Is the Christian Legal Society Christian?

...conservatives are trying to castrate or erase our worthy antidiscrimination goals by using 'freedom to associate' and 'free speech' arguments for groups that, technically, don't even embrace those values...

With SCOTUS taking up the case of CLS v Martinez, one has to ask, "What makes the Christian Legal Society Christian?"  They have a Statement of Faith, on their website, but the link to the amended version is hidden.  How odd.  In any case, it's not a credo that most would be familiar with.  It certainly doesn't say anything about "gays", exactly.

Michael Cole, Staff Council at HRC, has some of the facts of the case in legal context, although he doesn't link any of the cases themselves.


What's important general knowledge?

1. CLS was not "kicked off campus", in any ordinary understanding of that term.
2. CLS was provided use of campus facilities for meetings
   
3. The University (Hastings) did not force CLS to accept any members or make anyone an officer
4. The University withheld pooled 'activity fee' funding, because the chapter submitted a charter that didn't comply with the school's anti-discrimination policy and didn't get recognized.
   

So, nobody infringed on their right to associate or freedom of expression, right?  Case closed, everyone goes home, afterall, in most people's minds, 'freedom to associate', means that no one infringes on your right to get together.  Except the CLS wants their 'right to associate' to include a financial obligation on everyone else at the University, namely that they fund the CLS. 

What also catches my eye is that, these days, companies can use their weight to force suppliers and vendors (including law firms) to comply with antidiscrimination policies that are good for business.

Yet, Universities get questioned, if they try to do the same thing, even when the monies are coming from the public purse.

As you look at it, one asks, why did this ever come to court?  Maybe there is an answer in the CLS history.  Maybe "gay" is the thing for them, now.  Who knows?

Right now, I'm leaning toward the conclusion of one of the comments on Volokh's blog:  conservatives are trying to castrate or erase our worthy antidiscrimination goals by using 'freedom to associate' and 'free speech' arguments for groups that, technically, don't even embrace those values (many religious groups punish free speech as "heresy" and pass out punishment/reward depending on how people choose to confess and practice their faith, i.e. their 'association')...  It's not just sad.

[+/-] Show Full Post...

[+/-] Hide Full Post...