Legal Eagles--Hastings Case--CLS v. Martinez

[Pure]

On the basis of the US constitution and law, how should this case be decided?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/17/AR2010041702908.html?hpid=topnews

Supreme Court to consider case against California law school


By Robert BarnesWashington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, April 18, 2010

SAN FRANCISCO -- At the oldest law school in the West, law is being made this semester, not just taught.

In a case that carries great implications for how public universities and schools must accommodate religious groups, the University of California's Hastings College of the Law is defending its anti-discrimination policy against charges that it denies religious freedom.

The college, which requires officially recognized student groups to admit any Hastings student who wants to join, may be well-meaning, says the student outpost of the Christian Legal Society. But the group contends that requiring it to allow gay students and nonbelievers into its leadership would be a renunciation of its core beliefs, and that the policy violates the Constitution's guarantee of free speech, association with like-minded individuals and exercise of religion.

"Hastings' policy is a threat to every group that seeks to form and define its own voice," the group told the court in a brief. The case, Christian Legal Society v. Martinez, will be argued in the Supreme Court Monday morning.

Hastings counters that the CLS, a national organization that seeks to "proclaim, love and serve Jesus Christ through the study and practice of law," is demanding special treatment. It wants the college's official stamp of approval and the access to benefits and student activity fees that come with it, but it will not commit to following the nondiscrimination policy that every other student group follows.

The CLS is not being forced to do anything, Hastings contends. "A group may abide by the school's viewpoint-neutral open-membership policy and obtain the modest funding and benefits that go along with school recognition, or forgo recognition and do as it wishes," it said in its brief.

The case poses a quandary for a court that has recognized both the ability of public universities and schools to control the use of their facilities and funds and the right of religious groups to select members based on their beliefs. It comes as religious groups have become more active and litigious in demanding a place in the public forum of free speech.

 

[Stella_Omega]

I love this plugin...
Just saying.

 

[Zeb_Carter]

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

I don't see anywhere in there about like-minded people?

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

The University of Cal is a public institution funded by tax payers. This generally means everyone can play unless the program is designed for some specific lawful purpose, like rehabilitating spinal cord injuries. It doesnt include aiding and abetting the expression of your religious thang. Public facilities arent the girlz shower room.

 

[Liar]

I don't see anywhere in there about like-minded people?

I don't think they're referring to that passage, but maybe to freedom of association, which is not in the US constitution but in court precedence.

Here's what Wiki sayeth, for what it's worth:

While the United States Constitution's First Amendment identifies the rights to assemble and to petition the government, the text of the First Amendment does not make specific mention of a right to association. Nevertheless, the United States Supreme Court held in NAACP v. Alabama that the freedom of association is an essential part of the Freedom of Speech because, in many cases, people can engage in effective speech only when they join with others.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

I don't think they're referring to that passage, but maybe to freedom of association, which is not in the US constitution but in court precedence.

Here's what Wiki sayeth, for what it's worth:

This is the very issue that defeated Robert Bork's Supreme Court nomination; he insisted that people have the right of free association and the Civil Rights laws only apply to public institutions, facilities, and services. NO SHOES, NO SHIRT, NO SERVICE.

 

[Zeb_Carter]

I don't think they're referring to that passage, but maybe to freedom of association, which is not in the US constitution but in court precedence.

Here's what Wiki sayeth, for what it's worth:

But then it works both ways, doesn't it? I mean, you can't have you cake and exclude one group so you can eat it too and associate with those in your group. You as a group are thereby infringing on the individuals right to associate with those in the group. If you get my drift?

 

[Pure]

thoughts

i must say i lean against the Christian Legal Society's restriction, and tend to agree with its non recognition by the School. it seems to me that no member is denied his 'freedom of religion', or to form a group (which holds meetings) with religious requirements. the Christian Legal Society is so far denied recognition as an official school recognized and subsidized body.

i would like to hear the other side, however.

the article, however, states:

Christian groups have brought suits against similar policies across the country, from the University of Florida to Boise State University. "In every case . . . either the courts have ruled for the religious student group or the university has settled or mooted the case by revoking its unconstitutional policy," the CLS brief asserts.

[At Hastings]There are nearly 70 recognized student organizations, including law-oriented groups such as the Federalist Society, ethnic groups such as the Middle Eastern Law Students Association and groups such as ballroom-dancing enthusiasts and Hastings Legal Vines, a wine club.

Martinez said he has been asked if the school's policy means that a Jewish organization would have to allow a Nazi sympathizer to join, and his answer is yes. "That's a necessary consequence of being nondiscriminatory," he said. "We accept students of all stripes. We can't do that and then tell some students, 'Listen, there are going to be some aspects of the educational experience at this school that are foreclosed to you.' "

Official recognition brings the right to use the Hastings name and logo, access to an e-mail address with a link to the law school's network, office space and meeting rooms, and small grants from student-activity fees and university funds.

[...]

The CLS's brief says Hastings' "all-comers" policy is a litigation strategy, at odds with how the college has actually treated other groups. It is not viewpoint-neutral, the brief says, because the policy "targets solely those groups whose beliefs are based on 'religion' or that disapprove of a particular kind of sexual behavior."

But it said all groups would be threatened if required "to admit as leaders and voting members those who disagree with their core beliefs and viewpoints."

 

[Dragonlipz]

Good thread, Pure, it sure shows ya who is for freedom and who ain't. Free association is not freedom - honesty and openess are what this country is all about.

 

[stephen55]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

Sounds pretty straightforward...

Hastings can't deny the CLS the right to run it's own show. By the same token, the CLS can't compel Hastings to give it privileged status.

So if the CLS wants to use Hastings' facilities, and Hastings insists on being non-discriminatory, then the CLS can't force Hastings to be discriminatory.

If the CLS insists on being discriminatory, then they can get their own facilities.

It's how it works up here.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

My feeling is that the CLS wants something that can be construed as 'establishment'. That's patently illegal. Anyone agree with me on this?

 

[Pure]

note to vm

afaik, the govt' 'establishes' a religion if it give predominant or exclusive official status [and support or subsidies] to one denomination, as the Norwegians did for the Lutheran Church, and the Mass Colony for its congregational church, or the Turks to the Islamic religion.

of course a University--e.g. Notre Dame-- might similarly favor one religion--say, subsidize its chapel--and it might be legal, afaik.

in the present case, however the xian student group [CLS] says it would be satisfied with 'one among many';
other groups might have their clubs and membership rules.

at issue here is the School's denial of any official recognition of the xian law group [CLS] --as a campus group-- because of its "discrimination" [restriction to those who are both evangelical xian and straight]. iow, even birdwatchers could have their own group, officially recognized, as long as it didn't discriminate (say, 'white's only', or, 'straight only', or, 'atheists and agnostics only.).

the xian group says this is persecution and discrimination against them (i suppose they would say the right of 'free exercize' of their religion would involve forming an active campus group and getting it recognized and a bit of support--just like the birdwatchers have).

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Scalia makes a point thats relevant: Do you want a Republican in charge of your college Democrat Club? Do you want a hostile group to takeover your Gay & Lesbian Club? How about Jews dominating the Muslim Club? Pick your poison.