tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33424426.post5420955410544967470..comments2023-09-01T07:04:13.381-07:00Comments on Reflections on Faith and Culture: This is also how it happens.Gil Bailiehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04481878663941134090noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33424426.post-45363953921340197852010-07-28T19:46:32.850-07:002010-07-28T19:46:32.850-07:00Here’s a parallel that may throw some light on the...Here’s a parallel that may throw some light on the CLS v Hastings decision: <br /><br />Brigham Young University makes a distinction between two kinds of academic freedom—one for individual faculty members to “teach and research without interference,” and the other for the institution to “pursue its distinctive mission.” Obviously, these freedoms may sometimes be at odds, so the faculty are subject to what BYU calls “reasonable limitations.” They may not contradict or oppose LDS Church doctrine or policy in public, they may not deride the LDS Church or its leaders, and they must not violate the “honor code.” <br /><br />Is any of this a violation of faculty’s First Amendment rights? No, of course not. BYU faculty may say what they like about the LDS Church as long as they are prepared to seek employment elsewhere. When they signed their employment contract at BYU, they agreed to certain restrictions on their speech. <br /><br />This is why CLS’s case against Hastings was without merit. They wanted funding and recognition from Hastings but refused to comply with Hastings’ non-discrimination policy. Hastings said, in essence, “You’re free to associate in whatever way you choose, but not on our dime.” If the Supreme Court had decided against Hastings, every organization in this country, from corporations to churches, might have lost the power to set its own policies. Face it—that power comes from the ones holding the purse strings. In Hastings’ case, it was the taxpayers.Bentanghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17753472353559997795noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33424426.post-72883589636179069152010-07-26T13:35:03.531-07:002010-07-26T13:35:03.531-07:00Saunders asks, “What happened to the First Amendme...Saunders asks, “What happened to the First Amendment?”<br /><br />Answer: Nothing. CLS’s First Amendment rights were not violated by Hastings College’s policy or by the Supreme Court’s decision in Hastings’ favor. CLS may continue to discriminate against those who do not agree with its principles, and this is right and proper. Their First Amendment rights of free association, free speech, and free exercise are intact.<br /><br />What CLS may not do is receive funding or recognition from Hastings College. This is because CLS’s discriminatory membership policies violate the college’s own non-discrimination policy, which withholds recognition from campus groups that seek to exclude people on the basis of religious beliefs or sexual orientation.<br /><br />The Court’s decision in CLS v. Hastings makes complete sense to me, and I agree with Ruth Bader Ginsberg’s opinion that CLS was seeking preferential exemption from Hastings’ policy. To have decided against Hastings, the court would have needed to show that their non-discrimination policy was unconstitutional, and they couldn’t very well do that without running into problems with the Equal Protection Clause (the 14th Amendment).<br /><br />Like it or not, state universities have a right—and I would say an obligation—to set and enforce non-discrimination policies. Everyone in the state—Christians, gays, Muslims, Jews, blacks, women, and all the rest—supports state universities with tax dollars. Their children should not have to experience exclusion based on any of these identities. The fact that CLS has now been “excluded” may seem unfair until we remember the reason—i.e., that their policies are exclusionary. This is one of those paradoxes—like being intolerant of intolerance—that we should learn to live with. Exclusion due to violation of a policy is not the same as exclusion because of race, sexual orientation, or religion.Bentanghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17753472353559997795noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33424426.post-83260157456345058632010-07-26T11:46:58.102-07:002010-07-26T11:46:58.102-07:00Gil,
I heartily agree with the conservatives ...Gil,<br /> I heartily agree with the conservatives on this one. A group with a voluntary membership simply should be able to set it's requirements. <br /> I might find those requirements silly or invasive but I needn't join. What is more I can leave.<br /><br /> This is turning Freedom of Assembly on its head along with Freedom of Speech. I will go to my grave supporting the other guys right to be wrong at the top of his voice. <br /><br /> If the liberals on the bench think this is somehow helping anyone, especially LGBT folks they are sadly mistaken. This will only further entrench the idea that LGBT acceptance is not prevalent or correct but must be imposed by elites.<br /><br /> This 5/4 decision stuff in the SCOTUS is getting out of hand. Perhaps has been out of hand for far too long. The court was never meant to be this political and yet we have allowed it to happen.<br /><br /> How then do we drag the SCOTUS back to impartial judicial actors and not political hacks? Certainly I would not want any president to have the ability to replace them all at a single swipe. It would be dreadful from any standpoint. <br /> Has anyone any ideas of how to restore the co-equality of the branches?Kevinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07035744898664620942noreply@blogger.com