Hastings' Outlaw's constitution said officers could be removed for not supporting its mission, if I remember correctly. Hastings did not require it to amend its constitution. In any event, I think those who argue that an all comers rule is OK because takeovers are unlikely would in effect be relying on a pattern or practice of groups choosing leaders based on their views. Usually a pattern or practice is somewhat equivalent to a rule, where antidiscrimination principles are at stake. Thus in a sense CLS is being denied benefits in part because of its honesty in admitting what its members will do, and the all comers rule is supported because groups will in fact engage in discrimination, though perhaps not by way of formal rules. Mark Scarberry Pepperdine
________________________________
From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu on behalf of Steven Jamar
Sent: Wed 5/12/2010 6:06 PM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: A real-life on-campus example
1. What evidence is there that Outlaw excludes those who don't support its
positions?
2. Asssuming there is such evidence, once again Rick is refusing to recognize
that associational rights, expressive rights, and religious rights are not all
one thing governed by a single, unified or coherent set of principles.
If one takes Rick's point seriously, then there is no establishment clause
(other than coercion) or free exercise accommodations allowed because every
accommodation for a religious group would be "viewpoint" based.
Steve
On Wed, May 12, 2010 at 6:14 PM, Rick Duncan <nebraskalawp...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Alan, CLS is not discriminating against protected groups qua groups.
CLS wishes to organize around a set of beliefs and to exclude from membership
those who don't subscribe to those beliefs. This is what expressive association
is designed to protect.
When Hastings requires CLS to admit members who don't share its beliefs about
the divinity of Christ or the good of human sexuality, it prevents CLS from
effectively expressing those viewpoints as a group. At the same time, other
student groups are allowed to exclude members who don't subscribe to the
beliefs of these other groups. Thus, Outlaw can exclude those who don't support
its beliefs about gay sexual equality, but CLS can not exclude those who reject
its beliefs about the sinfulness of homosexuality.
How is this not viewpoint discrimination?
Rick Duncan
Welpton Professor of Law
University of Nebraska College of Law
Lincoln, NE 68583-0902
"And against the constitution I have never raised a storm,It's the scoundrels
who've corrupted it that I want to reform" --Dick Gaughan (from the song,
Thomas Muir of Huntershill)
_______________________________________________
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.
--
Prof. Steven Jamar
Howard University School of Law
Associate Director, Institute of Intellectual Property and Social Justice
(IIPSJ) Inc.
<<winmail.dat>>
_______________________________________________ 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.
