Faith tests okayed for campus Christian group at ASU

[Steven Jamar]

Behavior is less protected than beliefs.  The group can believe  
whatever it wants to believe, but cannot exclude homosexuals or  
bisexuals by behavioral proxy even if their religious belief says to  
do so.  Or if they choose to so exclude them, then they cannot expect  
the government to support them if the government has a policy of non- 
discrimination against homosexuals.

As far as the slippery slope argument -- never been a fan of that  
one.  The question is not whether some undefined "others" would  
define godly behavior differently from a particular sect, but whether  
the state's definition of the limits of exclusion on the basis of  
status and behavior would apply to particular sects or whether they  
get an exception to the generally applicable neutral rule.

I am no fan of Smith, but it is the law still, I think.


On Oct 19, 2005, at 7:19 PM, Brad M Pardee wrote:

>
> Apples and oranges.  Race and gender are not behaviors.  The CLS  
> clearly said that they did not seek to exclude people on the basis  
> of their sexual orientation but rather on the basis of their sexual  
> behavior, regardless of orientation.  What you describe is a  
> situation where a Christian group is prohibited from living out its  
> faith unless their faith's tenets of what constitutes godly  
> behavior are approved of by the campus administration.  And  
> comparing the belief that sexual behavior belongs solely between a  
> husband and wife to white supremacism sets the stage for saying  
> that no Christian group can require godly behavior because others  
> might define godly behavior differently.  So much for free exercise.
>
> If your reference to generally appicable laws is referring to  
> Employment Division v. Smith, then that would explain our  
> disagreement.  I believe that the Supreme Court gutted the free  
> exercise clause in Smith and reduced it to anti-discrimination  
> protection, and that does not bode well for religious freedom.
>
> Brad
>
> Steven Jamar wrote on 10/19/2005 05:48:36 PM:
>
> > A generally applicable law or policy applies generally.  So saith
> > the Supreme Court, or so I thought.
> >
> > You cannot discriminate on the basis of race, even if you want to
> > form a white supremacist group.  Or if your religion says that you
> > should as a central belief.  Or that it says you should exclude
> > women from any association with men outside the bedroom.  Or  
> whatever.
> >
> > Now you want an exception from the general rule.  That is an  
> exception.
> >
> > Not all central tenets of all groups need to be accommodated.
> > Including religious ones.
> >
> > Steve
> _______________________________________________
> To post, send message to Religionlaw at 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.

-- 
Prof. Steven D. Jamar                                     vox:   
202-806-8017
Howard University School of Law                           fax:   
202-806-8428
2900 Van Ness Street NW                             
mailto:stevenjamar at gmail.com
Washington, DC  20008           http://www.law.howard.edu/faculty/ 
pages/jamar

"Nonviolence means avoiding not only external physical violence but  
also internal violence of spirit. You not only refuse to shoot a man,  
but you refuse to hate him."

Martin Luther King, Jr.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ucla.edu/pipermail/religionlaw/attachments/20051019/4d09b0a0/attachment.html