Religious clubs not entitled to funds, court says

[rug]

A federal appeals court on Tuesday upheld a state university's refusal to provide funding and other campus benefits to student groups that exclude members of other religions, rejecting arguments that the policy stifles freedom of speech.

The ruling, involving a Christian sorority and fraternity at San Diego State, addressed an issue that the U.S. Supreme Court had left unsettled in a San Francisco case last year: whether campus religious groups are entitled to be treated the same as secular groups whose members share a common viewpoint.

In June 2010, the high court upheld UC Hastings College of the Law's denial of similar benefits to the Christian Legal Society, which barred gays and lesbians as well as non-Christians. The court said the school had a valid, nondiscriminatory policy of requiring official student organizations to accept all students.

The San Diego case involved a more detailed policy, shared by all California State University campuses, of withholding recognition from groups that discriminated on the basis of religion or a number of other categories, such as race, sex and sexual orientation.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/08/02/BAMR1KIHFJ.DTL

[cleanhippie]

1. If a religious club is open to anyone, then they should get the same support.

If they restrict membership, as most do, then they should get nothing.

[BR_Parkway]

2. Cue the "OMG, they're persecuting Christians..." in 3,2,1

[struggle4progress]

3. Good. There's no reason college students should subsidize groups that exclude them.