Is the Homosexual Agenda Fascistic?

As they pursue their agenda, the homosexual lobby attempts to frame itself as advancing fundamental freedoms. They liken themselves to civil rights advocates that came before – those that pursued greater freedom and fundamental rights for racial minorities and for women. To the degree that they can do this, they find great sympathy amongst the American electorate who are ever interested in advancing such freedoms as indicated by our 200+ year history.

But the question has to be asked, does the homosexual agenda actually advance freedom? Two recent events suggest the opposite.

The first takes place in my home state of Minnesota at the Twin Cities ‘Pride’ festival in Minneapolis’ Loring Park, which is a yearly gay celebration event. For the past ten years, Brian Johnson has passed out Bibles at the event, partly in protest of the event. He was even allowed to have a vendor booth there – until last year. This year he sought to continue to pass out Bibles and literature in the public park during the event – and the event organizers then sought a restraining order to keep him from doing so. A US District Court Judge then ruled in favor of the protestor and he was allowed to express himself at this public venue.

In attempting to restrict the rights of Brian Johnson, the Gay Pride Event organizers were actually being consistent with the effects of laws in place elsewhere that presumably protect homosexual rights, as has been noted before on this blog. Already in certain places in Europe one can be arrested for expressing criticism of the homosexual lifestyle or homosexual behavior. This demonstrates how, unlike other civil rights groups, the homosexual lobby seeks not only to prevent obvious discrimination, but they also want require acceptance of their behaviors, affirmation of their lifestyles, and a state sanction of their point of view. As much as this is true they seek to limit the religious and free expression rights of other. But in a recent Supreme Court decision they go even farther.

Yesterday the Supreme Court ruled along these lines in Christian Legal Society v. Martinez, a case where a Christian student group was uniquely denied recognition at a University of California’s Hastings College of the Law. They were denied access because they failed to comply with the college’s view of homosexuality by not allowing those who advocated a, “sexually immoral lifestyle” from having membership in the organization. Notice that the criteria made no specific mention of homosexuality or sexual orientation – merely that the choice of advocating certain lifestyles deemed immoral by their Christian faith (which would include adultery and sex outside of marriage) was contrary to the purposes of the organization.

It is notable that certain Christian beliefs would be contrary to the tenets of a gay advocacy group as well, and for such a group to exclude Christians who didn’t agree with the purpose would be exactly the same. Just as avowed Republicans could be excluded from a student Democrat group, or an avowed capitalist from the Young Communist League. Diversity on campus derives not from forcing every group to admit members who oppose the primary purpose of a group, but from allowing all sorts of groups to advocate on behalf of their own beliefs and interests. Forcing a Jewish organization to accept Neo-Nazi’s or a feminist group to be taken over by men is not to enhance ‘diversity’ but to subdue the messages and purposes of those groups. In the same way the policy of Hasting’s Law College abrogates the fundamental rights of CLS to express and advocate on behalf of a particular point of view – which incidentally is exactly the precedent held by previous Supreme Court rulings like Hurley v. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual Group of Boston and Boy Scouts of America v. Dale. Both these decisions affirmed the right to association and its importance in preserving our 1st amendment rights.

In a matter of a few years we have gone from recognizing this freedom to completely rescinding it with CLS v Martinez. The primary reason we have done so is because of the influence of the homosexual lobby and its political agenda, which is consistently antagonistic to the rights of others. In fact, other than Islam, the most repressive force in Western societies is political correctness which is consists in large part of advancing the gay agenda. As Justice Alito brilliantly observes:

I do not think it is an exaggeration to say that today’s decision is a serious setback for freedom of expression in this country. Our First Amendment reflects a “profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open.” New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U. S. 254, 270 (1964). Even if the United States is the only Nation that shares this commitment to the same extent, I would not change our law to conform to the international norm. I fear that the Court’s decision marks a turn in that direction. Even those who find CLS’s views objectionable should be concerned about the way the group has been treated—by Hastings, the Court of Appeals, and now this Court. I can only hope that this decision will turn out to be an aberration.

This decision will only be an aberration to the degree that the American electorate rejects the homosexual agenda – otherwise we can expect that our rights will continue to be reduced in the name of political correctness.

Advertisements

17 Responses to Is the Homosexual Agenda Fascistic?

  1. […] gets it wrong again Posted on June 29, 2010 by Michael Hawkins In another bigoted tired, Jack Hudson has said some genuinely stupid things. Specifically, he’s talks about the recent Supreme Court ruling against a bigoted Christian […]

  2. jackhudson says:

    The usual strawman filled response above:

    This is all about making fine distinctions, something Jack and most Christians are unable to do, so I understand why he would make the mistakes he does.

    Really, a billion Christians in the world constituting of a multitude of lawyers, judges, law makers, and policy implementers, and they are unable to make ‘fine distinctions’? Typical unproven and stereotypical claim, which itself lacks fine distinction.

    This recent ruling was based upon Hasting Law school’s policy of non-discrimination. That policy said every group must allow everyone to join up if it wants funding and other school-based benefits. Jack points out that this could result in the message of any group being subdued by a bunch of individuals hostile to a particular group’s message joining up. This is true, it could. But that isn’t relevant. The Supreme Court wasn’t ruling on the effectiveness of Hasting Law’s policy, but whether it was constitutional or not.

    Which begs the question – if the policy denies a group the ability to express it’s point of view (which you admit), it is obviously unconstitutional.

    Jack next points out that the school’s policy prevents the Christian group from expressing its views. This is blatantly false. The group can express its views all it wants, wherever it wants, for however long it wants. It just can’t get funding.

    I never made that point, that is something you either read into the post are merely making up. I said the policy denied the group recognition – and thus they were unfairly treated in comparison to other groups on that campus with respect to their free association rights.

    Finally, Jack points to two cases where the Supreme Court held that groups could exclude members who held contrary views. Again, with the lack of distinctions. Both of those cases dealt with private organizations. This recent case deals with forcing a public school to offer special treatment to a religious group. In other words, the conclusion of the first two cases is that the KKK can exclude black people all it wants. The conclusion of this recent case is that bigoted groups are allowed to organize, but a public institution is under no obligation to offer it funding or other benefits.

    In the case of Hurley the court dealt with a public entity (the city Boston) dealing with a private entity (The South Boston Allied War Veterans Council) in terms of whether they would be allowed permits to parade in public despite the fact that they refused to allow a homosexual group to parade with them. The SC ruled they did not; this precedent is direcly applicable to the CLS case. So as usual, this author is wrong about the facts, the law, and precedent.

  3. Before I bother to respond, I am testing to see if my post will even show up.

  4. “Your comment is awaiting moderation.”

    As I thought.

  5. jackhudson says:

    and…

    I am not surprised that Jack can’t understand a simple directive: if you discriminate, no government funding.

    First off no one asked for ‘government funding’; student fees are fees paid by all students as a means of supporting the ability of various groups to function on campus – the whole point of doing this is to give students exposure to a wide variety of organizations and viewpoints. The Hasting’s policy denies this fundamental purpose, as well as the constitutional right to free association.

  6. jackhudson says:

    For anyone interested, Jack has responded with a weird, directly indirect sort of post that is addressed in the second person to me, but to which I am unable to respond since he has me banned from his site.

    Seems odd this response would appear here then.

  7. Lies don’t work when you don’t take both posts out of moderation quickly enough. And when I take a screen shot. Feel free to edit as needed.

    As far as your response goes, feel free to post on FTSOS. I quite honestly won’t hold it against you that you once said you no longer wish to post there. You clearly still read it and sometimes even make responses here (sometimes ones only I’d get).

    But back to the response. Each number matches to each of the paragraphs in your response (minus the very first sentence which contains the link back to FTSOS).

    1) You responded to rhetoric. Good job.

    2) What I admitted is that the school’s policy might make for some crappy groups should a few bad apples wish to take advantage of them. And if AT&T is seen as the primary cell phone provider of radical Muslims, that might make for a crappy looking cell phone company. But that doesn’t mean AT&T can exclude radical Muslims from its services.

    3) You did say the policy denied the group the right to express its views: …the policy of Hasting’s Law College abrogates the fundamental rights of CLS to express and advocate on behalf of a particular point of view…

    3a) The group can get together, get funds, get recognized. Just like every other group. It just can’t say black people or white people or gay people or hairy people or any particular people are not allowed to join or gain leadership roles.

    4) Hastings is a public school lending its official public support to a group. The government and its agencies and institutions are not required – nor allowed – to offer support to particular religious groups over others or in special ways. In this case, the CLS wanted special support. This is distinct from the other cases which involved private groups.

  8. jackhudson says:

    Lies don’t work when you don’t take both posts out of moderation quickly enough. And when I take a screen shot. Feel free to edit as needed.

    Actually, I moderate your posts Michael because of your penchant to threaten others and invite freakish associates to do the same, but you are not in fact currently banned. You confusion is not me being dishonest.

    As far as your response goes, feel free to post on FTSOS. I quite honestly won’t hold it against you that you once said you no longer wish to post there. You clearly still read it and sometimes even make responses here (sometimes ones only I’d get).

    Well, unlike some, I have integrity – I said I wouldn’t post there and I won’t. As you obsessively post about me by name, post here uninvited on a regular basis, make inane and easily disputable points, I occasionally respond. Unlike you though, I usually have something else to do with my time.

    But back to the response. Each number matches to each of the paragraphs in your response (minus the very first sentence which contains the link back to FTSOS).

    1) You responded to rhetoric. Good Job.

    What else is there of yours to respond to, fact and logic averse as you are?

    2) What I admitted is that the school’s policy might make for some crappy groups should a few bad apples wish to take advantage of them. And if AT&T is seen as the primary cell phone provider of radical Muslims, that might make for a crappy looking cell phone company. But that doesn’t mean AT&T can exclude radical Muslims from its services.

    That has to be the most inane analogy I have ever seen. AT&T isn’t group devoted to advocating a particular point of view. If the radical Muslim group wanted to take over a women’s rights advocacy organization so they could advocate the wearing of burqas, don’t you think the women’s rights group should have some say in that?

    3) You did say the policy denied the group the right to express its views: …the policy of Hasting’s Law College abrogates the fundamental rights of CLS to express and advocate on behalf of a particular point of view…

    They are not allowed to advance their views equally in the same manner as other groups, who can leverage campus facilities. Their views are being repressed in this regard.

    3a) The group can get together, get funds, get recognized. Just like every other group. It just can’t say black people or white people or gay people or hairy people or any particular people are not allowed to join or gain leadership roles.

    They don’t say that any sorts of people can’t be part of their group. They say people who advocate a particular lifestyle can’t be members of their group. That isn’t discrimination against persons, it’s discrimination against a viewpoint, which is the whole point of having an advocacy group. In the same way a Democrat student group might deny the membership by Republicans, since it would defeat the purpose of the group. It’s a rather simple point.

    4) Hastings is a public school lending its official public support to a group. The government and its agencies and institutions are not required – nor allowed – to offer support to particular religious groups over others or in special ways. In this case, the CLS wanted special support. This is distinct from the other cases which involved private groups.

    No, they wanted the same support every other student group is offered, with money that they themselves help provide. It’s not different than the city of Boston giving permits and street access in Hurley

  9. That has to be the most inane analogy I have ever seen. AT&T isn’t group devoted to advocating a particular point of view. If the radical Muslim group wanted to take over a women’s rights advocacy organization so they could advocate the wearing of burqas, don’t you think the women’s rights group should have some say in that?

    That a group doesn’t like the consequences of being a group does not mean it may do whatever it therefore pleases.

    Unlike the school sponsored CLS, a women’s group as you describe would be private. Furthermore, there’s the distinction of equal application of Hastings’ policy.

    They are not allowed to advance their views equally in the same manner as other groups, who can leverage campus facilities. Their views are being repressed in this regard.

    No, they are specifically allowed to advance their views equally with other groups. All groups must allow all member to join and be able to gain leadership and other positions.

    They don’t say that any sorts of people can’t be part of their group. They say people who advocate a particular lifestyle can’t be members of their group. That isn’t discrimination against persons, it’s discrimination against a viewpoint, which is the whole point of having an advocacy group. In the same way a Democrat student group might deny the membership by Republicans, since it would defeat the purpose of the group. It’s a rather simple point.

    They say gay people cannot be part of their group. That is discrimination against a group of people under the school’s policy, even if you want to try and tie up this conversation by implying that homosexuality is a choice.

    According to this school’s policy, Democrats and Republicans can join each others groups.

    No discrimination means no discrimination. Again, the effectiveness of the groups the school allows is not the question on which the Supreme Court ruled. It actually actively rejected that argument.

    No, they wanted the same support every other student group is offered, with money that they themselves help provide.

    The “same support” means support contingent upon agreement with the school’s policy. Every other group seems to have been able to hold to their agreement.

    It’s not different than the city of Boston giving permits and street access in Hurley

    The city of Boston is required to allow free assembly and protest. So is Hastings. But Boston is not required to fund and support the activities of the people and groups it allows to assemble and protest. Neither is Hastings.

  10. jackhudson says:

    That a group doesn’t like the consequences of being a group does not mean it may do whatever it therefore pleases.

    Begs the question. The consequences are what are in question here, try to keep up.

    Unlike the school sponsored CLS, a women’s group as you describe would be private. Furthermore, there’s the distinction of equal application of Hastings’ policy.

    Again, you are a little slow on the take here, I will spell it out for you – in question here is a campus organization representing women’s rights. Not a private group, and fully subject to the College’s idiotic rules – in your view they would be forced to let such people control their organization if sufficient numbers joined. That advances bigotry, it doesn’t eliminate it.

    No, they are specifically allowed to advance their views equally with other groups. All groups must allow all member to join and be able to gain leadership and other positions.

    Obviously, if they are required to have members that contradict their views, then their ability to advocate for such views is hindered. Again, you can’t seem to comprehend this simple point. In fact you have all but conceded it.

    They say gay people cannot be part of their group. That is discrimination against a group of people under the school’s policy, even if you want to try and tie up this conversation by implying that homosexuality is a choice.

    Wrong again – their policy was specific and detailed in the court decision if you had actually read it:

    “in view of the clear dictates of Scripture, unrepentant participation in or advocacy of a sexually immoral lifestyle is inconsistent with an affirmation of the Statement of Faith, and consequently may be regarded by CLS as disqualifying such an individual from CLS membership.”

    It concerned what some advocated and participated in, not what supposed protected class they were part of.

    According to this school’s policy, Democrats and Republicans can join each others groups.

    That was not required when CLS was rejected. In fact a number of groups had exclusionary policies.

    No discrimination means no discrimination. Again, the effectiveness of the groups the school allows is not the question on which the Supreme Court ruled. It actually actively rejected that argument.

    It didn’t reject that argument; did you even read the decision Michel or are you making it up?

    The “same support” means support contingent upon agreement with the school’s policy. Every other group seems to have been able to hold to their agreement.
    No other group was rejected even if their policies didn’t comply. Justice Alito pointed that out, something you would have read if you looked at the decision.

    The city of Boston is required to allow free assembly and protest. So is Hastings. But Boston is not required to fund and support the activities of the people and groups it allows to assemble and protest. Neither is Hastings.

    Seriously is it that hard to get this? Both are public organizations that can make determinations about whether to allow a group to express itself in a venue which the governing body has jurisdiction over. The ruling in Hurley directly contradicted the ruling in CLS.

  11. You folks all sound like attorneys and are complicating what should be obvious. Personally I could care less what two consenting , adults do in their privacy. With this said, I don’t want a homosexual teaching elementary or middle.school age children which they can easily be indoctrinated into accepting to believe the lies that a homosexual lifestyle is normal and that they are born this ways. It is a life style choice. Our social engineers have been using the public school system for a very long time in their attempt too indoctrinate our children from an early age. You eliminate GOD, break up the family, and make everything acceptable under the guise of tolerance and “Political Correct” Nonsense,and than you can get the types of leaders that we have today, Hate crime legislations,is another example of this nonsense. By having a law saying that Jews, blacks and homosexuals, lives are more valuable than everyone’s elses, We already have plenty of laws already in place to address all crimes, why make one law who’s only purpose is to create division and pit Americans against one another.While making it about religion and one’s moral beliefs,skin color, and life style choices. The author of the article, is correct with his analysis. Today’s politicians don’t do anything for the good of the country they only do what is good for them,and “political correct” nonsense, is just one of the many tools they use for their purpose to keep us fighting. You can also add the hyphenated American to the list.

  12. Begs the question. The consequences are what are in question here, try to keep up.

    It sounds like you’re lost because “begging the question” has no discernible relation to what has been said. Again, that an AT&T or church or soup kitchen or school doesn’t like that maybe blacks or gays or people who have dirty, dirty, filthy sex will join their group does not mean that they get to do just whatever they please. Even libertarianism doesn’t stretch that far.

    Again, you are a little slow on the take here, I will spell it out for you – in question here is a campus organization representing women’s rights. Not a private group, and fully subject to the College’s idiotic rules – in your view they would be forced to let such people control their organization if sufficient numbers joined. That advances bigotry, it doesn’t eliminate it.

    My analogy was about a private organization because you spoke a policy denying “a group the ability to express it’s (sic) point of view”. I was making a distinction – just as I did in my original post – between private and public organizations. In other words, this specific point was always about private organizations – hence the use of AT&T. The fact that you’re now suddenly declaring that you meant the women’s group to be a campus group is an indication that you’ve gotten completely lost.

    The point also only made sense in light of the women’s group being assumed as private because part of the distinction I’m making is that the two court cases you cited dealt with private organizations whereas this one does not.

    As far as undermining the purpose of the women’s group (assuming, as you now suddenly claim, it is a campus group), the Supreme Court has only ruled that all students be given an equal opportunity to join and move up and around in leadership positions. It puts no requirement on the members of said groups to actually put any particular people in charge.

    Obviously, if they are required to have members that contradict their views, then their ability to advocate for such views is hindered. Again, you can’t seem to comprehend this simple point. In fact you have all but conceded it.

    If I can’t comprehend the point, then I can’t very well concede it.

    But I do comprehend it. It isn’t an important one within the narrow scope of the ruling. In fact, part of the case has been remanded to a lower court to be sure the all-comers policy was being implemented fairly. If it was selectively used, then the group’s rights were infringed upon.

    Take off the libertarian glasses. That isn’t the appropriate way to interpret this case.

    Wrong again – their policy was specific and detailed in the court decision if you had actually read it:

    in view of the clear dictates of Scripture, unrepentant participation in or advocacy of a sexually immoral lifestyle is inconsistent with an affirmation of the Statement of Faith, and consequently may be regarded by CLS as disqualifying such an individual from CLS membership.

    It concerned what some advocated and participated in, not what supposed protected class they were part of.

    You’re confused.

    I said according to the school’s policy (not the group’s), they are excluding a particular group. That the Christian group believes homosexuality to be a choice and a lifestyle, just as you implied, is irrelevant. According the the school, they’ve excluded a group.

    But this isn’t even important. The school’s policy prevents them from excluding anyone for any reason. Just as it does for every other group.

    That was not required when CLS was rejected. In fact a number of groups had exclusionary policies.

    If the policy was selectively implemented, then the group had its rights infringed. But the Supreme Court made its ruling on whether or not the policy itself violated the First Amendment, not on how the school actually implemented it. That’s for the lower court to decide.

    It didn’t reject that argument; did you even read the decision Michel or are you making it up?

    The lawyers for the CLS argued that a ruling against them would undermine the effectiveness of school groups. The Supreme Court rejected this argument, saying that the school is under no obligation to allow students to create effective groups. It only must apply its policies fairly and uniformly, should it so choose to allow anything at all.

    No other group was rejected even if their policies didn’t comply. Justice Alito pointed that out, something you would have read if you looked at the decision.

    Again, that’s an issue for the lower court. Whatever the outcome of that finding, the Supreme Court ruling states that in order to get the “same support” as all other groups, the CLS must abide by the same rules. It isn’t so unreasonable.

    Seriously is it that hard to get this? Both are public organizations that can make determinations about whether to allow a group to express itself in a venue which the governing body has jurisdiction over. The ruling in Hurley directly contradicted the ruling in CLS.

    Cities have certain requirements they must constitutionally follow in regards to allowing groups the right to public expression and free speech. Hastings is under the same obligations, but it is not under any obligation to support and fund student groups. Or do you think the city of Boston is required to support the Democratic or Republican parties? Or Christian groups? Or atheist groups?

    Of course, if they city wanted to fund any and all groups under a certain set of rules, it could do that. And in that case, it could mandate that in order to be part of its program, groups must adhere to certain rules.

    But to be sure – Hastings is supplying the funds for the groups, groups which do not exist independently of Hastings. Boston is not supplying the funds and the groups are not dependent upon the city.

    Distinctions, distinctions.

  13. jackhudson says:

    It sounds like you’re lost because “begging the question” has no discernible relation to what has been said. Again, that an AT&T or church or soup kitchen or school doesn’t like that maybe blacks or gays or people who have dirty, dirty, filthy sex will join their group does not mean that they get to do just whatever they please. Even libertarianism doesn’t stretch that far. .

    Begs the question in that ‘not liking the consequences’ is irrelevant insomuch as the consequences are what is being constitutionally considered. Whether or not one likes the consequences are irrelevant – the question is whether consequences which deny rights should be allowed. And comparing blacks and gays actually highlights how the claims of discrimination differ; blacks (and women, etc) aren’t discriminated because of a particular thing they do, but because of who they inherently are – CLS was concerned with a particular activity (immorality which could apply to any person) not excluding a particular group.

    My analogy was about a private organization because you spoke a policy denying “a group the ability to express it’s (sic) point of view”. I was making a distinction – just as I did in my original post – between private and public organizations. In other words, this specific point was always about private organizations – hence the use of AT&T. The fact that you’re now suddenly declaring that you meant the women’s group to be a campus group is an indication that you’ve gotten completely lost.

    The point also only made sense in light of the women’s group being assumed as private because part of the distinction I’m making is that the two court cases you cited dealt with private organizations whereas this one does not.

    As far as undermining the purpose of the women’s group (assuming, as you now suddenly claim, it is a campus group), the Supreme Court has only ruled that all students be given an equal opportunity to join and move up and around in leadership positions. It puts no requirement on the members of said groups to actually put any particular people in charge. .

    The case in question here deals with campus groups. Obviously a private organization isn’t required to give all comers membership, this goes without saying, which is why I didn’t say it. But I am sorry for assuming that you could follow this.

    And you are wrong – if a sufficient number of students of a certain sort joined the organization, they could elect whomever they wanted to leadership, and as a result control the message of that organization and undermine the entire purpose of that organization denying their rights to expression and association. Thus, under Hasting’s rules, a group of racist white kids at some southern university could take over a black rights advocacy group and completely undermine it. And you appear to be fine with that.

    If I can’t comprehend the point, then I can’t very well concede it. .

    But I do comprehend it. It isn’t an important one within the narrow scope of the ruling. In fact, part of the case has been remanded to a lower court to be sure the all-comers policy was being implemented fairly. If it was selectively used, then the group’s rights were infringed upon.

    Take off the libertarian glasses. That isn’t the appropriate way to interpret this case.

    First off I am not a libertarian. In fact you are much more of a libertarian than I am. Second off you seem to glom onto a certain terminology and distort it beyond all recognition. There are no pure ideological or political positions in American politics so unless a group or individual claims to be ‘X ‘, calling them ‘X’ and acting like it is itself is an argument is fallacious.

    And I agree the court ruling was quite narrow – but that doesn’t change the fact that the school’s policy as it stands allows the ability for antagonistic person’s to undermine a groups point of view.

    You’re confused.

    I said according to the school’s policy (not the group’s), they are excluding a particular group. That the Christian group believes homosexuality to be a choice and a lifestyle, just as you implied, is irrelevant. According the the school, they’ve excluded a group.

    But this isn’t even important. The school’s policy prevents them from excluding anyone for any reason. Just as it does for every other group..

    Actually, it doesn’t prevent them from excluding anyone for any reason. Like most such policies, it simply applies in terms of certain protected classes of people. Where the recognition of orientation is particularly pernicious in this regard is that it makes an action (immorality) equal to a particular class of people. And this is why (returning to my original point) the gay agenda is antagonistic to free expression. It basically attempts to frame a statement, “What you are doing is wrong” itself an act of discrimination. This isn’t true of any other recognized protected class.

    If the policy was selectively implemented, then the group had its rights infringed. But the Supreme Court made its ruling on whether or not the policy itself violated the First Amendment, not on how the school actually implemented it. That’s for the lower court to decide.

    As Alito pointed out, the court really gave no framework to consider that question.

    The lawyers for the CLS argued that a ruling against them would undermine the effectiveness of school groups. The Supreme Court rejected this argument, saying that the school is under no obligation to allow students to create effective groups. It only must apply its policies fairly and uniformly, should it so choose to allow anything at all.

    Again, I don’t think they ‘rejected’ this argument at all – in fact, they side-stepped it, as Alito noted. In effect they avoided addressing the most important issue in the case.

    Again, that’s an issue for the lower court. Whatever the outcome of that finding, the Supreme Court ruling states that in order to get the “same support” as all other groups, the CLS must abide by the same rules. It isn’t so unreasonable.

    It is insomuch as it undermines freedom of association – which it certainly does.

    Cities have certain requirements they must constitutionally follow in regards to allowing groups the right to public expression and free speech. Hastings is under the same obligations, but it is not under any obligation to support and fund student groups. Or do you think the city of Boston is required to support the Democratic or Republican parties? Or Christian groups? Or atheist groups? .

    Of course, if they city wanted to fund any and all groups under a certain set of rules, it could do that. And in that case, it could mandate that in order to be part of its program, groups must adhere to certain rules.

    But to be sure – Hastings is supplying the funds for the groups, groups which do not exist independently of Hastings. Boston is not supplying the funds and the groups are not dependent upon the city.

    Distinctions, distinctions.

    The question here really isn’t funding; in fact many colleges do not fund religious or political organizations at all from student fees because it is a conscience offense. It’s about access – and true freedom requires that various points of view be allowed access to public spaces to express their points of view without being subjected to burdensome rules and regulations.

  14. Begs the question in that ‘not liking the consequences’ is irrelevant insomuch as the consequences are what is being constitutionally considered. Whether or not one likes the consequences are irrelevant – the question is whether consequences which deny rights should be allowed. And comparing blacks and gays actually highlights how the claims of discrimination differ; blacks (and women, etc) aren’t discriminated because of a particular thing they do, but because of who they inherently are – CLS was concerned with a particular activity (immorality which could apply to any person) not excluding a particular group.

    You’re so confused about what “consequences” references here.

    There are limitations to what groups can do, who they can refuse, and how they can use public funds. Those are some consequences of being a group. If one group doesn’t like that, tough. Is this point really that difficult to grasp?

    The case in question here deals with campus groups. Obviously a private organization isn’t required to give all comers membership, this goes without saying, which is why I didn’t say it. But I am sorry for assuming that you could follow this.

    Since you’re so often actively dishonest (like with the post you’ve left in moderation because you don’t like what it says – even though you claim there is no ban of any sort going on here), I have a challenge for you. Trace the conversation back. I’ve already pointed out how you never mentioned the women’s group was a school group, how my analogy was with a private organization, how my original post was distinguishing between private and public groups, and how I was further distinguishing between private and public groups since the two cases you mentioned deal with private organizations and this case does not. But hey, I’m just using detailed facts. So go ahead. Do your own trace.

    And you are wrong – if a sufficient number of students of a certain sort joined the organization, they could elect whomever they wanted to leadership, and as a result control the message of that organization and undermine the entire purpose of that organization denying their rights to expression and association. Thus, under Hasting’s rules, a group of racist white kids at some southern university could take over a black rights advocacy group and completely undermine it. And you appear to be fine with that.

    Until there is a law which requires Hastings to allow students to form groups in the first place, yes, that is legally fine.

    First off I am not a libertarian. In fact you are much more of a libertarian than I am. Second off you seem to glom onto a certain terminology and distort it beyond all recognition. There are no pure ideological or political positions in American politics so unless a group or individual claims to be ‘X ‘, calling them ‘X’ and acting like it is itself is an argument is fallacious.

    My views are a proud combination of utilitarian, egalitarian, and libertarian, the latter being more superficial than anything. On the other hand, you reflect the convenient libertarian ideals of the Teabaggers you continuously defend.

    And I agree the court ruling was quite narrow – but that doesn’t change the fact that the school’s policy as it stands allows the ability for antagonistic person’s to undermine a groups point of view.

    Is the school required to allow groups?

    Actually, it doesn’t prevent them from excluding anyone for any reason. Like most such policies, it simply applies in terms of certain protected classes of people. Where the recognition of orientation is particularly pernicious in this regard is that it makes an action (immorality) equal to a particular class of people. And this is why (returning to my original point) the gay agenda is antagonistic to free expression. It basically attempts to frame a statement, “What you are doing is wrong” itself an act of discrimination. This isn’t true of any other recognized protected class.

    All students must be allowed an equal chance to join any group.

    Again, I don’t think they ‘rejected’ this argument at all – in fact, they side-stepped it, as Alito noted. In effect they avoided addressing the most important issue in the case.

    The Court recognized that the school is not required to allow groups. If does allow them, it is not then required to let them do anything specific.

    It is insomuch as it undermines freedom of association – which it certainly does.

    The school is not required to create groups intended to increase freedom of association or any such thing.

    The question here really isn’t funding; in fact many colleges do not fund religious or political organizations at all from student fees because it is a conscience offense. It’s about access – and true freedom requires that various points of view be allowed access to public spaces to express their points of view without being subjected to burdensome rules and regulations.

    I’m not sure what “true freedom” is. In fact, do you? Did your God define it explicitly? If not, you can’t even pretend to objectively know what it means.

    But it still remains that Boston isn’t required to set up the special ability to create groups which it then must fund. Neither is Hastings.

  15. jackhudson says:

    You’re so confused about what “consequences” references here.

    There are limitations to what groups can do, who they can refuse, and how they can use public funds. Those are some consequences of being a group. If one group doesn’t like that, tough. Is this point really that difficult to grasp?

    As the LA Times pointed out, and I agree, the fact that such a policy actually reduces diversity on campus and unfairly singles out a particular point of view is a significant consequence, one that is antagonistic to the constitutional principles of free expression and association. You and five justices seem to be the only ones not to see this.

    Since you’re so often actively dishonest (like with the post you’ve left in moderation because you don’t like what it says – even though you claim there is no ban of any sort going on here), I have a challenge for you. Trace the conversation back. I’ve already pointed out how you never mentioned the women’s group was a school group, how my analogy was with a private organization, how my original post was distinguishing between private and public groups, and how I was further distinguishing between private and public groups since the two cases you mentioned deal with private organizations and this case does not. But hey, I’m just using detailed facts. So go ahead. Do your own trace.

    You seem to confuse banning with moderation Michael. If you were banned, you wouldn’t be here.

    I have no wish to reduce discussions here down to an infantile series of ad homs. If you don’t want to have a grown-up conversation, feel free to return to the daycare you run. You and Bob can re-affirm each other. The fact is if I believed you were capable of writing two sentences without personally attacking someone or veering off topic, I wouldn’t have to waste my limited time moderating your posts. But you have yet to demonstrate any such maturity or civility.

    As far as ‘tracing’ anything, you are simply avoiding the question – I was clear in what I meant, so try again. Wouldn’t the effect of allowing people (like radical male Muslims) to join and take over a group (like a women’s rights group) be antagnostic to that groups free expression?

    Until there Is a law which requires Hastings to allow students to form groups in the first place, yes, that is legally fine.

    Constitutionally Hastings can’t stop students from forming groups. The question is equal access.

    My views are a proud combination of utilitarian, egalitarian, and libertarian, the latter being more superficial than anything. On the other hand, you reflect the convenient libertarian ideals of the Teabaggers you continuously defend.

    Politically I am a moral, social, and economic conservative of the Edmund Burke variety, and have been long before there was a Tea Party. Long before you stopped wearing diapers. Before that I was a Marxist, and didn’t confuse my ideologies in a mish-mash of inherent contradictions. Plus, what happened to socialist? That’s what you were what – two hours ago?

    Is the school required to allow groups?

    Yes, of course.

    All students must be allowed an equal chance to join any group.

    Not if doing so is antogonistic to the free expression and association rights of those who created the group to begin with.

    The Court recognized that the school is not required to allow groups. If does allow them, it is not then required to let them do anything specific.

    They did no such thing. The school is not required to officially recognize groups, provided the criteria for non-recognition are applied equally – but as Alito pointed out, they weren’t.

    It is insomuch as it undermines freedom of association – which it certainly does.

    The school is not required to create groups intended to increase freedom of association or any such thing.

    I’m not sure what “true freedom” is. In fact, do you? Did your God define it explicitly? If not, you can’t even pretend to objectively know what it means.

    True freedom as defined by the Bill of Rights is what I had in mind; keep your shorts on.

    But it still remains that Boston isn’t required to set up the special ability to create groups which it then must fund. Neither is Hastings.

    Again, its not just about funds. It shouldn’t be able to treat any group unequally – and the effect of this policy was to discriminate against a particular group with a particular point of view.

  16. As the LA Times pointed out, and I agree, the fact that such a policy actually reduces diversity on campus and unfairly singles out a particular point of view is a significant consequence, one that is antagonistic to the constitutional principles of free expression and association. You and five justices seem to be the only ones not to see this.

    No. You aren’t understanding the point. I’m not talking about the consequences of Hastings’ policy here. I’m saying there are certain facts that come with being a group. Those facts vary depending on the context, but for, say, becoming a non-profit group, there is the consequence that the group can’t be working for profit. If a non-profit group doesn’t like this consequence, that does not mean they get to just ignore it.

    If you respond with the same line you’ve been throwing down, I’m going to be forced to just ignore it because you aren’t even on topic.

    As far as ‘tracing’ anything, you are simply avoiding the question – I was clear in what I meant, so try again.

    Where did you declare this group to be a campus group? At what point in my trace did I make an error? Just admit you made a mistake, Jack. It really isn’t that hard and no one is going to shove it in your face. If anything, I’d be able to respect you a little more.

    Wouldn’t the effect of allowing people (like radical male Muslims) to join and take over a group (like a women’s rights group) be antagnostic to that groups free expression?

    You could have said mainstream Muslim or Christian men or women, too.

    The language is getting dicey now. Allowing anyone to join any group does have the potential to undermine the purpose of the group. I think most anyone will admit that. But then if the question turns to free expression it first becomes necessary to ask if free expression was even promised in the first place. In the case of the Boy Scouts, it was. In this case, Hastings doesn’t have to promise or provide anything. That means as a matter of policy for any and all private groups, allowing anyone to join any group is antagonistic to free expression. But as a matter of policy concerning an entity entirely made up by Hastings, free expression cannot be assumed.

    Constitutionally Hastings can’t stop students from forming groups. The question is equal access.

    It can stop students from forming Hastings Student Groups (or whatever specific name it has for its group program). The school has the choice to endorse groups. There is no law which says it must endorse groups.

    In other words, you’re talking about groups of students, or people who form groups and happen to be students. The Supreme Court, Hastings, and I are talking about student groups, or groups created specifically through Hastings.

    Long before you stopped wearing diapers.

    You being old seems irrelevant.

    Yes, of course [the school is required to allow groups].

    You’re confused again. As I said two responses up within this post, Hastings is not required to create its own program for the support of groups. That is different from allowing citizens to form groups while also attending Hastings.

    Not if doing so is antogonistic to the free expression and association rights of those who created the group to begin with.

    I made a factual descriptive claim about the school’s policy. I know you can’t actually be disagreeing that the policy says all students must be allowed to join all groups.

    But, again, there is no free expression to be assumed when Hastings is creating its own programs. If the school wants to start a football program but make it so all athletes can join no matter what sport they want to play, it can do that. It wouldn’t be very good for football fans when they showed up to a basketball game, but that doesn’t mean the ineffectiveness of its sports program requires Hastings to make any changes to it. Perhaps they should. But they aren’t required.

    They did no such thing. The school is not required to officially recognize groups, provided the criteria for non-recognition are applied equally – but as Alito pointed out, they weren’t.

    Now you get it. So we agree. Hastings is not required to create a program for groups, but insofar as it does, it cannot infringe upon free expression rights. If it did infringe upon such rights, it needs to retool the implementation of its program.

    As for Alito, so what? The point is the policy itself, not whether it was abused. That’s for a lower court to decide. Abuse of programs is not a constitutional issue in this context.

    True freedom as defined by the Bill of Rights is what I had in mind; keep your shorts on.

    And where is this definition?

    Again, its not just about funds. It shouldn’t be able to treat any group unequally – and the effect of this policy was to discriminate against a particular group with a particular point of view.

    1) This is about whether or not Hastings must allow groups it funds the same rights as enjoyed by private groups, such as the Boy Scouts. Since no school anywhere is required by law to create a program so students can form groups, what policies it sets forth are largely up to it.

    2) The implementation of the policy is a separate and distinct question.

  17. […] have written previously about repressive tendencies of the secular left with regard to the gay rights agenda. Because the arguments of the secular left are generally based emotion and desire for power rather […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: