A Place of Safety
I expect simple behaviours here. Friendship, and love.
Any advice should be from the perspective of the person asking, not the person giving!
We have had to make new membership moderated to combat the huge number of spammers who register
















You are here: Home > Forum > A Place of Safety > General Talk > Gay equality standards under attack
icon13.gif Gay equality standards under attack  [message #62013] Mon, 19 April 2010 22:06 Go to next message
chrisjames147 is currently offline  chrisjames147

Really getting into it
Location: U.S.
Registered: November 2009
Messages: 630



I suppose I am not surprised that a Christian group is at it again, it seems that they are in more than the religion business after all.

If an institution sets a standard that says discrimination is not allowed how do they accept a religious organization that is all about discrimination by their very Christian belief?

In this instance the standards do not allow student groups that discriminate based upon sexual orientation or religious belief to be recognized as a valid student group. Should one trump the other?

Now this issue has reached the Supreme Court and we will see just what the religious beliefs of the justices mean to their decision. Shall we ask those appointed to these positions if they are Christians and ban them if they believe in the Bible?

The retoric in this article worries me, the Jesus freaks are trying to take over and seem to be getting closer to doing just that.>Sad

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100419/ap_on_go_su_co/us_supreme_court_campus_christians



Age appears to be best in four things; old wood best to burn, old wine to drink, old friends to trust, and old authors to read. (Sir Francis Bacon 1561-1626)
Re: Gay equality standards under attack  [message #62016 is a reply to message #62013] Mon, 19 April 2010 23:20 Go to previous messageGo to next message
CallMePaul is currently offline  CallMePaul

Really getting into it
Location: U.S.A.
Registered: April 2007
Messages: 907



Some of the comments are worth reading. Such as this one:

>It should be a Christian objective to be all inclusive. Hypocrites however, choose to profess Christianity and act unChristian, from the Pope down. Grow up and think as Jesus would.



Youth crisis hot-line 866-488-7386, 24 hr (U.S.A.)
There are people who want to help you cope with being you.
Re: Gay equality standards under attack  [message #62034 is a reply to message #62013] Tue, 20 April 2010 13:11 Go to previous messageGo to next message
saben is currently offline  saben

On fire!

Registered: May 2003
Messages: 1537



I think the law school should have the right, under the First Amendment, to discriminate against any club or group on campus as it wishes.

If campus societies want funding and the ability to use campus facilities, then they should have to abide by campus rules.

If the group wants to meet off campus, organise themselves, fund themselves, advertise themselves then they should be able to do as they like.

But the law school in this case is the property owner and it is THEIR free speech and free association that needs protecting, even as a public school it needs to autonomy to approve or not approve campus clubs as it chooses.



Look at this tree. I cannot make it blossom when it suits me nor make it bear fruit before its time [...] No matter what you do, that seed will grow to be a peach tree. You may wish for an apple or an orange, but you will get a peach.
Master Oogway
Re: Gay equality standards under attack  [message #62046 is a reply to message #62034] Wed, 21 April 2010 07:59 Go to previous messageGo to next message
acam is currently offline  acam

On fire!
Location: UK
Registered: July 2007
Messages: 1849



So would you support a law school that excluded black people, Saben?

Surely, some discrimination should be unacceptable and eschewed by civilised societies?

As a person who has been discriminated against, I feel quite strongly that some people's freedoms have to be curtailed to preserve other people's freedoms.

The question is "Which?" - and I think you chose to draw the line in the wrong place.

Love,
Anthony
Re: Gay equality standards under attack  [message #62047 is a reply to message #62046] Wed, 21 April 2010 08:17 Go to previous messageGo to next message
saben is currently offline  saben

On fire!

Registered: May 2003
Messages: 1537



I'd boycott a school that didn't allow black people- as most would- the idea is abhorrent in a civilised society. I'm sure the school would quickly go out of business.

But I don't think there is a reason to legislate against such a thing.

Do you think there should be a law against all-female gyms?

How is a law school denying entry to black people limiting their freedom? Entitlement is not freedom, it is entitlement.



Look at this tree. I cannot make it blossom when it suits me nor make it bear fruit before its time [...] No matter what you do, that seed will grow to be a peach tree. You may wish for an apple or an orange, but you will get a peach.
Master Oogway
Re: Gay equality standards under attack  [message #62048 is a reply to message #62047] Wed, 21 April 2010 10:25 Go to previous messageGo to next message
acam is currently offline  acam

On fire!
Location: UK
Registered: July 2007
Messages: 1849



Well you are applying today's standards.

Not so long ago discrimination against black people would have been the norm in South Africa and many parts of the USA - or against Maoris in Oz. It has only become unacceptable because it was outlawed.

Same goes for slavery.

You aren't allowed to have an all white bus. Why do you think you should be allowed to have an all-straight church?

Love,
Anthony
Re: Gay equality standards under attack  [message #62050 is a reply to message #62048] Wed, 21 April 2010 15:04 Go to previous messageGo to next message
saben is currently offline  saben

On fire!

Registered: May 2003
Messages: 1537



In South Africa's case it wasn't the case that you were allowed to have a white-only bus, it's that you HAD to have white-only buses. Governments have been the worst perpetrators in cases of human rights abuse, why do you expect governments to protect against rights?

Governments are slow to react to social change, they are reactive not catalysts. Your examples, in most cases, are examples of government abuse. So I'm not sure how laws will help. All they'll do is legislate a particular moral code into law, making it hard to change in the future.

And slavery is not at all comparable. Slavery is an infringement on the freedom of slaves. Having an exclusive club is not infringing on the freedom of those not invited to the club.



Look at this tree. I cannot make it blossom when it suits me nor make it bear fruit before its time [...] No matter what you do, that seed will grow to be a peach tree. You may wish for an apple or an orange, but you will get a peach.
Master Oogway
Re: Gay equality standards under attack  [message #62052 is a reply to message #62013] Wed, 21 April 2010 18:55 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Brody Levesque is currently offline  Brody Levesque

Really getting into it
Location: US/Canada
Registered: September 2009
Messages: 733



Monday, April 19, 2010
Brody's Notes... U.S. Supreme Court Splits On Campus Christian Argument

By Brody Levesque (Washington DC) Apr 19 | In a what appeared to be a highly divided session of the nation's High Court today, Associated Press Supreme Court correspondent Jesse Holland wrote after arguments were heard that the Supreme Court seemed to split sharply on whether a law school can deny recognition to a Christian student group that won't let gays join, a case that could determine whether nondiscrimination policies trump the rights of private organizations to determine who can — and cannot — belong.

In arguments tinged with questions of religious, racial and sexual discrimination, the court heard from the Christian Legal Society, which wants recognition from the University of California's Hastings College of the Law as an official campus organization with school financing and benefits.

The case poses a quandary for a court that has recognized both the ability of public universities and schools to control the use of their facilities and funds and the right of religious groups to select members based on their beliefs. It comes as religious groups have become more active and litigious in demanding a place in the public forum of free speech.

In an article published in Sunday's Washington Post, Post Legal Correspondent Robert Barnes reported:
Christian groups have brought suits against similar policies across the country, from the University of Florida to Boise State University. "In every case . . . either the courts have ruled for the religious student group or the university has settled or mooted the case by revoking its unconstitutional policy," the Christian Legal Society brief asserts.

The controversy also raises questions about who needs protection. CLS lawyer Michael W. McConnell, a former federal judge and director of the Stanford Constitutional Law Center, likens the underdog status of Christian groups at liberal law schools such as Hastings to the way gay rights groups might have felt on a Southern campus years ago.

"One of the things I find kind of pleasantly ironic about the briefing in this case is we find ourselves relying on about a dozen cases that involve gay rights groups in universities," said McConnell, who was appointed as an appellate judge by President George W. Bush. The other side, he said, relies on decisions and legislative acts that helped Bible clubs.

The Christian group requires that voting members sign a statement of faith. The group also regards "unrepentant participation in or advocacy of a sexually immoral lifestyle" as being inconsistent with the statement of faith. Hastings, located in San Francisco, turned them down, saying no recognized campus groups may exclude people due to religious belief or sexual orientation.
Holland reports that in today's court session that Justice Antonin Scalia remarked:

"It is so weird to require the campus Republican Club to admit Democrats, not just to membership, but to officership. To require this Christian society to allow atheists not just to join, but to conduct Bible classes, right? That's crazy."

Other justices questioned where a ruling for the Christian group would lead.

"Are you suggesting that if a group wanted to exclude all black people, all women, all handicapped persons, whatever other form of discrimination a group wants to practice, that a school has to accept that group and recognize it, give it funds and otherwise lend it space?" asked Justice Sonia Sotomayor.

No, McConnell said. "The stipulation is that they may not exclude based on status or beliefs. We have only challenged the beliefs, not status. Race, any other status basis, Hastings is able to enforce."

"What if the belief is that African Americans are inferior?"Justice John Paul Stevens said.

"Again, I think they can discriminate on the basis of belief, but not on the basis of status," McConnell said.

The UC Hastings Law School's attorney Gregory Garre pointed out that it requires the same thing from all groups that want to operate on campus. Garre, who was the solicitor general for the Bush administration, pointed out that the Court ruled earlier that the Bob Jones University in South Carolina could not ban students who believed in interracial dating and still receive federal funds.

"Here we have a group that wants to exclude members on the basis of sexual orientation," he said.

Chief Justice John Roberts said that was only Garre's interpretation.

"It's a religious-oriented group that wants to exclude people who do not subscribe to their religious beliefs," he said.

Justice Samuel Alito questioned whether Hastings has allowed other groups to exist on campus that did not allow all comers to join. But Garre pointed out that the Christian Legal Society had stipulated in the lower courts that Hastings did have an all-comers policy, and that registered student organizations must accept all law students as voting members regardless of status or belief.

If they didn't believe it was true, "they shouldn't have stipulated" to that fact, Garre said.
Alito asked Garre what the practical effects of Hastings' policy will be for groups.

"Say there is a small Muslim group; it has 10 students. If the group is required to accept anybody who applies for membership, and 50 students who hate Muslims show up and they want to take over that group, you say First Amendment allows that?" Alito said.

Garre said that has never happened to a group.

"CLS obviously thinks this is a real threat," Alito said. "Now, what do you propose that they do?"

Garre said the members who are now outnumbered can leave the group.

"If hostile members take over, former members of CLS can form CLS 2?" Alito asked skeptically.

"The Christian group could require knowledge of the Bible to join, Garre said. "There is a fundamental difference between excluding people on the basis of merit and excluding people on the basis of status or belief that has no connection to merit," he said.

The Christian Legal Society has chapters at universities nationwide and has sued other universities on the same grounds. It won at Southern Illinois University, when the university settled with the group in 2007 and recognized its membership and leadership policies.
A federal judge in Montana said in May 2009 that the University of Montana law school did not discriminate against the Christian Legal Society when it refused to give the group Student Bar Association money because of its policies.
The case before the Supreme Court is Christian Legal Society v. Martinez, 08-1371- a ruling could come as early as June according to court observers after today's arguments.


U. S. Supreme Court Photo By Brody Levesque
Re: Gay equality standards under attack  [message #62056 is a reply to message #62050] Thu, 22 April 2010 08:17 Go to previous messageGo to next message
acam is currently offline  acam

On fire!
Location: UK
Registered: July 2007
Messages: 1849



I don't expect governments to protect human rights, but I'll do my best to presuade them to do that - one reason for not supporting the labour or conservative parties in the current election.

But I wasn't arguing in favour of governments in general but in favour of laws which protect the freedoms of some people (I think they need protecting) against the freedoms of other people who would misuse their powers if allowed.

I'm arguing about a particular law which prohibits discrimination.

And, of course the right way for the organisations who don't want to allow homosexual people in to act is to welcome them and be nice to them until those of us with any sense want to escape from the hypocrisy.

But I still think the law we started talking about is a good law - if I had my way there would be no barrier in the way of a homosexual woman becoming pope.

Love,
Anthony
Re: Gay equality standards under attack  [message #62057 is a reply to message #62056] Thu, 22 April 2010 11:28 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Brody Levesque is currently offline  Brody Levesque

Really getting into it
Location: US/Canada
Registered: September 2009
Messages: 733



ACAM Wrote>...if I had my way there would be no barrier in the way of a homosexual woman becoming pope.

I believe the correct & preferred term of use is 'Lesbian'
icon5.gif Re: Gay equality standards under attack  [message #62058 is a reply to message #62057] Thu, 22 April 2010 11:46 Go to previous messageGo to next message
timmy

Has no life at all
Location: UK, in Devon
Registered: February 2003
Messages: 13739



Why should the girls get all the best names? Technically 'homosexual woman' is correct.



Author of Queer Me! Halfway Between Flying and Crying - the true story of life for a gay boy in the Swinging Sixties in a British all male Public School
Re: Gay equality standards under attack  [message #62059 is a reply to message #62056] Thu, 22 April 2010 13:54 Go to previous messageGo to next message
JFR is currently offline  JFR

On fire!
Location: Israel
Registered: October 2004
Messages: 1367



acam wrote:
if I had my way there would be no barrier in the way of a homosexual woman becoming pope.

Anthony, I think you mean to refer to a lesbian.

Would it be fair for you, an irreligious freethinker, to have your way with the church of believers? Or, for that matter, for me, a non-Christian to interfere?

I think the most (and the best) we can (and should) do is to state our views (and perhaps suggestions) in no uncertain terms. I, for one, would not like to see a lesbian as pope, because I think the world would be better off if there were no bishop of Rome.

J F R

(Nigel, I know there are too many ellipses in my message. I can live with it.)



The paradox has often been noted that the United States, founded in secularism, is now the most religiose country in Christendom, while England, with an established church headed by its constitutional monarch, is among the least. (Richard Dawkins, 2006)
Re: Gay equality standards under attack  [message #62060 is a reply to message #62056] Thu, 22 April 2010 15:29 Go to previous messageGo to next message
saben is currently offline  saben

On fire!

Registered: May 2003
Messages: 1537



What about a white president of an aboriginal tribe? Or ATSIC (http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/41033/20060106-0000/ATSIC/default.html)?

Or a male member of a female gym?

Or a straight manager of a gay bar?

Or someone with an IQ of 75 as president of Mensa?



Look at this tree. I cannot make it blossom when it suits me nor make it bear fruit before its time [...] No matter what you do, that seed will grow to be a peach tree. You may wish for an apple or an orange, but you will get a peach.
Master Oogway
Re: Gay equality standards under attack  [message #62061 is a reply to message #62059] Thu, 22 April 2010 16:28 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Nigel is currently offline  Nigel

On fire!
Location: England
Registered: November 2003
Messages: 1756



JFR wrote:
>(Nigel, I know there are too many ellipses in my message. I can live with it.)<

Once you know the rules, you are able to use your mature judgement to break them. What actually worries me are the people who who break them out of ignorance.

However, did you really mean ellipses… ?

Hugs
Nigel



I dream of boys with big bulges in their trousers,
Never of girls with big bulges in their blouses.

…and look forward to meeting you in Cóito.
Re: Gay equality standards under attack  [message #62063 is a reply to message #62056] Thu, 22 April 2010 20:25 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Macky is currently offline  Macky

Really getting into it
Location: USA
Registered: November 2008
Messages: 973



Well Anthony,

I'm no canon lawyer, but I do not believe that there is any rule in the church that would make a lady pope or a homosexual an impossibility. You've likely heard of pope Joan;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Joan

And of course there have been lots of gay popes.

http://queerhistory.blogspot.com/2010/03/gay-popes-embarrassing-death-of-paul-ii.html

I think anyone the cardinals elect, can be pope. Peter was definitely not a cardinal...so that can't be a requirement. As a matter of fact the first pope was a Jew. Hell, I wonder if the Jews would take the church over. I think that, were it not for the so called 'Apostle' Paul, Peter would have had us all obeying all the Jewish rules. I think Jesus was out to found another sect of Judaism, but Paul messed it up and created a whole new enchilada.

Max



Behold, how good and how pleasant it is
For brothers to dwell together in unity!
Ps 133:1 NASB
Re: Gay equality standards under attack  [message #62068 is a reply to message #62063] Fri, 23 April 2010 03:18 Go to previous messageGo to next message
JFR is currently offline  JFR

On fire!
Location: Israel
Registered: October 2004
Messages: 1367



Max,

I cannot argue with you because I am sure that as a Catholic you know more about church law than I ever shall. But, how can a woman become Bishop of Rome (i.e. Pope) if the priesthood is limited to Catholics who have penises?

BTW, the late archbishop of Paris (Lustiger, I think) was a proud Jew and never hid the facts of his ethnic origins.

As for Paul, I think you are right. Saul of Tarsus was the greatest propagandist the Jewish people ever produced. (Pace, Karl Marx.) Paul was one of the very few examples we have in world history of how one man can change the world for ever. (Not always for the better.)

J F R



The paradox has often been noted that the United States, founded in secularism, is now the most religiose country in Christendom, while England, with an established church headed by its constitutional monarch, is among the least. (Richard Dawkins, 2006)
Re: Gay equality standards under attack  [message #62069 is a reply to message #62061] Fri, 23 April 2010 03:24 Go to previous messageGo to next message
JFR is currently offline  JFR

On fire!
Location: Israel
Registered: October 2004
Messages: 1367



I was parenthetically challenged! Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa!

Hugs you right back, old friend.

J F R



The paradox has often been noted that the United States, founded in secularism, is now the most religiose country in Christendom, while England, with an established church headed by its constitutional monarch, is among the least. (Richard Dawkins, 2006)
Re: Gay equality standards under attack  [message #62070 is a reply to message #62034] Fri, 23 April 2010 04:33 Go to previous messageGo to next message
yusime is currently offline  yusime

Likes it here
Location: United States
Registered: April 2008
Messages: 195



Your saying that gay men have a right to set quotas on the number or ban non-gay (not necessarily straight) men who can join a specific organization that uses public land and resources. Do I have the basis for your argument correct?

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2011657770_lawsuit21m.html



He who joyfully marches in rank and file has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake since for him a spinal cord would suffice. Albert Einstein
Re: Gay equality standards under attack  [message #62077 is a reply to message #62059] Fri, 23 April 2010 08:33 Go to previous messageGo to next message
acam is currently offline  acam

On fire!
Location: UK
Registered: July 2007
Messages: 1849



You are right, JFR, that it wouldn't be fair. Nor was my remark entirely serious. Please take it as a rhetorical flourish.

I agree with you that it would be better if there were no 'bishop of rome' or maybe even no Roman Catholic church.

It's interesting that both you and Brody seem to think alternative descriptions ('homosexual woman') are somehow improper.

I think such semi-formal phrases carry less baggage than the commoner vernacular names such as dyke. I was avoiding the overtones of a phrase such as 'dyke pope'. Why I can't tell you. I wonder at myself sometimes.

Love,
Anthony
Re: Gay equality standards under attack  [message #62078 is a reply to message #62070] Fri, 23 April 2010 08:47 Go to previous messageGo to next message
saben is currently offline  saben

On fire!

Registered: May 2003
Messages: 1537



I am saying that private organisations should have the right to set quotas and restrict membership. A government body, on the other hand, should not discriminate.

It gets messier when you have a publicly funded institution. Generally I think public funding should be based on non-discrimination law. I'm against churches receiving public funding or tax-exempt status for this reason. I do think that discriminatory organisations should be able to use public venues that levy fees, however.

The Gay Softball World Series is complicated. I think the rules of the group are fine. However I'm not sure whether the group receives public funding or pays for the use of the ballparks. If it does not, then I am on their side. If it does receive public support, then I think that should be withdrawn if they continue to discriminate.



Look at this tree. I cannot make it blossom when it suits me nor make it bear fruit before its time [...] No matter what you do, that seed will grow to be a peach tree. You may wish for an apple or an orange, but you will get a peach.
Master Oogway
Re: Gay equality standards under attack  [message #62104 is a reply to message #62078] Sat, 24 April 2010 04:11 Go to previous message
ray2x is currently offline  ray2x

Really getting into it
Location: USA
Registered: April 2009
Messages: 429



The University of California is quite a power player in free speech. California Berkeley practically invented free speech. Every campus has a dedicated site for free speech events. If a gay man wanted to lead a bible study group on a UC campus, that would be fine and if a christian man wanted to lead a gay group, fine too. I would certainly hope the Supreme Court Justices choose wisely.



Raymundo
Previous Topic: TO BE GAY=DEATH Message To Remain On Fence
Next Topic: I finally emailed my father
Goto Forum: