So I presume Marci would have no problem with a bunch of Christians who join a
campus Chabad group and turn it into a Christian evangelization organization.
Or a bunch of students who favor prayer in public schools taking over a campus
ACLU or Americans United chapter. Or a bunch of Federalists taking over a
campus ACS chapter. After all, the Jewish students or the ACLU or AU or ACS
students could just form other groups. But that approach is deeply unfaithful
to the core concept of expressive associational freedom. It is sad that Marci,
and the educational establishment (united as it seems to be against CLS in CLS
v. Martinez), would embrace such a crude majoritarian approach.
Mark Scarberry
Pepperdine
________________________________
From: religionlaw-boun...@lists.ucla.edu on behalf of hamilto...@aol.com
Sent: Wed 5/12/2010 6:51 PM
To: religionlaw@lists.ucla.edu
Subject: Re: A real-life on-campus example
Here is my question-- why would anyone care about a "takeover"? Wouldn't that
just mean that a majority of the members voted in a different slate of leaders?
It's not like a dissenter could come in and singlehandedly takeover a group,
is it? They have to be chosen by a majority. Then if the group takes a turn
some don't like, the minority starts their own new group, right?? Isn't that
what happens everyday with groups of people? And in particular religious
groups? There is even a term for it -- schism. But you don't even need a
full-out schism to see this happen in religious groups, where a congregation
will love a pastor but then some start disliking his/her sermons or priorities,
and switch over to another congregation, or start a new congregation, or
agitate for a new pastor. Isn't that the American way of a marketplace in
ideas and religion?
So why does CLS or any other group need protection from the possibility that
"outsiders" will take them over? If the CLS leaders are so weak that those
with different views can take over, they can form a whole new group. So just
how does the all-comers rule disadvantage CLS? I think this need for
protection against takeovers is just a pretense for the intent to discriminate
on the basis of sexual orientation.
Marci
In a message dated 5/12/2010 9:21:14 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
mark.scarbe...@pepperdine.edu writes:
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
_______________________________________________
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.
