Except when I have to say I don't really mean it to borrow a classroom for a meeting in San Francisco.This is essentially what the Hastings Law School is requiring of the officers, directors and board members of the Christian Legal Society chapter if they want to operate on campus. Allow me to explain.
Today in a standard nondescript large sparse conference room atop a luxury office building in Washington, DC in one of the nation's premier international law firms, the Washington Chapter of the Christian Legal Society met to discuss the latest case that was granted Cert. by the Supreme Court on the issue of Freedom of Religion/Assembly/Speech concerning a religious organization.
The case
Christian Legal Society v. Martinez, brings the culture war to legal fisticuffs.
A spry slight law student named Isaac Wong who looks of some Chinese Ancestry, shyly told the crowd how, as the Chapter President of CLS, he was required by the University to sign off on the statement of non-discrimination that the San Francisco law school has regarding membership in its organization. Mr. Wong signed it with a qualifier. We don't allow people involved in sex outside "Marriage" as the State of California now defines it to be officer, directors or board members, because we think sex outside marriage is against our creed- the Apostles Creed that everyone who is a member signs to become a member. It is considered fundamental and foundational to calling one "Christian." It is eceumenical, it is approved language in the catholic, protestant and evangelical worlds and there is no discrimination with regard to the christian world for officer/director/board status. If you are rustafarian, muslim, jewish or athiest, you probably don't want to lead our group anyway. Little did the the diminutive Isaac Wong think that he was raising a firestorm at the heart of the Church-State divide dialogue. As a result of his statements to the authorities at Hastings law School, that CLS Chapter found itself persona-non-grata on campus. They were effectively expelled. Lets all meet at Starbucks instead, because the school is denying us ability to use it's space, we can't use campus listservs or bulletin boards to advertise activities, we can't set up a table or participate in the school activities fair to introduce all the 1Ls to the group and we can't say we are an official student group anymore. All because we don't let people who have intimate sexual relations with persons when they are not married lead us as officers, directors or board members. They can come to any meetings they want and participate in any events, they just can't lead us, because we don't think that is consistent with our creed.
Can a public school- in this case a State funded Law School, discriminate against organizations that discriminate against individuals in this fashion without running afoul of "free exercise" principes of the First Amendment?
Can a public school kick out the Newman Society if they don't allow non-catholics to be board members, the Hillel House if "Jews for Jesus" or catholics can't run the organization, Campus Crusade for Christ or Christian Athletic organizations if Wiccans or Athiests can't run it, or Intervarsity Christian Fellowship if Intervarsity Devils and Dragons clubs want to run it?
The Amici on this case should be as far and wide as there are religious beliefs, because no religious organization should concede to their being run out of town or off campus because they adhere to their principles- even when state funding is involved. Somehow it runs afoul of at least the principles of Title VII when the "student activities" general fund is doled out discriminatorily only to groups that allow adultery and the casual screwing around indiscriminately across sexual boundries. Call me old-fashioned.
The issue of having to sign off on a statement that you comply with the alleged oestensible non-discrimination practices of a State Agency should resonate with a recent controvery. The District of Columbia in their same sex marriage legislation kerfuffle has revolved around the fact that for Catholic Churches to get DC funding for its social services that they must similarly sign off on a generic statement that says that they comply with DC laws. They interpret this to mean that they have to give equal consideration to a same sex couple seeking to use adoption services as a male/female husband/wife couple who wishes to adopt in spite of the fact that they believe children are best served in the latter household. It is a fundamental religious belief regarding the nature of the best psychological/emotional health of families.
I thus expect that the Archdiocese of Washington, DC should be Amici in this CLS case- because it is not unforseeable that an opinion could touch on issues of states forcing statements of alleged "Non-Discrimination" that actually compel discrimination- Against the beliefs of the religious organization. Discrimination is in the eyes of the beholder.
Sororities discriminate against men in their memberships. Crew teams discriminate against the not so althletically inclined. Men's ultimate Frisbee teams discriminate against women,
Football teams discriminate against women who weight 110 lbs. They still all get student funding even in public universitites. It's just religious organizations that get the short end of the stick- as if scripture isn't inscribed in government buildings, as if God wasn't invoked at the opening of Congressional sessions by chaplains, as if the military never hired chaplain staff, as if the Creator of the "Created" wasn't on everyone's mind who signed the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence- where all men are deemed created equal----- even the ones who know the Creator exists and take it seriously.
