Nothing CLS has said challenges Hastings' duty to enforce rules against
its own discrimination on the basis of inter alia sexual orientation or
religion. As Gilmore v. City of Montgomery holds, however, a city's duty
not to engage itself in (there racial) discrimination ) does not
authorize it to deny non-exclusive access to public spaces to groups
that engage in such discrimination. The Court held there that to enforce
non-discrimination rules against such private groups (schools!) would
deny the segregation academies freedom of association. Why isn't Gilmore
controlling here?
Marc Stern 

-----Original Message-----
From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu
[mailto:religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] On Behalf Of
hamilto...@aol.com
Sent: Thursday, May 13, 2010 9:19 AM
To: Esenberg, Richard; Law & Religion issues for LawAcademics
Subject: Re: A real-life on-campus example

Of course the marketplace works as I described it especially in the US.
Groups thrive and shrivel and respond to and interact with the culture
and if they cannot adapt to broadbased moral and social changes by
changing their beliefs and practices, they become marginalized. Groups
spin off of other groups.
The many religions that supported slavery and the subjection of women
and children to state-sponsored patriarchal control have had to adjust
or choose the sidelines.  Hasn't CLS conceded that the school can
enforce race discrimination laws?  

Marci

Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry

-----Original Message-----
From: "Esenberg, Richard" <richard.esenb...@marquette.edu>
Date: Thu, 13 May 2010 12:32:59
To: hamilto...@aol.com<hamilto...@aol.com>; Law & Religion issues for
LawAcademics<religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu>
Subject: RE: A real-life on-campus example

The right of expressive association is not a demand for government
protection in the market place of ideas or a demand for government
support. It is, rather, a shield against government compulsion, i.e.,
the demand that an organization not define itself by adherance to any
particular creed or that it engage in practices inconsistent with its
expressive message or core beliefs. While in the public forum context,
it might involve access to a government benefit but that is a function
of the government's decision to establish a forum and the (quite
reasonble rule) that, if it chooses to do so, it may not discriminate on
the basis of viewpoint.

This doesn't immunize religious organizations from the market place of
ideas which, in any event, does not work as she thinks it does. Churches
regularly impose creedal requirements on clergy, leaders and members. If
congregants don't like it, they leave much as those who don't like CLS
policy could leave as well.

The problem with "takeovers" - whether effected through rules of a
public forum or antidiscrimination laws - is that they would undermine
the capacity of minority or, more specifically, unpopular groups to
associate for a particular expressive purpose because, as soon as they
choose to combine, they must be prepared, in this context, to permit
others to come in and not simply expose their creed to the market place
of ideas (that happens in all events) but to vote it out.


Professor Rick Esenberg
Marquette University Law School
Sensenbrenner Hall 321C
1103 W. Wisconsin Avenue
Milwaukee, WI 53201
(o) 414-288-6908
(m)414-213-3957
(f)  414-288-6975


________________________________________
From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu
[religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu] on behalf of hamilto...@aol.com
[hamilto...@aol.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 13, 2010 7:09 AM
To: Law & Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: Re: A real-life on-campus example

It is not majoritarian but rather the marketplace. Expressive
association is a new right with little justification in history and I am
beginning to think a large step toward government sponsored
Balkanization Does the government have an obligation to make sure
dwindling religions remain viable. I would say absolutely not. But
apparently Mark would disagree?

Marci
Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry

-----Original Message-----
From: "Scarberry, Mark" <mark.scarbe...@pepperdine.edu>
Date: Wed, 12 May 2010 19:11:04
To: <religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu>
Subject: RE: A real-life on-campus example

_______________________________________________
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.

_______________________________________________
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.
_______________________________________________
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.
_______________________________________________
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.

Reply via email to