From the NY Times:
Does this mean that a Jewish group is now forced to accept a member who is a Holocaust denier?
The case, involving a clash between religious freedom and anti-discrimination principles, divided along familiar ideological lines, with the court’s four more liberal members and Justice Anthony M. Kennedy in the majority.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, writing for the majority, said that it was constitutionally permissible for public institutions of higher education to require recognized student groups to accept all students who wished to participate in them.
Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., writing for the four dissenters, said the decision represented a triumph for the principle that there is “no freedom for expression that offends prevailing standards of political correctness in our country’s institutions of higher learning.”
The two sides disputed not only the legal principles involved but just what had happened at Hastings College of the Law in San Francisco, the defendant in the case.
As the majority understood it, the school had merely applied a neutral “all comers” policy to every group that sought official recognition. Recognized groups were entitled to modest financial assistance, use of the school’s communications channels and meeting space, and use of the school’s name and logo, so long as they allowed all students to participate in their activities. Continue Reading.
Does a pro-abortion person get forced into a Pro-life group?
Does a Catholic group have to accept someone who believes the Church is the Whore of Babylon?
Does a member of one political party now have the right to force their way into another?
What if a group of people are forced into one of these small groups (e.g. a large group of those who support same-sex relationships join a small Christian group) and then take over the leadership?
There are a multitude of other issues because of this decision.
This makes no sense.