Should public college organizations have the right to discriminate in the name of religion?

It’s one of those murky cases where the freedom of speech and discrimination collide into one big complex mess. Should religious organizations be allowed to discriminate on public college campuses in the name of religious freedom?

The Supreme Court has agreed to take up the recent conundrum regarding the Christian Legal Society at Hastings College of Law in San Francisco. The organization has blatantly discriminated against gays and lesbians by not allowing homosexuals to become voting members or potential leaders of the group. CLS even developed a policy position stating its view of biblical principles of sexual “morality.”

According to the group’s legal brief, “A person who advocates or unrepentantly engages in sexual conduct outside marriage between a man and a woman is not considered to be living consistently with the Statement of Faith and, therefore, is not eligible.”

Officials at Hastings College did not take too well to the organization’s discriminatory practices, so they informed CLS that it would have to open its membership to all students regardless of their religion or sexual orientation. The group refused, and Hastings responded by denying CLS recognition as a student group affiliated with the college.

School official Ethan Schulman writes in a legal brief that, “No other student organization had ever refused to comply with Hastings’ non discriminatory policy and none has a membership policy like CLS’s, which explicitly prevents Hastings students from joining on the basis of their religion, sexual orientation, or any other protected status.”

CLS had filed a suit in federal court, claiming that Hastings College violated its members’ right to expressive association, free speech, free exercise of religion, and equal protection of the law. The judge upheld the college’s nondiscriminatory policy.

Rev. Barry Lynn, the executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and States says, “Public schools have ever right – indeed, an obligation – to refuse to advance religious discrimination. This case is about fundamental fairness. If the student religious group wins, it will mean some students will be compelled to support clubs through payment of required student activity fees that won’t even admit them as members. That’s just not right.”

I could not agree more with Rev. Lynn. There are certain rules and restrictions on public school campuses that students must comply with, and the freedom of speech is much more constrained on a college campus. If public funding is going toward these organizations, the clubs cannot discriminate against others based on sexual orientation, race, or religion.

To be honest, I don’t understand why anyone would want to join a group of 9-15 stuffy individuals that have set aside a schedule to sit around and judge others. How many stories are we going to come across that illustrate intolerant religious organizations. Isn’t Christianity supposed to be about peace and acceptance?

The organization would not bother me one bit if it were not publicly funded. If they want to discriminate and live a hateful lifestyle, they are free to do so on their own watch and with their own money. Hopefully the Supreme Court will feel the same way.