honestly think everyone secretly wants to destroy Christianity, and that to do so they're attacking the Boy Scouts which isn't even a religion?!

To answer your question. Yes, there is absolutely a war against Chritistainity going on. To answer about the BSA, they are obviously a Christian organization, yet they also allow other religions to participate.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Ah....more strawmen

There is nothing in the ruling that allows for disruptions or disorderly conduct in those meetings, only that they can not be banned.

Yet you seem to single out this one group for special treatment - every other group complies with campus rules, but this one doesn't want to.

The KKK would disrupt the meetings simply by sitting there and saying nothing, something which the dissent pointed out.

They were complying with both campus rules and established law which states that students have the right to form private groups, and use campus facilities, even if they were exclusionary. This decision changed the rules and prohibits some groups equal access to university facilities. That money thing you and others keep tossing up is the real red herring, as the amount of funds is only a token amount, and had no bearing on the decision. This policy is specifically designed to exclude religious groups, and was, until this decision, unconstitutional because it specifically targeted this group because of its religious beliefs, that is disparate impact on this group, and it violates federal law and previous court decisions. But keep think I am tossing up red herrings by pointing out the logical conclusions of it.

Well you are spew flatout bullshit. You and I both know they didn't discriminate over religion so knock it off.

Now apparently one of the rules is you can't be exclusionary. They broke that rule they don't get free money from the college. Simple. Don't like they are free to finance themselves.

If that was the rule, why did they change it after the wuit was brought?

 

[ConHog]

Where does the money for the groups come from?

Well in the case of the UA, which is a land grant university , it comes from donations and such. Not government money.

Once you give it to them it does indeed become their money to use.

ALL groups, clubs, etc etc are PRIVATELY funded at the UA.

 

[CurveLight]

No it's not they're just refusing to give them money and recognition. Neither of which they are entitled to.

Wrong again.

All student groups re legally entitled to recognition and use of school facilities. At least they were, now only the ones who are religious are denied access.

Same as the jerkoffs who want to destroy the BSA. It's an all out war against Christianity.

Lay off the Flinstone Hyperbole steroids.......

 

[ConHog]

Wrong again.

All student groups re legally entitled to recognition and use of school facilities. At least they were, now only the ones who are religious are denied access.

Same as the jerkoffs who want to destroy the BSA. It's an all out war against Christianity.

Lay off the Flinstone Hyperbole steroids.......

You're still angry that SCOTUS ruled that your nancy ass can't be googling the cub scouts.

 

[CurveLight]

No it's not they're just refusing to give them money and recognition. Neither of which they are entitled to.

Wrong again.

All student groups re legally entitled to recognition and use of school facilities. At least they were, now only the ones who are religious are denied access.

Same as the jerkoffs who want to destroy the BSA. It's an all out war against Christianity.

Same as the jerkoffs who want to destroy the BSA. It's an all out war against Christianity.

Lay off the Flinstone Hyperbole steroids.......

You're still angry that SCOTUS ruled that your nancy ass can't be googling the cub scouts.

What is this.....the 5th or 6th time you've accused me of being gay? But you aren't homophobic? Lol.....only bigots accuse others of being gay as an attempted insult you Oreilly cum gargling ass licking neoidiotcon.

Remember:

"It's an all out war against Christianity."

ROTFL!!!!!!!!!!!