In a society committed to non-discrimination and equality, the
government should not be required to subsidize hate groups and groups
that exclude other on prohibited bases.
There are plenty of private places to meet.
And if the society wants to change the policy, it can do so -- unless
it is constitutionalized. Do you really want this degree of
constitutionalization of policy decisions? Or do you want greater
flexibility and political processes available to rectify results you
find improper?
Accommodation would be ok -- making an exception would be
constitutional, no?
Steve
On May 11, 2010, at 10:41 AM, Rick Duncan wrote:
In a society committed to freedom of speech, expressive groups
should not be forced to choose between their right to access a
public forum and their right to expressive association.
Rick Duncan
Welpton Professor of Law
University of Nebraska College of Law
Lincoln, NE 68583-0902
--
Prof. Steven D. Jamar vox: 202-806-8017
Associate Director, Institute of Intellectual Property and Social
Justice http://iipsj.org
Howard University School of Law fax: 202-806-8567
http://iipsj.com/SDJ/
"Life is a banquet, and most poor suckers are starving to death!"
"Auntie Mame" by Patrick Dennis
_______________________________________________
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.
