Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
At first glance, I thought the same thing, but there's a matter of principle involved. If one group is allowed to exclude gays and atheists, what's to stop another group from excluding any other category of people? A white fraternity could then openly say, "No blacks allowed". I'm not sure that most people want to return to a world like that.
As long as public schools, public colleges, etc aren't saying, "NO BLACKS!" "NO GAYS!" "NO MUSLIMS" etc then we're all good.
As much as I may disagree with it, there is nothing wrong with private clubs saying these things.
I may want to start my own club where heterosexuals aren't welcome.
Very different issue. The Boys Scouts is a private organization. A public college is not. The legal reasoning in these two cases will be very different.
That said, I think the Courts will determine that it is legal for a student group at a public school (college or otherwise) to determine its own membership - even if it falls along the gender/sex/sexual orientation/race/religion line etc, etc, etc - provided that the institution allows for those excluded groups to set up and run their own organizations. I feel that's the correct decision, and that's why I voted "YES" in this poll.
I think this lawsuit is ridiculous. If some college has a Homophobic Christian Club, why would gays and atheists want to join it anyway? To me, this just seems like a self-righteous way to shut these homophobic Christians down - and I think that's pretty disgusting. Why not just start their own groups that reflects their values?
fyi, I'm a gay man.
You may want to dig a little deeper. The Boy Scout court case had nothing to do with private vs. public.
The Boy Scouts are indeed a private organization, but they have received millions of dollars of public funding at both the state and federal level for many years.
In fact, the Pentagon inself has put forth millions in hosting the annual Boy Scout Jamboree. In 2001 I believe, the Senate passed a bill specifically ensuring that the Pentagon continued to do such. Municipalities all over the nation provide support for the Boy Scouts as well.
How do these funds differ than public money going to an on-campus organization?
The lines are more fuzzy than you believe them to be.
At first glance, I thought the same thing, but there's a matter of principle involved. If one group is allowed to exclude gays and atheists, what's to stop another group from excluding any other category of people? A white fraternity could then openly say, "No blacks allowed". I'm not sure that most people want to return to a world like that.
Nothing would stop any group from excluding any other category of people. And as long as the public institution allows for those groups of people excluded to set up their own groups, I see nothing wrong with it. Legally that is - morally, perhaps yes.
How about this: A group of women set up a Recovering From Rape student groups for female rape victims. If a bunch of Frat Guys decided to join because they thought it'd be funny, you'd really argue to allow them to join?
Nothing would stop any group from excluding any other category of people. And as long as the public institution allows for those groups of people excluded to set up their own groups, I see nothing wrong with it. Legally that is - morally, perhaps yes.
How about this: A group of women set up a Recovering From Rape student groups for female rape victims. If a bunch of Frat Guys decided to join because they thought it'd be funny, you'd really argue to allow them to join?
Nothing would stop any group from excluding any other category of people. And as long as the public institution allows for those groups of people excluded to set up their own groups, I see nothing wrong with it. Legally that is - morally, perhaps yes.
How is that not a case of separate but equal? What if there's a White Studies course that bars blacks from joining, and the school's solution is to set up a Black Studies course that bans Whites? Would that be a good solution? I think not.
Quote:
How about this: A group of women set up a Recovering From Rape student groups for female rape victims. If a bunch of Frat Guys decided to join because they thought it'd be funny, you'd really argue to allow them to join?
On principle, yes, I would argue that they should be allowed to join if their student fees are supporting the organization. If an organization wants to exclude, they should have to give up the funding they're receiving from all of the students.
How is that not a case of separate but equal? What if there's a White Studies course that bars blacks from joining, and the school's solution is to set up a Black Studies course that bans Whites? Would that be a good solution? I think not.
On principle, yes, I would argue that they should be allowed to join if their student fees are supporting the organization. If an organization wants to exclude, they should have to give up the funding they're receiving from all of the students.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
