A federal appeals court has ruled against Christian groups who challenged a nondiscrimination policy at California state universities...
The groups, which are restricted to Christian members, argued the policy violated their religious freedom.
The appeals court disagreed but said there was concern about whether the policy is evenly applied to all groups. The case was sent back to a lower court to decide that issue.
This is why student clubs should be self-supporting and should not be funded by mandatory fees.
4 comments:
I think if they're going to be funded by mandatory fees, that everyone should be able to participate. Though I am not sure who gets to judge who is a "Christian" and who is not... maybe that's me picking at it a bit because sometimes it's obvious. But sometimes it's simply a doctrinal difference. :)
Various caucuses in Congress exclude people. I wonder if the case would be better argued under the freedom of association right than religious freedom.
How will this affect the various campus groups intended specifically for minorities, women, etc? Sometimes things are best left alone.
Whoops. There go all those Greek organizations including the gender preference and ethnicity specific ones.
The parallel question is why on earth would a non-Christian want to attend a Christian club? Now those groups attempting to proselytize might allow them to attend. I know as a Conservative I wouldn't attend any of the Liberal meetings, and wouldn't expect them to want me there. I agree with you - you can be a club with "membership restrictions" but you get no funds from the fee structure.
Post a Comment