Supreme Court: Student group sues for right to discriminate against non-Christians, gays

A Christian student organization's lawsuit against UC-Hastings College of the Law has reached the US Supreme Court. They sue not for the right to be a recognized group, but to receive student funds while discriminating against non-Christians and gays.

In 2004, the Christian Legal Society's student chapter at UC-Hastings College of the Law requested permission to require all members to sign a Statement of Faith declaring themselves to be professing Christians and heterosexual. A letter from the college's General Counsel expressed surprise at the change, and explained that agreeing to such would violate state and federal laws:

. . . under federal and state mandates, the College is prohibited from supporting any program or activity that would violate the civil rights of any of our students. . . . If CLS wishes to form independent of Hastings we would be pleased to provide the organization the use of Hastings facilities for its meetings and activities. Unfortunately, we are precluded from utilizing student funds to fund its activities until CLS bylaws comport with the Hastings nondiscrimination compliance code.

Sounds very accommodating, no? Can't do it, federal and state laws, but you can use our facilities.

Not good enough, apparently. CLS filed a lawsuit in October of 2004.

The district court ruled in favor of the defendant, Hastings College of the Law, in April 2006. CLS appealed.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the lower court's ruling in March of 2010. CLS appealed.

Now, it is coming before the Supreme Court.

Supporters of both sides have filed amicus briefs. For the plaintiff, we see groups like the American Islamic Congress, Evangelical Scholars, the Boy Scouts of America (often sued for discrimination themselves), and the Cato Institute. In short, every group that would like to see discrimination based on religion legal has turned out in force.

For the defendant, an equally diverse group. Center for Inquiry; the ACLU; Associated Students of the University of California, Hastings College of the Law; Society of American Law Teachers; American Bar Association; National School Boards Association; and others not normally focused on issues of separation of church and state.

Kim Colby, CLS's senior counsel, warns of dire consequences should the Supreme Court uphold the lower courts' rulings:

If the state can apply a non-discrimination policy to prevent religious groups from being able to choose...leaders who agree with their religious beliefs, or else be branded discriminators, the state could start withholding benefits.

Benefits like tax-exempt status, Colby commented.

I wonder . . . How much of the massive hole in the US budget could be filled by removing religious organizations' tax-exempt status?  Greece is experimenting with that . . .