Truemors
is reporting from
Member
NP Rank:
NP Rank:
Separation of church and state case goes to US supreme court
Share:
by Susan Marie Kovalinsky | December 7, 2009 at 10:14 am
880 views | 20 Recommendations | 19 comments
In a press release from AU (Americans United for Separation of Church and State) it has been reported that the U.S. Supreme Court announced on Monday that it plans to hear a dispute from involving church/state separation.
The dispute involves an evangelical Christian club at a public University's Law school, which is seeking recognition and funding as an official campus organization, even though it discriminates on religious grounds.
See also this piece from the Baltimore Sun: Courts to Hear Appeal of Christians who want to exclude Gays
*********************************************************
*Update Addendum: For clarification: "SUIT FILED BY LEGAL TEAM: CASE COULD SET NEW PRECEDENT AND GROUND RULES NATIONALLY FOR UNIVERSITY CLUBS, OTHERS"
Washington - The Supreme Court agreed today to hear an appeal from a Christian student group in San Francisco which refused to admit gays and lesbians and decide whether the group's right to religious liberty and freedom of association can trump a university's ban on discrimination based on sexual orientation.
The case, to be heard next year, could set new rules for campus groups across the nation.
The University of California's Hastings College of Law says its officially recognized student groups must be open to all of its students. The law school also has a general non-discrimination policy which applies to student groups and programs. It forbids discrimination based on "race, color, religion, national origin, ancestry, disability, age, sex or sexual orientation."
Five years ago, the Hastings chapter of the Christian Legal Society was told it could not continue as a recognized student group at the law school if its officers refused to pledge to abide by the non-discrimination rule.
For its part, the leaders of the Christian student's group cited its national policy which said, "In view of the clear dictates of Scripture, unrepentant participation in and advocacy of a sexually immoral lifestyle is inconsistent with an affirmation of the Statement of Faith" demanded by the Christian Legal Society.
Because the Hastings chapter would not abide by the university's policy, it lost its recognition as an official student group. This is turn meant the campus would not pay travel costs for the group's leaders to attend national meetings. The group also lost its right to use reserved rooms for meetings and, it was excluded from some newsletters or mailings that were sent to students at the law school.
Lawyers for the group filed suit, contending that it was unconstitutional for a state-funded law school to deny official recognition to a religious group because of its "core religious viewpoints." It suit said the law school had violated its freedom of "expressive association" as well as its rights to free speech and the free exercise of religion, all protected by the 1st Amendment.
A federal judge and the U.S. 9th Circuit of Appeals rejected its claim, saying a university can enforce "an open membership rule" for student organizations without violating the Constitution.
But the Christian Legal Society appealed to the Supreme Court and argued that students with deeply held religious views should not be denied their right to "expressive association." As a legal precedent, they cited the high court's decision in 2000 which said the Boy Scouts of America may exclude openly gay men from becoming scouts masters. A New Jersey court had prohibited such discrimination, but in a 5-4 ruling in Boy Scouts v. Dale, the high court ruled the scouts had a right to "expressive association" which permitted them to exclude those whose lifestyle contradicted its mission statement.
The appeal also noted that a U.S. appeals court in Chicago had sided with a Christian Legal Society chapter which challenged a similar non-discrimination policy at the Southern Illinois University School of Law.
Americans United for Separation of Church and State urged the high court to use the case as a vehicle to make it clear that groups seeking public funding and official recognition on public college campuses must be open to all.“This case is about fundamental fairness,” said the Rev. Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United. “If the student religious group wins, it will mean some students will be compelled to support clubs that won’t even admit them as members. That’s just not right.”
The dispute involves a branch of the Christian Legal Society at Hastings College of Law at the University of California in San Francisco. The group sought funding and official status from the school, even though it effectively bars gays and non-Christians from membership by requiring all officers and voting members to sign an evangelical Christian statement of faith.
Hastings College of Law bans discrimination against gays and lesbians, as well as religious discrimination, and officials there said they did not want to support a club that was not open to all.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of Hastings.
Americans United filed a friend-of-the-court brief with the appeals court and says the Supreme Court should uphold the 9th Circuit decision.
“Public schools have every right – indeed, an obligation – to refuse to advance religious discrimination,” Lynn said. “Groups that wish to engage in discrimination should not expect public subsidies.”
Advertisement
NowPublic on Facebook
What is NowPublic?
NowPublic lets people work together to cover news events around the world.
Crowd Power
Related Stories
Recommendations (20)
Spydermonkey
huntsville, Alabama, United Statesa211423
Clearlake, California, United States
Hugh Askew
Omaha, Nebraska, United StatesAnonymous users (2)
Most RecentMost Recommended Comments (19)
at 10:55 on December 7th, 2009
“If the student religious group wins, it will mean some students will be compelled to support clubs that won’t even admit them as members. That’s just not right.”
That's just too funny. To do otherwise will allow the University to dictate allowable religious behavior. So much much for the vaunted wall of separation, eh?
at 12:12 on December 7th, 2009
A public university that receives public funding--our tax dollars--can not descrimate based on race, religion, gender, ethnicity and age. I can't believe the Supreme Court is agreeing to hear this case as there must be some precedent from which to reject it.
at 12:26 on December 7th, 2009
Agreed, A211423.......unless the Supremes decide they want to make a new law.
at 14:05 on December 7th, 2009
A conservative court practicing judicial activism? Say it ain't so.
at 15:14 on December 7th, 2009
Methinks the Court finished practicing long ago. They seem to be seriously playing the game. Poorly at times, true.
In this case, it is the religious group that is doing the pushing, the school has withheld funding, the group then went to court:
"....contending that it was unconstitutional for a state-funded law school to deny official recognition to a religious group because of its "core religious viewpoints." It suit said the law school had violated its freedom of "expressive association" as well as its rights to free speech and the free exercise of religion, all protected by the 1st Amendment."
at 12:26 on December 7th, 2009
I just added a link above in my preamble to a piece by the Baltimore Sun; I think if you see that title, you will see what it going on.....(turf wars)
at 12:28 on December 7th, 2009
Well, well, well. That does change things doesn't it?
Funny, i seem to have remarked on this sort of thing just the other day.
Thanks much for the link/background, smk.
at 12:35 on December 7th, 2009
smk
The NP site does not allow me to access links. But I can see by the title the inclination of the group.
at 12:40 on December 7th, 2009
Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't know, A : ( Well, yes, it is Christian versus Gay political wars, and though the club can exist, does it have the right to take public funds? I never was at a public college or with any Christian groups that I knew of ----How will the Supreme Court change anything? Don't they have the rules on the books?
at 13:49 on December 7th, 2009
For a long time Christian groups weren't allowed, until the Supremes issued a a ruling. Even then, it took a lot of effort to get schools to grant them the same access that say, homosexuals, are granted to student funds for their groups.
Can't allow access to most, and exclude others on the grounds of religion.
at 12:50 on December 7th, 2009
A: I just added an Update and addendum above, with excerpts from a more through article, if that helps.
at 13:21 on December 7th, 2009
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 is clear
Title III
Prohibited state and municipal governments from denying access to public facilities on grounds of race, religion, gender, or ethnicity.
Title VI
Prevented discrimination by government agencies that receive federal funding. If an agency is found in violation of Title VI, that agency can lose its federal funding.
Title VII also prohibits discrimination against an individual because of his or her association with another individual of a particular race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.
at 13:28 on December 7th, 2009
I know, why then is the Supreme Court hearing it, and why do the lawyers say it will set new national precedents? : (
at 13:56 on December 7th, 2009
Here are some challenges since 1964 from wiki. I do not know if this is a definitive list, but you can see there has been subsequent history. There was the reverse descrimination case recently with the firefighters who won their case in the Supreme Court.
In a 1971 Supreme Court case regarding the gender provisions of the Act, the Court ruled that a company could not discriminate against a potential female employee because she had a preschool-age child unless they did the same with potential male employees.[13] A federal court overruled an Ohio state law that barred women from obtaining jobs which required the ability to lift 25 pounds and required women to take lunch breaks when men were not required to.[13] A Pennsylvania state court decided that printing separate job listings for men and women was illegal, which ended that practice among the country's newspapers.[13] The United States Civil Service Commission ended the practice among federal jobs which designated them "women only" or "men only."[13]
In 1974, the Supreme Court also ruled that the San Francisco school district was violating non-English speaking students' rights under the 1964 act by placing them in regular classes rather than providing some sort of accommodation for them.[25]
In 1975, a federal civil rights agency warned a Phoenix, Arizona school that its end-of-year father-son and mother-daughter baseball games were illegal according to the 1964 Civil Rights Act.[13] President Gerald Ford intervened, and the games were allowed to continue.[13]
In 1977, the Supreme Court struck down state minimum height requirements for police officers as violating the Act; women usually could not meet these requirements.[13]
at 14:01 on December 7th, 2009
I really do not understand what a new precedent would be, except to overturn the non descrimination articles in the Civil Rights Act. Not only is this organization seeking recognition, but also funding for their club, which to me is an outrage.
In Title III and VI, the language used is "municipal governments" and "government agencies." Perhaps they are going to try and prove that the university is is neither of those. Since it is a California State University is should be covered under "government agencies." I would like to see what their attorney is attempting to prove.
The Supreme Court could find that special interest groups in public schools particular to race, religion and gender are against the law based on the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Thus banning clubs and organizations that are in violation. LOL
This will be interesting to follow. Thank you smk for posting this. : )
at 13:59 on December 7th, 2009
Thanks for all your fantastic research and info---Yes, I am just as curious as you are, to see exactly what the lawyers are attempting and hoping---as you say, get rid of nondiscrimination? That would be a huge regression, and not tolerated.....very puzzling.........
at 10:22 on December 8th, 2009
If they decide to be exclusive, then public funding is not forthcoming.
The saying comes to mind here, "be careful what you pray for." Like I stated in above comment, the Supreme Court could decide that exclusive clubs formed on the basis of race, religion and gender are unlawful based on the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which goes beyond the funding aspect of clubs. The results of this case could effect all the clubs and organizations in public funded colleges and universities and perhaps even the private schools.
at 07:21 on December 9th, 2009
I don't see the prospect of the clubs being unlawful under the Civil Rights Act. If anything, the "conservative" court may try to justify funding these groups with public funding. If I had to hazard a guess, I think it will be a narrow majority opinion affirming the denial of funding for discriminatory exclusion. The clubs can use public property for the purpose of meetings. The interesting question will be can the State charge a fee for the use of the property by groups that discriminate based on race, religion or gender? In Florida, churches that have no buildings, use public schools to hold services on Sunday. I don't know if the State receives compensation for the use of the space, but since it is public property, payment should be required.
at 10:34 on December 8th, 2009
Actually, the racial clubs do accept whites. For example, Raymond Clark, who killed Annie Le, had belonged to a club for Asians.