Beliefnet
Lynn v. Sekulow

Jay,
 

Like
Supreme Court Justices Alito, Scalia, Roberts and Thomas, you have
characterized this case all wrong. You write that the majority’s decision is
flawed because it has denied the Christian Legal Society (CLS) its fundamental right
to religious freedom and freedom of speech. You said that CLS and other student
groups at Hastings College of the Law should be able to “define their own
mission, select their own leaders, and determine their own membership
criteria.”

To
be clear, this case was never about whether student groups that discriminate
can exist. Of course they can. But if they want to exercise their right to
discriminate, they cannot turn around and expect to be funded by a public
university that has a clear policy against subsidizing bias. The question
presented in this case wasn’t whether groups like CLS can exist, but whether
they can demand public funding while still discriminating. The court’s majority
said absolutely not.

As
Justice Stevens wrote in his concurring opinion, “[G]roups may exclude or
mistreat Jews, blacks, and women – or those who do not share their contempt for
Jews, blacks, and women. A free society must tolerate such groups. It need not
subsidize them, give them its official imprimatur, or grant them equal access
to law school facilities.”

He
couldn’t be more right.


To subscribe to “Lynn v. Sekulow” click here.

 

Join the Discussion
comments powered by Disqus