LEFT - A university can legally deny recognition to a Christian student group that bars gays and nonbelievers, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Monday in a case that pitted anti-discrimination principles against religious freedom.[/LEFT]
That’s so sad.
That means some jerks are going to go around trying to join things like KofC college councils just to get them disbanded or denied the same rights as other college groups.
I don’t particularly find it sad that it happened, but I will find it sad if it doesn’t get repealed as soon as it becomes an absolute disaster, which it will.
shouldn’t any group have qualifications for people to join? or are other groups just open to anyone who wants to join?
It’s starting to go that way.
I think it was a good decision. The group isn’t prohibited from recruited or meeting on campus, nor is any member sanctioned for membership. All it does is prevent the group from receiving funding from student activity fees, especially the fees of students who aren’t permitted to join.
The attack on Christianity continues.
Not an attack on Christianity. Look at this in a positive light. If a group is pushing to advance an atheist agenda, and tried to prevent theists (which kind of theist is irrelevant) from joining, then they would be lose their funding. Besides, why shouldn’t a group that recieves fuding from the college be open to all students?
Again - no understanding of the difference between the condition and the act?
Does anyone else find it unsurprising that this happened in San Francisco?
I don’t know anything about the “Statement of faith” that needed to be signed, so I don’t know how evangelical the group is. Many statements of faith also exclude Catholics. I would actually like to see the full statement.
Maybe I am missing something here, but I don’t see what there is to be upset about.
It sounds like they have no issue with the group, but it can not receive school funding if it closes off membership to certain groups. That seems fair. If it was a group that used school funding and excluded Catholics, or Christians, or even heterosexuals, we would be up in arms.
They are free keep the same rules they have now, but outside of official school sponsorship. :shrug:
The SCOTUS has, what, 4 Catholics on it. I wouldn’t be too worried.
Doesn’t this open a can of worms? Since Christian movements must accept anyone and everyone, whether these people agree with their mission statements and beliefs or not, wouldn’t that mean that if this applies to this group, it would open a way to make it apply to other groups? This could theoretically apply to governement groups as well if you think about it. Why shouldn’t the saying “What’s good for the goose, is good for the gander?” Let people who are republicans in thought join the liberals and so on and so forth… afterall, it doesn’t matter if people follow the belief systems of that group proper anyway :shrug:
This world is becoming so upside down and inside out that I’ve got a stone in my stomach today… can any other nasty stuff be thrown at us today??
This is from the Christian Legal Society’s (Hastings College of Law chapter) brief to the US Supreme Court:
The CLS Statement of Faith provides:
Trusting in Jesus Christ as my Savior, I believe in:
One God, eternally existent in three persons,
Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth.
The Deity of our Lord, Jesus Christ, God’s
only Son, conceived of the Holy Spirit, born of the
virgin Mary; His vicarious death for our sins
through which we receive eternal life; His bodily
resurrection and personal return.
The presence and power of the Holy Spirit in
the work of regeneration.
The Bible as the inspired Word of God.
Pet. App. 100a-101a.
The chapter’s constitution also sets forth guiding principles for the chapter and those who publicly associate with it. “Officers must exemplify the highest standards of morality as set forth in Scripture” in order “that their profession of Christian faith is credible.” Id. at 102a-103a. Officers also must “abstain] from ‘acts of the sinful nature,’ including those in
Galatians 5:19-21; Exodus 20; Matthew 15:19; Romans 1:27; 1 Corinthians 6:9-10.” Ibid.1
Thank you!! I was just curious as some of these “non-denominational” groups are not truly ecumenical, but representative of only a small slice of Protestantism
Ask and ye shall receive!
Here’s a case summary.
Thank you for that. A useful link.
I hope this level of anti natural law intolerance dies down