An Unnoticed But Serious Supreme Court Ruling

In late June the U.S. Supreme Court made a ruling that will have a far-reaching, future impact on various religious clubs in academic settings. In a 5-4 majority the high court ruled that a Christian student group must accept gays and non-Christians as members if it wants to be officially recognized by a public university.

The case involved the University of California’s Hastings College of Law and the campus chapter of the Christian Legal Society. The law school has a non-discrimination policy that requires registered student organizations to accept any student as a member or potential leader. The Christian Legal Society forbids non-Christians and gays from leadership positions. The organization argued that if it followed the school’s policy, a student who doesn’t profess Christ, or believe in the Bible could lead its Christian Bible studies. It should be noted that registered student groups receive a small amount of funding from the school, which is funded by public tax dollars. Hint: the group should refuse any funds connected to taxpayers!

In her story on the ruling, reporter Adelle Banks notes that Justice Samuel Alito’s “harshly worded” dissent questioned the majority opinion, “saying it upholds a principle of no freedom of expression that offends prevailing standards of political correctness in our country’s institutions of higher learning." Banks continues, “He said the decision, which he hoped would be an ‘aberration,’ would be a ‘serious setback for freedom of expression this country: There are religious groups that cannot in good conscience agree in their bylaws that they will admit persons who do not share their faith, and for these groups, the consequence of an accept-all-comers policy is marginalization.'"

Nathan Diament, Public Policy Director for the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America said the ruling is deeply troubling to those who value religious freedom: Today the Supreme Court’s majority has given state universities a green light and a roadmap to condition a religious group’s right on the state’s preferred beliefs.

Play this thing out and conceivably we could see churches and other non-profit organizations (civic and service clubs) being challenged on their membership policies and practices. Don’t believe me? Who would’ve ever thought a Christian organization on a university campus would be ordered by the highest court in the land to allow people who totally disagree with its purpose, nature and membership policies to join its membership?

Using the majority ruling’s logic, it would appear that it would be okay to approve a Supreme Court justice nominee who does not believe in the U.S. Constitution because shared beliefs in the ideals of an organization are not necessary for membership. Perhaps we’ve already, uh never mind better not go there! It would appear that tolerance should trump the purpose, nature, or beliefs of any organization. There are lots of organizations that discriminate in our country by the very nature of their organizational design, charters, bylaws, or statements of practice and belief. For example, what if a man wanted to join the Junior League, or the National Organization of Women in his city? How about a conservative Republican wanting to join the local Democratic Party? What if a person of Hispanic descent and member of Congress wanted to join the Congressional Black Caucus? You get the idea. This is not only absurd it is extreme. Think about it.

I have no respect for, or interest in the extreme ideals and beliefs proposed by the neo-Nazi movement. However, according to the First Amendment they have the right to assemble and meet. Why would I want to be part of something whose ideology I strongly oppose? I don’t need to join their ranks to prove a point. Nor do I need to challenge their beliefs in a court of law if they are not disobeying the law. I simply choose to be part of legal organizations, movements, and enterprises whose beliefs and values I can support and share. If I didn’t know better I would say there is a national agenda of conformity and mandated acceptance underway. Tolerance is one thing, but mandated universal acceptance of a particular belief for the sake of promoting one group at the exclusion of another is a dangerous slope!