I came across this case this morning. Looks interesting...and makes my head hurt at the same time!
Christian Legal Society Chapter v. Martinez (08-1371)
The Hastings Christian Legal Society (“CLS”) required that members agree with its core religious beliefs and pledge to live accordingly. Due to this requirement, the University of California-Hastings College of Law refused to recognize CLS as a registered student organization. Specifically, CLS’s membership requirement violated a nondiscrimination policy prohibiting registered student organizations from discriminating on the basis of religion or sexual orientation. CLS argued that Hastings violated its First Amendment right to free association and free exercise of religion by denying it an exemption from the nondiscrimination policy. The Ninth Circuit rejected CLS’s claims, holding that the school’s policy was viewpoint-neutral and reasonable in light of the school’s educational mission. The Supreme Court’s decision will settle a circuit split over whether a public school can require a religious student organization to open its membership to all students, regardless of their beliefs.
Question presented
Whether the Ninth Circuit erred when it held, directly contrary to the Seventh Circuit’s decision in Christian Legal Society v. Walker, 453 F.3d 853 (7th Cir. 2006), that the Constitution allows a state law school to deny recognition to a religious student organization because the group requires its officers and voting members to agree with its core religious viewpoints.
Issue
Whether a state law school may officially require that a student organization make its membership open to all students as a condition of receiving certain benefits associated with official recognition.
The Hastings Christian Legal Society (“CLS”) required that members agree with its core religious beliefs and pledge to live accordingly. Due to this requirement, the University of California-Hastings College of Law refused to recognize CLS as a registered student organization. Specifically, CLS’s membership requirement violated a nondiscrimination policy prohibiting registered student organizations from discriminating on the basis of religion or sexual orientation. CLS argued that Hastings violated its First Amendment right to free association and free exercise of religion by denying it an exemption from the nondiscrimination policy. The Ninth Circuit rejected CLS’s claims, holding that the school’s policy was viewpoint-neutral and reasonable in light of the school’s educational mission. The Supreme Court’s decision will settle a circuit split over whether a public school can require a religious student organization to open its membership to all students, regardless of their beliefs.
Question presented
Whether the Ninth Circuit erred when it held, directly contrary to the Seventh Circuit’s decision in Christian Legal Society v. Walker, 453 F.3d 853 (7th Cir. 2006), that the Constitution allows a state law school to deny recognition to a religious student organization because the group requires its officers and voting members to agree with its core religious viewpoints.
Issue
Whether a state law school may officially require that a student organization make its membership open to all students as a condition of receiving certain benefits associated with official recognition.
28 comments:
I think that it is not at all unfair that the school wont allow them. School is not a place where discrimination should be allowed. It is the schools duty to make sure that they do all they can to prevent this.
I really don't know what a ninth or seventh circuit is. But i know why the eighth circuit better watch out.....cuz seven eight nine!!!!!!!! hahaha. But seriously, I feel the CLS shouldn't require it's members to pledge to a core religious belief. They did violate a nondiscrimination policy because of discriminating. This Case is quite tricky... it will be interesting to see how the Supreme Court decides to handle this one. GOOD LUCK!!!!!1
This Christian group should ovbiously be allowed to exist, but the school itself doesn't have to sponsor it. And If not recognized by the school then why is it an issue that the club discriminates based on religion? They have that right yes?...since they are not affiliated with the school itself.
Opening the doors of the Hastings Christian Legal Society to non-Christians kind of defeats the entire point of having a CHRISTIAN Legal Society. Bringing in non-Christians could foster some interesting debate. However, most of the people who join are not joining to debate Christianity, but rather to examine law from that particular viewpoint. Changing the rules to force them to allow membership to people who are not Christian is an invitation to hecklers. Other groups have a set of beliefs and core values that a member must agree with to join. Certain types of separation are a good thing, racial or ethnic separation is wrong, but a group founded on the idea of giving Christian students a forum and a voice should not be open to students who want on because it looks good on a resume'. If Martinez wins, Boy Scouts could end up being forced to allow kids who don't want to be clean, reverent, or thrifty.
I don't think that an organiztion, club,or any school group should be REQUIRED to let everyone and anyone into their group. For instance, the football team isn't going to let someone who wants to play football onto the team if they've never played a day in their life. Whether or not this particular organization should let everyone in or not is a question that each individual has to answer for themselves, but I still believe that it is the organization's choice, not the schools.
This is a tough one. I feel like if one organization is allowed to discriminate against certain groups of people, however, then other organizations will also feel like they can discriminate, and so on. I think the issue here is you give an inch and they take a foot.
Well they both have a point, but if a person doesn't want to pledge to do theis schools belief they can choose not to apply at the school. It could violate some peoples right to freedom of religion if they wish to go to this school without the boundaries and requirements.
The question is whether the college is justified in not allowing the club to be recognized as an official student organiztion. The answer is a resounding YES. The School has a clear discrimination rule that all student organizations must adhere to. The rule is by all means lawful and constitutional, and the club inn question violates this rule. The school is not barring the formation of the club, they are simply denying official recognition. So the ninth circuit court is right, the CLS is wrong. Case Closed.
This one is a toughy! The issue is a very interesting one. The fact that the students are forcing new members to believe in what they believe in is a bit obscure. But then again the organization does have a point. I would side with the school on this one. This way the school's reputation doesn't become one of certain people, but one of diversity and acceptance by not putting this group through.
Whether its a Christian school or not no state funded school can specifically decline a student do to their beliefs. Although it is a christian school and their views will be taught in classes, discrimination based on religious views is a violation of the first amendment.
i think the students should have to allow other students to participate regardless of beliefs. Even with different viewpoints they can still be a part of this organization and help in their beliefs as well.
I think this is kind of ridiculous. If students don't want to pledge to the christian life style then they don't have to join, point blank. The purpose of a club is to bring together people with the same interests and beliefs. I don't see any difference here. No one is forcing anybody to join and make the pledge so I don't see a problem. As far as recognition goes, I'm sure people will talk about the "exclusive" club so it's not like they will be unknown. The CLS's have to accept the fact that they might have to do without certain things and just be thankfull that they even have a club at all.
The Hasting Christian Legal Society should be able to require its members to agree with its core religious beliefs. I realize that Hastings College has a nondiscrimination policy that is directly violated by CLS. However, a state law school should not have the right to require school organizations to be open to all students. The CLS was formed for specific students who share the same religious beliefs. In opening membership to all students, CLS will lose its original intent. To uphold their nondiscrimination policy, Hastings College should allow students to receive the certain benefits offered from official recognition by permitting the CLS and other religious organizations to be formed.
Well... this is certainly a conundrum of sorts. It doesn't make any sense why someone who doesn't share a groups' religious beliefs would join it, nor how a religious organization can open it's membership to people who don't share it's beliefs. Take it out of religious context: why would a vegetarian join a organization that is solely based on loving meat? I guess it would seem fair that the group allow those people in... but it doesn't seem to accomplish much. It's like... This is the Muslim Student Organization, but Satanists, Buddhists, and Jews, etc. are all welcome here. It really seems to defeat the purpose.
I don't really see how this is violating CLS's First Amendment rights. The college isn't preventing them from assembling, they just aren't officially recognizing them for political correctness' sake. I know I would have cared less what the college had to say about the club I was a part of.
I believe that every student group at a state university should have to have open membership regardless of religious or other affiliation, because who would want to join a group that they disagree with every aspect of it?
I think its ok to have the CLS only if its not mandatory to join. I think its only a big deal if people are forced to join. And if they have this group on campus they should have other organizations dealing with other various issues.
This is ridiculous they just need to let the kids make the club. Its not like they are going to be doing something bad during this all they are doing is exercising their religious beliefs. Also why does everything have to do with some type of racism get over it people of a different color, or opposing sex are still human beings. Let the kids make the club and just move on. Oh and I still believe that when we say the pledge everyone morning don't we say,"Under God" I mean this country was started upon a mixture of different religions and cultures, so just let the kids do their thing.
The CLS needs to either disband or open to people of other religions. What do they think makes them so special that they can be exempt from the rules. If they are immune to this rule then what is the point of having it. People throw around the first ammedment too much trying to protect themselves from every dumb thing they do.
There is always a legal issue regarding religion and schools.
I think that students should be able to join any group they would like.. but at the same time if the groups views are different than theirs why would they want to be part of that?
With the current make up of the US Supreme Court, it is likely that the 9th circuit court’s decision will be overturned and Hastings Christian Legal Society will prevail in barring membership to those who do not agree with its beliefs.
The U.S. Supreme Court in Rosenberger v. Rector & Visitors of Univ. of Va., 515 U.S. 819 (1995) gave protection under first amendment and in Boy Scouts of America v. Dale, 530 U.S. 640 (2000) , it said, “ antidiscrimination regulations may not be applied to expressive conduct with the purpose of either suppressing or promoting a particular viewpoint”. Even if CLS received funding and support from state or federal Government University of California-Hastings College of Law will probably lose.
When practicing law, how does a universty expect to produce the best lawyers and officals in office if the school itself disobeys the law.
I think the school should make it mandatory to open membership up to all students. If they open their group up to all people but only want their members to live by their beliefs, probably the only people who will want to join are those who agree with the club and will want to live by the clubs beliefs. And if they do open up membership, they will get the benifits of having a recognized club.
“CLS’s membership requirement violated a nondiscrimination policy prohibiting registered student organizations from discriminating on the basis of religion or sexual orientation.” This quote from the article tells me that groups like CLS are basically just saying "if you don't let us descriminate against people you are discriminating agaisnt us." Craziness.
Why is this really an issue. Don't try and join the club if you want to get mad about the religion they practice.
I'm not sure exactly how to feel about this one. Does the government aid this school in any way or was it something the board members of the school decide this? If they are owned privately, I don't see why its a problem that they did that.
This is actually quite interesting. The court has to decide, in this instance, who's rights are more important. The rights of a group that wishes to be discriminatory or the rights of the people who would be discriminated against. I believe the answer is simple when considering the impacts of each possible decision. They should choose to protect the people who would/could be discriminated against. Consider that this decision would protect the rights of the greatest number of people and uphold neutrality, then you must know that the correct decision is in favor of the University.
Post a Comment