I fully respect a group's right to choose who they admit... to an extent. Discriminating against certain groups, however, crosses the line. The Christian Legal Society most certainly has the right to choose who joins without providing a reason, but stating in a very direct manner that those who are "sexually immoral" based on the "teachings" of a "book" without any proof the events/people ever existed is asinine.
I believe the Supreme Court acted correctly. Hastings shouldn't be required to sponsor a group that violates its rules. The group can still assemble and hold meetings and do everything they've always done, but they are not entitled to sponsorship by the college.
I agree with Cameron for the most part, I think that although the group has the right to allow who they want and who they don't want, they shouldn't be able to not except gays or blacks or people with defects. Everyone should have the opportunity to join the group regardless of their sexuality. But that is how life works out and the group does have the right to say no.
I agree with the two posts from above. I respect the right to choose whom becomes a member and who doesn't as long as it is not a type of discrimination directed at a specific group of people. The Christian Legal Society has openly targeted gays as people that they would not allow to become members. They'll allow gays to attend the meetings but not join. This type of discrimination is the same that was suffered by women, Blacks, Jewish, etc. That's as degrading as making a gay person sit on the back of the bus, or use a seperate bathroom, based on the grounds that their private behavior is deemed 'sexually immoral'.
The Supreme Court acted accordingly, the Christian Legal Society does not follow the guidelines set forth by the college and I do not see a problem with Hastings not acknowledging the CLS or supporting them.
I fully respect a group's right to choose who they admit... to an extent. Discriminating against certain groups, however, crosses the line. The Christian Legal Society most certainly has the right to choose who joins without providing a reason, but stating in a very direct manner that those who are "sexually immoral" based on the "teachings" of a "book" without any proof the events/people ever existed is asinine.
ReplyDeleteI believe the Supreme Court acted correctly. Hastings shouldn't be required to sponsor a group that violates its rules. The group can still assemble and hold meetings and do everything they've always done, but they are not entitled to sponsorship by the college.
I agree with Cameron for the most part, I think that although the group has the right to allow who they want and who they don't want, they shouldn't be able to not except gays or blacks or people with defects. Everyone should have the opportunity to join the group regardless of their sexuality. But that is how life works out and the group does have the right to say no.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the two posts from above. I respect the right to choose whom becomes a member and who doesn't as long as it is not a type of discrimination directed at a specific group of people. The Christian Legal Society has openly targeted gays as people that they would not allow to become members. They'll allow gays to attend the meetings but not join. This type of discrimination is the same that was suffered by women, Blacks, Jewish, etc. That's as degrading as making a gay person sit on the back of the bus, or use a seperate bathroom, based on the grounds that their private behavior is deemed 'sexually immoral'.
ReplyDeleteThe Supreme Court acted accordingly, the Christian Legal Society does not follow the guidelines set forth by the college and I do not see a problem with Hastings not acknowledging the CLS or supporting them.