Student Religious Group That Discriminates Should Not Get Public Funding

To this day I am so completely confused as to why the religious in the US refuse to comply with separation of Church and State.
It is in their best interest... they need to see that.
If breached, that influence will go both ways... and not in the Church's best interest in the long run.
Regardless of that... this nation was never a religious one, was never meant to be and should never be.
We should honor the First, and keep all religions separate from all State functions and funding.
It needs to be off of our money, out of our schools in all forms (I don't mind unfunded student groups after hours), out of the courts in all ways, just OUT.

Student Religious Group That Discriminates Should Not Get Public Funding, Americans United Tells Appellate Court
Monday, January 22, 2007

Church-State Watchdog Group Says Hastings Law School Is Right To Refuse Aid To Christian Legal Society Chapter That Rejects Non-Christians, Gays

A public university is right to deny funding to a student group that discriminates on the basis of religion and sexual orientation, according to Americans United for Separation of Church and State.

In a friend-of-the-court brief filed with the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, Americans United argues that Hastings College of Law, a part of the University of California system, does not have to officially recognize and support a student organization that excludes law students who do not subscribe to a certain type of Christianity or are gay.

“Public universities are under no obligation to subsidize student religious organizations that discriminate,” said the Rev. Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United. “In fact, state schools have a duty to ensure that they do not aid the mission of religious organizations. Hastings Law School is on the right legal track, and the federal courts ought to say so.”

A student chapter of the Christian Legal Society (CLS) at Hastings has brought a lawsuit demanding an exemption from the law school’s Nondiscrimination Policy. The policy states that all student groups that seek official recognition and direct financial support must not deny membership based on a student’s race, color, religion, national origin, ancestry, disability, age, sex and sexual orientation.

The CLS affiliate argues that its religious liberty is being violated by the requirement.

Last year, a federal district court disagreed with the Christian student group’s arguments and upheld the school’s right to enforce its nondiscrimination policy. The CLS has asked the 9th Circuit to reverse the lower court’s ruling.

In its 30-page brief in Christian Legal Society Chapter v. Mary Kay Kane, Americans United argues that the university’s anti-discrimination policy applies equally to all student groups and that the CLS has no constitutional right to demand special treatment by the university.

Citing federal court precedent, Americans United’s brief notes that state institutions must not treat religious organizations more favorably than non-religious ones.

The brief, filed Jan. 19, further argues that exempting the Christian student legal group from the anti-discrimination policy would amount to providing preferential treatment to the religious group because “unlike all other campus groups, religious or secular,” the CLS would be able to discriminate and still receive state funds.

The brief was authored by attorneys Archis A. Parasharami, Lauren R. Randell and Evan M. Tager of the Washington, D.C., office of the global law firm of Mayer, Brown, Rowe & Maw LLP, under the supervision of Americans United attorneys Ayesha N. Khan, Richard B. Katskee and Alex J. Luchenitser.

According to AU, the university’s anti-discrimination policy does not violate the religious liberty rights of the Christian student group. The CLS, under the school’s policy, can still advocate its religious beliefs and use campus facilities to meet and spread those beliefs, but without receiving tax dollars.

“The law school’s policy against discriminatory practices does not harm the religious expression rights of the CLS,” said Luchenitser, Americans United’s senior litigation counsel. “The school’s policy treats all student groups the same. If the Christian Legal Society chapter wishes to receive school financing, it must play by the same rules that other state groups do.”

Americans United is a religious liberty watchdog group based in Washington, D.C. Founded in 1947, the organization educates Americans about the importance of church-state separation in safeguarding religious freedom.

[piercehawkeye45]

Agreed. They have every right to discriminate but they shouldn't recieve any funding for it.

[OnyxCougar]

A few years back I posted a thread proving that although the founding fathers of teh US were not necessarily Christian, they were at the least, diests that belived in a Creator god and a power and authority that came from that god.

The phrase regarding the separation between church and state is not in any legal documentation by the founding fathers, only in a letter to the Danbury Baptists, reassuring them that the US will never force it's citizens to comply with a governmental (state) religion, due to the constitutional freedoms afforded to them.

That being said, (you can search for and review that trhead at your leisure, I won't repost here, way too long) I think that if this religous group is discriminating against homosexuals or people of other religious affiliations, they shouldn't receive school funding.

However, all "men's" organizations (fraternities) or "women's" organizations (sororities) therefore shouldn't receive school funding, either. Nor should "black clubs" (NAACP) or "asian clubs" or any other ethnic club that excludes people of other races.


Fair is fair.

[Ibby]

Amen, OC.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by rkzenrage

snip~ Regardless of that... this nation was never a religious one, was never meant to be and should never be.~snip

Not true, this has always been a religious Nation. It was settled and populated by religious people. The settlements were mostly single religious groups with the non-religious individuals, going through the motions or keeping a low profile and certainly not voicing objections.

The "Founding Fathers" gathered in Philadelphia to form a more perfect union, didn't want to get into the problems of Europe with having a State Church ....an official religion. Plus most of the people that had settled in the previous 150 years were pretty set in their ways. They didn't want, and would not support, any government that was going to mess with their beliefs.

That said, they were religious people. They elected religious people. They past laws to support and protect their religion and way of life. Religion was part of their everyday life and incorporated into public functions. They were also mostly Christian but tolerant, at least in public, of others...as long as they didn't try to run for office or seek power in any way.

There was friction, especially during the influx of Catholics just before the Civil War. But everybody got along pretty well until the New Deal started pushing federal money into every corner of our lives and seeking input in return.

It wasn't until the 60s that this became much of an issue. "Under God" was just added to the Pledge of Allegiance in the 50s. The idea that this was not a religious country from the git-go is a myth.

btw, I agree that this group should not be funded. I also agree with OC about all those groups that are excluding people shouldn't be funded either.

[yesman065]

I'm in, it makes sense to me also.

[piercehawkeye45]

I disagree with not funding frats and sororities. They have a house for both males and females so it isn't discriminating. It is just like saying we shouldn't fund boy's basketball because girls can't join even though there is a girl's basketball team.

[deadbeater]

Originally Posted by OnyxCougar

However, all "men's" organizations (fraternities) or "women's" organizations (sororities) therefore shouldn't receive school funding, either. Nor should "black clubs" (NAACP) or "asian clubs" or any other ethnic club that excludes people of other races.


Fair is fair.

The NAACP does not disciminate against Whites being members.

[OnyxCougar]

Originally Posted by piercehawkeye45

I disagree with not funding frats and sororities. They have a house for both males and females so it isn't discriminating. It is just like saying we shouldn't fund boy's basketball because girls can't join even though there is a girl's basketball team.

If a fraternity states that women cannot be in their group, it's discrimination, regardless of what else is available.

Using your logic, this religious club should be funded as long as there is a Jewish club for Jews.

If a certain "club" discriminates, PERIOD, it shouldn't be publicly funded.

The NAACP does not disciminate against Whites being members.

I was using that as an example, I don't know anything about the NAACP, but I think my point made it across. Apologies to the NAACP.

[Sundae]

There is currently a row in the UK with the Catholic church asking that the full equality laws are not applied to Catholic adoption agencies, leaving them free to refuse adoption to gay couples. They are threatening to close 7 adoption agencies if the laws are enforced.

I am disappointed by this. To me the biblical instructions regarding homosexuality are as tenuous as those supporting slavery and certainly far less than those denying equal rights to women. Catholics live in this country and should be subject to the laws of this country, in the same way that Muslims are. Where faith conflicts with the law, the law must come first - if you won't compromise then change your faith or change your country.

And what sort of Christian big picture is supported by closing adoption agencies anyway?

Link to one of the stories reporting the above.

[OnyxCougar]

Let me counter with this, SG:

If any govt funded adoption agency was letting sex offenders adopt a child, would you be upset by that? Would you ask that the govt pull their funding, and in fact close them down?

Of course you would.

In the eyes of the Catholic church, homosexuals are sex offenders. Of course they don't want to let them adopt children. In their eyes, it's morally and ethically wrong.

The article you linked doesn't specify if the Catholic Agencies are receiving govt funding. If they are, I think what needs to happen is that they become a privately funded organization. This should allow them to discriminate as they see fit, according to their beliefs, because it's being done through the Caothlic Church, and not the govt.

If the Catholic Agencies are already private, I don't see why they can't choose who they see fit and turn away those that they don't believe will raise a child properly. And if the govt has a problem with that, it needs to open and fund their own Adoption Agencies that won't discriminate against homosexuals.

Problem solved.

[Sundae]

I wouldn't be allowed to refuse to sell my flat to an Asian person. It's my flat, my personal property and I might be a card-carrying member of the BNP (right wing British National Party known for their racist views) but I would not be allowed to openly discriminate.

It's the law.

It is also the case that in this country, being gay does not make you a sex offender according to the law. The Catholic church cannot decide which laws it wants to adhere to and which ones it doesn't.

Private companies have to adhere to labour laws for example, including equality/ discrimination laws. No-one can force a homophobic boss to hire a gay person, or a racist to hire a black person, but they are not legally permitted to include restrictions when advertising the position.

I think it's a dangerous precedent to be able to disregard the law of the land without penalty "because God told me to".

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by OnyxCougar

If a fraternity states that women cannot be in their group, it's discrimination, regardless of what else is available.

Using your logic, this religious club should be funded as long as there is a Jewish club for Jews.

If a certain "club" discriminates, PERIOD, it shouldn't be publicly funded

Then all the college dorms shouldn't be funded because I can't room in a girl's wing. All schools should be funded because I can't go into a girl's bathroom. All guy's basketball should be cut of funding because girl's can't play even though they have their own league. Don't mix sex with religion or race because they have no comparasion.

[OnyxCougar]

SO if separate but equal is ok to apply to dorms and sports, and it's fine to fund those, then it's ok to fund a baptist club if there's a jew club, and if there's a muslim club, and a satanist club. Separate but equal? So a blacks only club is ok if there's a whites only club, and an asian only club and a native american club ...

If we're talking fair is fair, then it HAS to be applied to religion, race, sex, orientation, age.... across the board.

There IS a comparison, otherwise we wouldn't have Equal Opportunity Laws that included the sex of the individual.

[piercehawkeye45]

That is because sex is different from race and religion.

I don't think there should be funding for some "girls club" or a "boys" club but sports and living is different.