(no subject)
Jun. 29th, 2010 03:23 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
snowdarkredJustices 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.
