On Monday, the Christian Legal Society at Hastings College of Law, lost its attempt to gain recognition as a student group while excluding non-Christians and those whose sexual activities violate Christian beliefs. (See prior postings 1, 2.) A California federal district court in Christian Legal Society v. Kane, (ND Cal., April 17, 2006), held that the University may apply its anti-discrimination policy and require recognized groups to eschew discrimination on the basis of religion or sexual orientation.
Examining the parties’ dispute over whether the University’s anti-discrimination rules regulate speech or conduct, the court found that they are permissible whichever way they are characterized. Even if it is a regulation of speech, the school has created a limited public forum, so that viewpoint neutral reasonable regulations are permissible. The fact that a policy particularly affects a group with a certain perspective or belief system does not render the policy viewpoint based. Also, the court found that the school was not forcing CLS to admit anyone as a member or officer; it was merely placing a condition on receiving university funding and using campus facilities. The court concluded that the University’s anti-discrimination policy does not violate CLS’s First Amendment rights to speech, association, or free exercise of religion. Nor does it deny CLS equal protection of law. The San Francisco Chronicle reported on the case on Tuesday. [Thanks to Blog from the Capital for the information, and Alliance Alert for posting the opinion.]
