Recently the Highest court in the United States ruled against a Christian organization by upholding the University of California's Hastings College of Law's policy regarding groups officially recognized by the school requiring them to adhere to their "all-comers" policy. The Christian Legal Society's membership requirements essentially exclude non-Christians, and practicing homosexuals from becoming voting members or holding positions of leadership within the CLS.
Such a ruling, the CLS claims, violates their First amendment right to freedom of assembly and religious expression. I agree. I believe it is essential for any group or club in order to exist it must be free to maintain it's ideal purity but admitting only those who hold to the club's ideals, and refusing admission to those opposed to their mission. This does not just hold for Christian groups, but any "specialized" group.
Hastings College of Law's policy taken to it's logical end would require a group to admit to membership and leadership people whose values and agenda is contrary to the group. The policy could potentially force black groups to allow white supremacists as members and leaders; Republicans to vote and run Democrat groups and vice versa. The policy is absurd if applied to the letter without taking into account there are highly specialized groups. In the end this ruling threatens the purity of any group or club by disallowing the group to discriminate against people who hold hostile views towards them.
No comments:
Post a Comment