Comments on: Supreme Court makes two pro-LGBT rulings

By: How will Supreme Court rule on marriage? - Washington Blade - America's Leading Gay News Source : Washington Blade – America's Leading Gay News Source

Wed, 03 Apr 2013 16:07:24 +0000

[...] Blade also looked at the court ruling in the 2010 case of Christian Legal Society v. Martinez. In that case, the court upheld the Hastings College of Law’s non-discrimination policy against a [...]

By: customartist

customartist — Thu, 08 Jul 2010 12:36:00 +0000

Hmmmm? I wonder how much “Gay activity” that those holding anti-gay positions would be willing or able to contend with if they insist in attending and/or participating in pro-Gay meetings and events?

We shall see…

By: Leigh Anne

Leigh Anne — Tue, 29 Jun 2010 17:27:18 +0000

In Christian Legal Society v. Martinez. There are two issues: recognition and funding. Dollars and cents.

SCOTUS missed the boat! They could have simply separated funding from official recognition, and required official recognition of organizations coming from all viewpoints, preserving their distinctiveness.

When Ginsburg wrote that current policy “ensures that no Hastings student is forced to fund a group that would reject her as a member,” she made mud out of ALL current policies surrounding Student Activity Fees nationwide, and it will take many years to clear this up, in the courts.

If I were on a college Board of Trustees, I’d vote to drop activities fees entirely, rather than try to punch my way out of this bag — in lawsuit after lawsuit.

By: Doctor Whom

Doctor Whom — Tue, 29 Jun 2010 14:59:39 +0000

Rick:

I made a similar point about this case in April here:

http://heterodoxhomosexual.blogspot.com/2010/04/christian-legal-society-v-martinez.html

By: Rick Sincere

Rick Sincere — Mon, 28 Jun 2010 20:59:19 +0000

Ironically, the Supreme Court’s ruling in CLS v. Martinez means that gay groups will have to accept as members people who hold an anti-gay point of view.

In fact, Outlaw, the gay organization at the Hastings School of Law, has a rule that restricts membership to students who affirm its pro-gay rights point of view. (This rule is in violation of Hastings’ “take all comers” policy.) What will Outlaw do when it faces an influx of potential members who disagree with its mission and message?

The 1991 Supreme Court ruling in the Hurley case, which permitted an Irish group to ban gay marchers from its St. Patrick’s Day parade, has since been used as protection by gay groups whose events were threatened with infiltration by anti-gay preachers and ex-gay proselytizers.

The opposite will be the case with today’s ruling.

CLS v. Martinez will, I’m afraid, be used to undermine the integrity of gay and lesbian organizations by the forces of viewpoint homogenization. CLS v. Martinez is not a “pro-gay” ruling at all, unless you think that gay people should not be able to have freedom of expressive association.