Supreme Court Denies Freedom of Association

[Quantum Windbag]

It just occurred to me that with this new ruling, no sorority will be able to deny my admission based on my sex. HELL YEAH

Fraternities and sororities, generally, arent the same things as student organizations. I know at my college, we had an agreement with the school to exist on the campus and to be in good standing with the college as long as we maintained a certain GPA, community service, philanthropy, and participated in activities on campus. However, we did not receive funding from the school.

This ruling also covers groups who want to receive official recognition from a school, which I would assume covers fraternities and sororities.

 

[Father Time]

Hey PC shouldn't the school be allowed to decide who it gives funds to or not?

 

[Ravi]

Oh no you mean they actually have standards on who they'll give free funding to. That's so horrible of them.

We need to force them to give out money to anyone even if the school doesn't like them and if they don't that violates our rights to their money.
</sarcasm>

I have a feeling PC would take the exact opposite view if this were a Muslim group.

"I have a feeling PC would take the exact opposite view if this were a Muslim group."

You should try harder to use judgement, rather than personal feeling...

but then, that is the difference between liberals and conservatives.

Your snide comments about feelings don't bother me. In fact, without feelings we'd none of us be human.

Heck, your hero is a basket case of over-emotion.

 

[CurveLight]

It just occurred to me that with this new ruling, no sorority will be able to deny my admission based on my sex. HELL YEAH

So basically you're such a fucking loser you have to find ways to force women to be around you.

 

[CurveLight]

If a school wishes to lend its name to these organizations it has the right to establish standards and requirements that the groups must adhere to. There is no constitutional or first amendment violation to this because nobody is denying these groups the right to exist, the school is choosing not to recognize them because they fail to adhere to its standards.

"Lend its name?" Just so we are clear, we are talking about tuition-paying, class-attending students, correct?

The school is violating the Constitution by saying "Student groups have free speech and assoiciation of what we approve of."

Giving funding to one group and denying funding to a different group on the grounds of not liking their politics is discrimination.

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. Forgive me for having an independent mind and not bowing down in pure silence to the the boots of SCOTUS scrubs who are fucking clueless.

 

[rikules]

Alas, a double post. Did this last night:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/law-and-justice-system/123026-scotus-says-no-to-discrimination-on-campus.html

Too bad, so sad; missed your chance to twist the issue as you wish it had been presented.

Now, I admit that I didn't see yours, but what is your 'twist'? You actually seem upset that not everyone espouses the exact same, lockstep viewpoint as you do...
You wouldn't be a liberal, would you?

Not having folks who don't agree with the premise of the group? That makes sense to you?
And the force of government mandate behind same?

The alternative would have been that the non-believers would have had to form their own group... Tragic?
No, I guess we can't allow that.

"You actually seem upset that not everyone espouses the exact same, lockstep viewpoint as you do...
You wouldn't be a liberal, would you?"



oh the irony!


the whole premis of your post (and obvious position) is that christians (in this case) should have the right to NOT have to associate with people who do not espouse the exact same lockstep viewpoint as they do...

you are a very stupid person

so
obviously
a conservative

I mean

who else could be so stupid as to accuse their enemies of their own crimes?

 

[traveler52]

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.

 

[CurveLight]

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.

I think the best solution would be for Colleges to not give any money to any student organization.

 

[ConHog]

Alas, a double post. Did this last night:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/law-and-justice-system/123026-scotus-says-no-to-discrimination-on-campus.html

Too bad, so sad; missed your chance to twist the issue as you wish it had been presented.

Now, I admit that I didn't see yours, but what is your 'twist'? You actually seem upset that not everyone espouses the exact same, lockstep viewpoint as you do...
You wouldn't be a liberal, would you?

Not having folks who don't agree with the premise of the group? That makes sense to you?
And the force of government mandate behind same?

The alternative would have been that the non-believers would have had to form their own group... Tragic?
No, I guess we can't allow that.

"You actually seem upset that not everyone espouses the exact same, lockstep viewpoint as you do...
You wouldn't be a liberal, would you?"



oh the irony!


the whole premis of your post (and obvious position) is that christians (in this case) should have the right to NOT have to associate with people who do not espouse the exact same lockstep viewpoint as they do...

you are a very stupid person

so
obviously
a conservative

I mean

who else could be so stupid as to accuse their enemies of their own crimes?

Have you met Sangha? Just saying.................

 

[Coyote]

How do I know that? I can read, when you learn please come back and we will have a discussion based on facts and not screaming and crying. What I said was pulled directly from the opinions.

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.

 

[ConHog]

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.

Interesting, I called 4 sororities at the University of Arkansas today and demanded that they accept me as a member, I guaranteed I wouldn't disrupt anything, they all told me to fuck off.

And, I still for the life of me can not figure out why a non Christian would want to join a Christian group... I mean you are promising me it isn't to cause trouble so that must be true, right?

 

[Coyote]

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.

Interesting, I called 4 sororities at the University of Arkansas today and demanded that they accept me as a member, I guaranteed I wouldn't disrupt anything, they all told me to fuck off.

Will duh - I bet you look like shit in hotpants and pantyhose! Can you blame them?

....also this occurred at the University of California.....not Arkansas.....

btw - are sororities/fraternaties the same as other campus clubs - aren't they honors societies with specific requirements for joining?

And, I still for the life of me can not figure out why a non Christian would want to join a Christian group... I mean you are promising me it isn't to cause trouble so that must be true, right?

Well...in this particular case, it isn't a non-Christian wanting to join .... it's a Christian who happens to be gay. Other than that, it might simply be someone curious about the religion. Or, of course, a troublemaker

 

[Father Time]

"Lend its name?" Just so we are clear, we are talking about tuition-paying, class-attending students, correct?

The school is violating the Constitution by saying "Student groups have free speech and assoiciation of what we approve of."

Giving funding to one group and denying funding to a different group on the grounds of not liking their politics is discrimination.

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.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Why would a homosexual want to join a Christian group in the first place?

Perhaps the group oughta begin each meeting with these verses:

•Lev. 18:22, "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination."1
•Lev. 20:13, "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltness is upon them"
•1 Cor. 6:9-10, "Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God."
•Rom. 1:26-28, "For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, 27and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. 28And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper."

 

[CurveLight]

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.

Where does the money for the groups come from?

 

[Coyote]

Why would a homosexual want to join a Christian group in the first place?

Perhaps the group oughta begin each meeting with these verses:

•Lev. 18:22, "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination."1
•Lev. 20:13, "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltness is upon them"
•1 Cor. 6:9-10, "Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God."
•Rom. 1:26-28, "For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, 27and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. 28And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper."

Or, perhaps you can show me where Jesus condemned homosexuals and banned them from his ministry?

 

[Coyote]

Why would a homosexual want to join a Christian group in the first place?

Perhaps the group oughta begin each meeting with these verses:

•Lev. 18:22, "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination."1

hmmm....abominations....

There are sixty-seven times that the word "abomination" is used in the Bible (Revised Standard Version), only twice does it appear in the New Testament.

Revelation 21:27 simply says that anyone who practices abomination will not enter Heaven.

Luke 16:15 Jesus defines the love of money as an abomination to God.

Now...in the OT....(according to this source):

Thirteen of the things labeled "abominations" are dietary restrictions, the observation of which would bar a person from consuming such things as clam chowder, shrimp and, one of my favorites, the non-existent four-legged insect, which certainly refers to something besides what we call "insects". Seventeen refer to improper sacrifice, although I am hard pressed to think of a single Christian (or Jewish, for that matter) congregation that slaughters animals on their altars these days. Outright adultery and adultery cause by divorce, which is prohibited by the Bible even though it is a widespread practice today, account for three of the verses. In addition to Jesus's comment in Luke, the love of money is decried as an abomination in two Old Testament passages. Four related verses cite dishonest trading practices as abominations. Twelve other verses list behaviors ranging from murder to women wearing "anything that pertains to a man" (for example, pants). Eight passages, including the one from Revelation, are not clear about what they mean by "abomination." Precisely two refer to homosexual behavior, though there was no understanding in biblical times of homosexuality as we define it today.​

So...given that...we exclude rich, seafood eating, sacrificially deviant, divorced dishonest businessmen and of course women who wear pants and homosexuals.

 

[Father Time]

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.

Where does the money for the groups come from?

The University.

Now tell me why they should be entitled to the money.

 

[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.

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.

 

[Immanuel]

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?

The University.

Now tell me why they should be entitled to the money.

I think you are mistaken in this or maybe it is just the way you state it.

My understanding is that the money comes from the students in the form of campus fees or what ever they are called and flows through the university to the different clubs. I'd say that means it comes from the students not the university through designated funds.

Immie