In writing about a couple of cases lately, one of my readers has raised
an interesting question. In a case involving Berkeley and the Sea
Scouts, a Federal court ruled that the city could refuse to provide the
Sea Scouts with a benefit they offer to other non-profit groups (a free
slip at the city marina) because they engage in discrimination. But in a
case involving the University of North Carolina and a Christian
fraternity, a court issued a preliminary injunction saying that the
University could not refuse to recognize the fraternity as a student
organization and had to give them all the same benefits they did any
other club despite the fact that they discriminate. And there is a
series of cases, as I recall, leading to each decision, both of which
seem correct to me. But how are they reconciled? Why must a government
entity give official recognition and a generally available benefit in
one setting, but is allowed to refuse such a benefit in the other? Can
someone help me understand the distinction between the cases and the
line of rulings that lead to them? Thanks.
Ed Brayton
_______________________________________________
To post, send message to Religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see
http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/religionlaw
Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.
Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can
read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the
messages to others.
