This week, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a ruling concerning Christian student clubs that didn’t get much play in mainstream media. But it’s an important case nevertheless. Here’s a quick overview of why you should care—and what to watch for in the future.
Summary: The Court handed down a 5-4 decision on Monday upholding the right of a California law college (Hastings) to deny funding and official recognition to a Christian student club.
Why Should You Care? Because this case deals with Christian students’ religious freedom rights to espouse a Biblical view of sexuality.
At the heart of this case is a conflict between the Christian students’ efforts to uphold a sexual moral standard and the college’s attempts to enforce a politically correct view of homosexuality.
The Christian club was bold enough to espouse policies, which among other things, recognized “the Bible as the inspired word of God” and specified that “In view of the clear dictates of Scripture, unrepentant participation in or advocacy of a sexually immoral lifestyle is inconsistent with an affirmation of the Statement of Faith.” Those policies were deemed to be in conflict with the college’s so-called nondiscrimination policy, which spelled out special protection for “sexual orientation.”
The reason we should care about this is that, first of all, it embodies the values clash we are currently experiencing in this country. Will people of faith be allowed to publicly express a Christian standard for marriage and sexuality—or will that freedom be stamped out in the name of “tolerance” for homosexuality?
This conflict is particularly relevant to students of faith in colleges and public high schools across the nation. Consider, for instance, the many student-led abstinence clubs in colleges, which are seeking to uphold a moral and healthy standard in the midst of overwhelming pressure to engage in sexual promiscuity. Consider the thousands of Christian high school students, who every year counter homosexuality promotion by voluntarily holding their own Day of Truth—calling for a free-speech “conversation” about “the biblical truth for sexuality.”
What will their fate be if political correctness is allowed to become the law of the land? But don’t despair yet. There’s both good and bad news about this week’s decision.
The good news is that the Court did not give gay activists what they really wanted—a proclamation that homosexual-themed “nondiscrimination” policies outweigh religious freedom once and for all. The Court left that question open for more debate, to be resolved in future cases. Plus, since the law college at issue has a unique policy that is hard to find anywhere else , the ruling has limited impact. Read more about that here.
But the bad news is that the Court may have inadvertently handed gay activists another tool for censoring Christian students: The Court majority upheld the college’s right to enforce an “all-comers” policy—requiring every student group to accept anyone as a member or leader, even if they openly and willfully oppose the group’s beliefs and tenets. In the dissenting opinion, Justice Samuel Alito warned that “the Court arms public educational institutions with a handy weapon for suppressing the speech of unpopular groups.”
“There are religious groups that cannot in good conscience agree in their bylaws that they will admit persons who do not share their faith,” wrote Justice Alito, “and for these groups, the consequence of an accept-all-comers policy is marginalization.”
What to Watch For: The Court left the door open for even unusual “all-comers” policies to be struck down if it can be proved that they are applied in a discriminatory way. And Alliance Defend Fund lawyers involved in this particular case expressed confidence that “we will ultimately prevail,” because the “record will show” that the college officials excluded the Christian club, but not other groups who also limited membership based on their core principles.
Print
