Comments on The Insignificance of the Christian Legal Society CaseTypePad2010-06-30T12:23:50ZRick Garnetthttps://mirrorofjustice.blogs.com/mirrorofjustice/tag:typepad.com,2003:https://mirrorofjustice.blogs.com/mirrorofjustice/2010/06/the-insignificance-of-the-christian-legal-society-case/comments/atom.xml/Fr. J commented on 'The Insignificance of the Christian Legal Society Case'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d834515a9a69e20133f1fdef88970b2010-07-01T16:03:39Z2010-07-01T16:03:39ZFr. JDave, I think Amy proves my point. She doesn't like what they believe so they should be discriminated against. You...<p>Dave, I think Amy proves my point. She doesn't like what they believe so they should be discriminated against. You are correct that Christians would not try to take over a gay club to silence it, that would be morally wrong. But I guess it is okay to subvert the Christian group. If a gay group stated that pedophiles should not be allowed to join that would be illegal. If Jews tried to join the Muslim group to take it over to support Israel. I expect the Muslims would fight back harshly and it would not end up in court. </p>
<p>The door is now open. Groups are not permitted, by the State, to regulate their own membership. But students do have to pay fees that fund groups they don't agree with. Freedom of speech and association have taken a big hit. Those who disagree with Christianity rejoice, but have thrown the baby out with the bath water. Amy, ironically gays have mentioned the lions in conjunction with Christians. </p>Matt Bowman commented on 'The Insignificance of the Christian Legal Society Case'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d834515a9a69e20134852240e1970c2010-07-01T12:33:41Z2010-07-01T12:33:41ZMatt BowmanThe expansive, strident caselaw lionizing free speech and protecting it in government forums and for students--even middle school students--dates from...<p>The expansive, strident caselaw lionizing free speech and protecting it in government forums and for students--even middle school students--dates from the liberal Warren Court and before, speaking heroically, even in purist terms, in cases involving speech against the Vietnam War, and for Civil Rights, but protecting it regardless of content, and insisting that speech should enjoy unfettered protection despite sometimes violent reactions--indeed sometimes because of violent reactions, as the Court described in heroic and idealistic terms the First Amendment's very existence in order to protect unpopular speech by minority views--and to their credit they applied their absolutist principles even to protect speech by the likes of the KKK on a fully equal basis, not relegating them to second-class status in the forum. Does anyone really think that if the present case were against an anti-Iraq War group, and was issued by the Rehnquist Court plus appointees of George W Bush (following Rehnquist's minimalistic view of free speech--from which Kennedy himself dissented in Hill v Colorado) that we would have liberals here and in greater society defending a decision that allows majorities to kick minorities out of a government speech forum and create two tiers of speakers, one more privileged and one less? Does it trouble anyone here that Catholic liberals would be even less consistent defenders of free speech than their secular counterparts in this respect, with the likes of the Washington Post and LA Times dissenting from the NY Times and editorializing against the policy? </p>amy commented on 'The Insignificance of the Christian Legal Society Case'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d834515a9a69e20133f1fbce8d970b2010-07-01T08:11:54Z2010-07-01T08:11:54ZamyGood point David Nickol!! That's the irony of all this. The only student group in Hastings 100-year history that ever...<p>Good point David Nickol!! That's the irony of all this. The only student group in Hastings 100-year history that ever tried to enact a policy to exclude certain students was the Christian Legal Society. The Muslim, Black and Jewish student groups all welcome all students - whether white, asian, muslim or Christian - to join their clubs as members. Amazing how ONLY ONE student group which teaches Christianity discriminated against others. </p>
<p>How quickly Christians forget that they were once discriminated against and thrown to the lions in Rome. How quickly they forget.</p>amy commented on 'The Insignificance of the Christian Legal Society Case'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d834515a9a69e20133f1fbc936970b2010-07-01T08:06:04Z2010-07-01T08:06:04ZamyA setback for Freedom of Expression? or Assembly? LUDICROUS. There is no Constitutional right to receive state funding to speak...<p>A setback for Freedom of Expression? or Assembly? LUDICROUS. There is no Constitutional right to receive state funding to speak or assemble. CLS was never hindered in any way from their free speech or assembly. Why don't some of you actually read the Constitution or take a Constitutional law course. The only shocking thing about this case is that it was only 5-4. The Supreme Court is undeniably cautious and fairly conservative, this is an open and shut case and Alito's concerns are entirely speculative. CLS' arguments are largely nonsensical and a twisted reading of the law. They claim that a non-discrimination policy discriminates against them (yes, it does, but not because they are Christians, because they discriminate against others). Jesus accepted peoples of all origins and religions, why can't the so-called "Christian" Legal Society.</p>David Nickol commented on 'The Insignificance of the Christian Legal Society Case'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d834515a9a69e20134851e9ebc970c2010-06-30T20:53:04Z2010-06-30T20:53:04ZDavid NickolFr. J, But nobody tried -- or organized to try -- to take over the Christian Legal Society. Why do...<p>Fr. J,</p>
<p>But nobody tried -- or organized to try -- to take over the Christian Legal Society.</p>
<p>Why do you feel the need to invent improbable scenarios rather than discuss the case at hand? The CLS was not under attack from non-Christian students at Hastings. Its dispute was with the school administration over recognition (and funding) as an official student group. Of course it is possible that the Hastings Ballroom Dance Club may be infiltrated and undermined by ballet fans, or the Golf Club may be the object of a hostile takeover by croquet players. The Hastings Democrats may try to take over the Hastings Republicans, or the Othello Club (to promote the board game Othello) may be infiltrated by Monopoly players. But how likely is any of this, really? </p>Fr. J commented on 'The Insignificance of the Christian Legal Society Case'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d834515a9a69e20133f1f87ca7970b2010-06-30T18:11:54Z2010-06-30T18:11:54ZFr. JLet the Christians organize a takeover of the campus gay rights group and see what happens. Let someone try this...<p>Let the Christians organize a takeover of the campus gay rights group and see what happens. Let someone try this on the local Muslim group and see what happens. I believe this horrible decision will be used to silence and shut down Christian groups, but no others. </p>David Nickol commented on 'The Insignificance of the Christian Legal Society Case'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d834515a9a69e20134851d5948970c2010-06-30T16:37:56Z2010-06-30T16:37:56ZDavid NickolI just wonder what the reaction would have been to the school's policy if the group involved had been something...<p>I just wonder what the reaction would have been to the school's policy if the group involved had been something other than a Christian group. </p>
<p>Also, I note that there is a Hastings Catholic Law Students Association, a Hastings Association of Muslim Law Students, and a Hastings Jewish Law Students Association (among many others) who didn't seem to need to take a case to the Supreme Court. </p>DFoley commented on 'The Insignificance of the Christian Legal Society Case'tag:typepad.com,2003:6a00d834515a9a69e20133f1f6df30970b2010-06-30T12:48:25Z2010-06-30T12:48:25ZDFoleyI agree on the insignificance. A couple of posts below, Justice Alito is quoted: "I do not think it is...<p>I agree on the insignificance. A couple of posts below, Justice Alito is quoted: "I do not think it is an exaggeration to say that today's decision is a serious setback for freedom of expression in this country." What are the specific, practical harms here going forward? I gather Christian law students -- at Hastings and elsewhere -- will be able to express their beliefs just fine going forward, if they choose to do so. That is not to say that I believe the case correctly decided; just that, practically, I don't see the great harm. Overheated rhetoric often attaches to commentary about S.Ct. decisions (corporate speech on elections, anyone?), when the practical fallout is often, well, not much. </p>