Christian Legal Society

T he U.S. Supreme Court agreed last week to referee a dispute between a University of California law school and a Christian student group that claims it's being discriminated against -- in the name of antidiscrimination. The Christian Legal Society, which requires its members to forswear sex outside heterosexual marriage, is contesting the refusal of UC Hastings College of the Law in San Francisco to afford it the privileges enjoyed by other student groups. It's tempting for believers in equality for gays and lesbians (ourselves included)

The Supreme Court on Monday sided with the UC Hastings College of Law in San Francisco against a Christian group that argued — persuasively, in our view — that it had been denied recognition because it refused to accept members who wouldn't abide by its religious principles. Now that Hastings has won its case, it should take a fresh look at whether student organizations should be required to accept members who don't share their views. At Hastings, "registered student organizations," though not endorsed by the law school, have access to its e-mail systems and bulletin boards and can use the school's logo.

Can the UC Hastings College of the Law in San Francisco force a Christian student organization, as a condition of official recognition, to accept members who reject the group's values? The Supreme Court, which will consider that question on Monday, should answer no. At Hastings, "recognized" student groups are given access to college facilities and bulletin boards but aren't sponsored by the college. Nor does Hastings endorse their points of view. Even so, a chapter of the Christian Legal Society was denied recognition on the grounds that it violated a policy prohibiting discrimination on the basis of religion and sexual orientation.

A University of California law school's refusal to give official student group status to a Christian society that excluded gays was a reasonable application of the school's nondiscrimination policy, the Supreme Court said Monday in a 5-4 ruling. The Christian Legal Society chapter had sued UC Hastings College of the Law, arguing that denial of school recognition and of access to state funding and facilities violated the group's 1st and 14th Amendment rights to free speech, expressive association and the free exercise of religion.

The Supreme Court agreed Monday to decide whether a Christian student group's right to religious liberty and the freedom of association can trump a university's ban on discrimination against gays and lesbians. The case could set new rules for campus groups that receive funding through fees paid by the students. The justices agreed to hear an appeal from a San Francisco chapter of the Christian Legal Society, which lost its recognition as a student group at the UC Hastings College of Law because it refused to abide by the school's anti-discrimination policy.

A University of California law school's refusal to give official student group status to a Christian society that excluded gays was a reasonable application of the school's nondiscrimination policy, the Supreme Court said Monday in a 5-4 ruling. The Christian Legal Society chapter had sued UC Hastings College of the Law, arguing that denial of school recognition and of access to state funding and facilities violated the group's 1st and 14th Amendment rights to free speech, expressive association and the free exercise of religion.

The Supreme Court on Monday sided with the UC Hastings College of Law in San Francisco against a Christian group that argued — persuasively, in our view — that it had been denied recognition because it refused to accept members who wouldn't abide by its religious principles. Now that Hastings has won its case, it should take a fresh look at whether student organizations should be required to accept members who don't share their views. At Hastings, "registered student organizations," though not endorsed by the law school, have access to its e-mail systems and bulletin boards and can use the school's logo.

We represent Outlaw, the UC Hastings College of the Law's lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender students group, in the case brought against Hastings by the Christian Legal Society (CLS). The Christian group argues that Hastings' nondiscrimination policy violates 1st Amendment rights to the extent that it prohibits officially recognized student groups from discriminating against prospective members on the basis of religion or sexual orientation. The Times' Dec. 16 editorial supporting CLS' case before the U.S. Supreme Court fails to grasp the implications of what a ruling in favor of the Christian group would mean.

The Supreme Court has refused to reconsider its recent decision in a case involving the religious use of the drug peyote. In a one-line order issued Monday, the court denied a petition for a rehearing in Employment Division of Oregon vs. Smith, in which the court held that a state not only can prohibit the religious use of peyote but also can deny unemployment compensation to individuals dismissed from their jobs for using the drug.

Can the UC Hastings College of the Law in San Francisco force a Christian student organization, as a condition of official recognition, to accept members who reject the group's values? The Supreme Court, which will consider that question on Monday, should answer no. At Hastings, "recognized" student groups are given access to college facilities and bulletin boards but aren't sponsored by the college. Nor does Hastings endorse their points of view. Even so, a chapter of the Christian Legal Society was denied recognition on the grounds that it violated a policy prohibiting discrimination on the basis of religion and sexual orientation.

We represent Outlaw, the UC Hastings College of the Law's lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender students group, in the case brought against Hastings by the Christian Legal Society (CLS). The Christian group argues that Hastings' nondiscrimination policy violates 1st Amendment rights to the extent that it prohibits officially recognized student groups from discriminating against prospective members on the basis of religion or sexual orientation. The Times' Dec. 16 editorial supporting CLS' case before the U.S. Supreme Court fails to grasp the implications of what a ruling in favor of the Christian group would mean.

T he U.S. Supreme Court agreed last week to referee a dispute between a University of California law school and a Christian student group that claims it's being discriminated against -- in the name of antidiscrimination. The Christian Legal Society, which requires its members to forswear sex outside heterosexual marriage, is contesting the refusal of UC Hastings College of the Law in San Francisco to afford it the privileges enjoyed by other student groups. It's tempting for believers in equality for gays and lesbians (ourselves included)

The Supreme Court agreed Monday to decide whether a Christian student group's right to religious liberty and the freedom of association can trump a university's ban on discrimination against gays and lesbians. The case could set new rules for campus groups that receive funding through fees paid by the students. The justices agreed to hear an appeal from a San Francisco chapter of the Christian Legal Society, which lost its recognition as a student group at the UC Hastings College of Law because it refused to abide by the school's anti-discrimination policy.

An unusual coalition of religious groups has asked the Supreme Court to reconsider its decision allowing states to outlaw the use of illegal drugs as a religious practice. "I seriously doubt these groups have ever been in the same room together, much less have ever joined in so important an undertaking," Oliver Thomas of the Baptist Joint Committee on Public Affairs told reporters Thursday.

Re your Jan. 21 editorial and Patt Morrison's column on Roe vs. Wade: There is no mention, let alone seeming concern, about right or wrong in either article, only "practicality" and women's rights. When this country wakes up to a concern for the common good instead of the individualism (selfishness) it has developed legally and otherwise, our society will improve. Adoption is still available and in demand for unwanted children. Nor was any mention made of this option in either article.