It's become common for college and university administrators to deny formal recognition--and hence funding, meeting space, institutional web space, and so on--to faith-based student groups that seek to limit their memberships to those of like belief and that, as a consequence, exclude gays and lesbians. It's also become common to see such denials successfully opposed and overturned on First Amendment grounds. While the rationale for denying recognition to these groups is that they are discriminatory, the argument for recognizing them is that the First Amendment guarantees the right to associate freely with those of like mind and belief. FIRE has successfully defended numerous religious student groups who have been denied recognition for refusing to adopt "nondiscrimination" policies that would have forced them to compromise their beliefs--the Muslim Students Association at Louisiana State, the ReJOYce in Jesus Campus Fellowship at the Milwaukee School of Engineering, an interfaith coalition of Muslim and Christian students at Ohio State, and many more. But still administrators don't learn, and still they continue to disallow those religious student groups that don't conform to their institution's commitment not to discriminate on the basis of sexuality.

Southern Illinois University's law school is the scene of the latest episode in this seemingly endless tug of war between these (often unwitting) administrative activists and the First Amendment purists who work to temper them. SIU's chapter of the Christian Legal Society bars gays and lesbians from joining unless they renounce their sexuality. Last March, the dean of the law school received a complaint about that practice, and proceeded to inform the Christian Legal Society that it could no longer use the university's name, get free auditorium space, or post on certain billboards; while the dean stopped just short of banishing the group entirely--he said it would still be allowed on campus--he rescinded the privileges that other recognized campus groups enjoy, and thus effectively deprived the group of a meaningful and public campus existence. The Society filed suit against SIU in April; yesterday the Society's lawyer argued in court for a preliminary injunction restoring its status as a recognized student group. The judge seems to be sympathetic to the Society's case: "A rugby team can't discriminate against gay rugby players," he reportedly said. "What makes this case different is we're talking about religion." A ruling will be issued either today or next week.

As ugly as the discrimination is (is it very Christian to exclude others?), I have to agree that the clubs shouln't be banned from campus. After all, would any homosexual students actually want to join such a group? Or would a campus republican/democrat club attract others of the opposite persuasion? The clubs could remove the bans, but homosexuals would still be unwelcome members, especially if the club started discussing certain issues.

Just as religious groups shouldn't try to force (by encouraging legislation of their morality) their beliefs on the public, the public shouldn't force religious groups to change their "morality." Even if it is a buffet type of morality where the practitioners pick the parts that support their bigotry and ignore others that don't fit their tastes.

Those on the Left should be cautious about depriving those with non-PC views from organizing groups with a non-PC focus (or they will find non-PC thinkers banding together to take over PC groups).

My question is, why can't rugby teams discriminate against gay rugby players? Why can't private, non-government bodies (i.e. businesses, clubs, religious organizations, etc.) choose who can and cannot be a member of their group?

Should the NBA be forced to stop discriminating against short people and hire a couple of Little People?

Should Abercrombie and Fitch be forced to hire goths? What about Hot Topic and applicants wearing Abercrombie and Fitch?

People that support anti-discrimination laws, I believe, don't really believe that diversity works. After all, why not let a white supremacist company hire only white people? If diversity really works, don't you believe that a more diverse company will defeat them in the end? Let them hire whoever they like, and if they choose to be insular and prejudiced, the market will prove them wrong. Diversity laws are only needed if you believe that a company of all-white employees will defeat a mixed-race company by virtue of their whiteness.

As ugly as the discrimination is (is it very Christian to exclude others?)

It certainly is. Prostitutes and taxcollectors who have a genuine interest in reforming should be allowed in, without question.



If the goal of someone joining is to intimidate, offend, and obstruct the group, then they should be thrown out.



Legal denial of the right of a place to meet, or even allowing only inconvient places, is one of the oldest forms of religious persecurtion. England's "Five Mile Act, " forbiding Dissenters to meet within five miles of a town or crossroads, is an excellent example.