(no subject)
Jun. 29th, 2010 03:23 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
Justices Rule Against Group That Excludes Gay Students
Personally, I'm happy with the ruling. Schools have policies that say that in order be recognized and have the protections and benefits of that relationship, the club has to be inclusionary - which is to say, if a student is not unruly or disruptive/violent, they have to able to freely join.
In my opinion, religious clubs have no business receiving official recognition anyway. Religious clubs are, by definition, exclusionary. It's not a sport, where you have to qualify in some way in order to play, it's a group of people who share a religion (This also includes atheist clubs, since they are about religion as well - the lack of one.) This isn't to say that all religious groups should be banned; merely, they shouldn't receive federal money.
Those that argue that this ruling is somehow against the first amendment - free speech and religion and all that good stuff - well, it's not. It doesn't, anywhere in it, say that they are limiting the groups' right to reject certain members on a certain basis - merely that they can't use federal money and the university name while doing it.
Personally, I'm happy with the ruling. Schools have policies that say that in order be recognized and have the protections and benefits of that relationship, the club has to be inclusionary - which is to say, if a student is not unruly or disruptive/violent, they have to able to freely join.
In my opinion, religious clubs have no business receiving official recognition anyway. Religious clubs are, by definition, exclusionary. It's not a sport, where you have to qualify in some way in order to play, it's a group of people who share a religion (This also includes atheist clubs, since they are about religion as well - the lack of one.) This isn't to say that all religious groups should be banned; merely, they shouldn't receive federal money.
Those that argue that this ruling is somehow against the first amendment - free speech and religion and all that good stuff - well, it's not. It doesn't, anywhere in it, say that they are limiting the groups' right to reject certain members on a certain basis - merely that they can't use federal money and the university name while doing it.
no subject
Date: 2010-06-29 08:35 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-06-29 09:10 pm (UTC)As for gay clubs, if they aren't allowing straight students to join, then no, they shouldn't. I'm not talking about, in any case, letting hecklers or whatever in. There should be rules about polite discourse, and if anyone breaks those, their out no matter who they are, but if you're going to be getting public funds, it ought to be open for everyone. If they want to exclude people, they could simply move off-campus or something.
I don't think that religious groups will ever be out here. It's too ingrained - and it's fine to be religious. I just don't support religion and government rubbing elbows any more than is very strictly necessary.