In this country, we are constitutionally entitled to speak and to associate as we like. But the Supreme Court ruled this week that our First Amendment rights do not entitle us to receive a government subsidy to pay for our free speech and association activities.
The lawsuit arose when the Christian Legal Society of the Hastings College of Law, a public law school in San Francisco, announced that it was not going to allow gay students to join its organization. The group insisted, however, that despite its exclusionary policy, it was still entitled to receive the kind of recognition and financial support that the law school provides to other student groups.
A few years ago, the Supreme Court held that the Boy Scouts could not be forced to retain an openly gay scout master because the private organization had a constitutional right to decide who could join its ranks. But in this week's case, the Court properly recognized that Hastings was not requiring the Christian Legal Society to admit individuals whom it wanted to exclude. The Christian group is constitutionally entitled to set its membership rules as it pleases. But it is not entitled to expect a government subsidy in return.
There will be some who will argue that the Court, in its 5-4 decision, is trampling on the rights of religious organizations. But imagine for a moment that a White Supremacist group, whose views were based on religious doctrine, claimed not only that it had the right to exclude African Americans, but that the government was also constitutionally required to pay for some of its activities if it does so for other groups. Most reasonable people would disagree with this organization's legal position. That conclusion should not change simply because the reason for the exclusionary policy is the sexual orientation, as opposed to the race, of potential members.
The Christian Legal Society argued throughout the litigation that it was not barring openly gay law students because of their sexual orientation but because those students engage in sexual conduct that the group believes is morally wrong. In other cases, however, the Court has rejected similar efforts to distinguish between discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation on the one hand and sexual conduct on the other. For example, a few years ago, when the Court struck down Texas's sodomy law, it rejected the government's argument that the law was permissible because it targeted "conduct" rather than "status." To criminalize gay sexual conduct, the Court ruled, was to discriminate against gay people.
This case highlights the tension between two deeply-held American values. As a nation, we cherish the freedom of individuals to believe what they want and to associate with those who hold similar views. At the same time, as our Constitution makes clear, we aspire to live in a society in which the government does not, directly or indirectly, discriminate against individuals because of who they are. It is not always easy to strike the proper balance between these two values. But this is what the Supreme Court did this week when it ruled that, while the government cannot prohibit a religious organization from having whatever beliefs it wants, that organization is not entitled to government subsidies when those beliefs are inconsistent with basic antidiscrimination principles.
John W. Whitehead: Doing Away with the Right to Be Different: The Assault on Religious Freedom
While the cultural landscape has changed greatly since the founding of the country, one thing must not: America should still stand for freedom and pluralism. What this demands is an equal voice for all viewpoints.
On the other hand by presenting false information, with the intent to malign, targeting a religious group,is in fact religious discrimination.
Liberals are only tolerant if you think the same way they do. But if you have a differing opinion there is no room for tolerance in the party of tolerance.
However, I take exception to the broad brush stroke of Liberals. I think there's confusion regarding tolerance and acceptance of bigotry. I think in general, Liberals are tolerant of many different lifestyles. You can be whatever you want to be, you just can't prevent other people from being who they want to be. We don't want to outlaw religion, we just don't want religion to tell us who we are or what we can do.
You might as well quote from mother goose, and with better results.
Same thing for military service. Let gay Americans volunteer for something that, if shortly after joining they find out they may absolutely hate, they don't have a "magic get out free" card to cash in.
In other words you want to cram your moral values down their throat with utter disregard for the 1st Amendment. This is the very essence of Prop 8 in CA. There are currently 13 court cases in the US where same-gender couples are trying to force religious institutions to perform marriages against their religious beliefs.
Also, I don't think most couples care about forcing religious institutions to perform marriages so much as they want the Government to recognize their right to marry. Seperation or Church and State and all...
Personally I don't understand the need to have something that is solely a legal status/lisence granted and maintained by the US governement, "blessed".
Oh and please post at least one of those cases you refer to.
In the meantime, don't look to me to applaud. They're jumping a very low bar, here. I honestly believe that today, after having been stacked with Rabid Right Bush appointees, Lawrence v. Texas would have gone the other way. Of the six majority Justices, Souter and O'Connor have retired, to be replaced by Sotomayor and Alito, and Stevens is retiring, to be replaced by that wishy-washy kinda-sorta-not-quite-progressive Kagan.
What's scary is that centre-right Kagan, who believes in the Imperial Presidency and big Government restricting free speech and dissent, is the so-called "best-case" successor to Steves. She can't hope to fill even a quarter of his shoes, and the sorry fact that a Democrat has nominated her simply illustrates the ongoing rightward tilt of US politics and law. Most tellingly, that corporate who-re, Mary Landrieu, supports Kagan. That alone should illustrate the truth: she's a crypto-Republican in DLC clothing, just like Landrieu.
My church only takes in what the members of my church give, you are not subsidizing anything if you do not belong to my church. Plus my church welcomes everyone. It doesn't matter who you are.
We do not promote hatred and you are welcome any time you choose to come join us at The First Baptist Church in Salado, Texas.
God is love.