Here's a snapshot of news coverage of the Supreme Court's decision to hear the appeal of a Christian Legal Society chapter, denied full recognition by the law school of UC-Hastings. The school maintains – and lower courts have agreed – that they are within their rights to decline full funding and recognition to any group that refuses to allow certain students to join, in violation of non-discrimination policies. Key quotes included as well.
Associated Baptist Press' Rob Marus reports:
As attorneys for the school have noted in legal filings, the predecessor to the Christian Legal Society chapter comported with the school’s non-discrimination provisions prior to 2004, when it adopted the national organization’s policies on membership. The school’s lawyers have also noted that other religious student organizations on campus — including another Christian group and Muslim and Jewish organizations — comply with the non-discrimination policy.
The Washington Post's Robert Barnes quotes AU's Barry Lynn:
"If the student religious group wins, it will mean some students will be compelled to support clubs that won't even admit them as members," said the Rev. Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United.
The NYTimes notes the seeming conflict among appellate rulings:
The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in San Francisco, ruled in favor of Hastings in March.
…
Three years earlier, the Seventh Circuit, in Chicago, ruled to the contrary in a case involving a different chapter of the same group at an Illinois law school.“It would be very difficult for C.L.S. to sincerely and effectively convey a message of disapproval of certain types of conduct if, at the same time, it must accept members who engage in that conduct,” Judge Diane S. Sykes wrote for the majority of a divided three-judge panel.
The San Francisco Chronicle adds some context:
The case could affect public universities around the country. It puts the Supreme Court in the middle of a long fight by conservative Christian activists, who say their constitutional rights are violated when they are forced to tolerate views that run counter to their religious beliefs.
