Wise to affiliate with conservative or liberal law clubs?

(On Campus Interviews, Summer Associate positions, Firm Reviews, Tips, ...)
Forum rules
Anonymous Posting

Anonymous posting is only appropriate when you are revealing sensitive employment related information about a firm, job, etc. You may anonymously respond on topic to these threads. Unacceptable uses include: harassing another user, joking around, testing the feature, or other things that are more appropriate in the lounge.

Failure to follow these rules will get you outed, warned, or banned.
sundaynightdelite
Posts: 41
Joined: Tue Apr 28, 2009 11:54 pm

Re: Wise to affiliate with conservative or liberal law clubs?

Postby sundaynightdelite » Tue Apr 27, 2010 4:33 am

The issue in the Hastings CLS case is whether they can have like $250 in funding and first dibs at reserving meeting space.
CLS there requires its members to sign an oath saying they affirm the beliefs of the club. If you don't sign it you don't get a vote or a position on the board. BUT anyone can come to meetings and eat their burritos.

Oh and they things that you can't do if you affirm the pledge: be gay, and have sex outside of marriage, among other things.

Do we really think that there are students at UC Hastings that don't fall into either one, if not both of those categories?

The trick is to sign the pledge and then do what you want. Thus, people who are upset about this don't seem to grasp this whole hypocrisy being ok thing.

rsuelzer
Posts: 22
Joined: Tue Apr 13, 2010 5:10 am

Re: Wise to affiliate with conservative or liberal law clubs?

Postby rsuelzer » Tue Apr 27, 2010 5:59 am

Freedom of Association anyone?

User avatar
romothesavior
Posts: 14772
Joined: Fri Jun 26, 2009 4:29 pm

Re: Wise to affiliate with conservative or liberal law clubs?

Postby romothesavior » Tue Apr 27, 2010 12:49 pm

rsuelzer wrote:Freedom of Association anyone?


Freedom of association is fine, and if this group wants to form and meet, great for them. But the school shouldn't have to support it financially. They should have the right to distance themselves from unsavory and immoral viewpoints, rather than fund them and give them the credibility of school-support.

And to cwkenneth: As pearalegal said, anti-homosexuality groups get a pass because gay-bashing is popular and mainstream. But what if a group wanted to form for the purpose of instituting some of the oft-ignored aspects of Biblical doctrine? What if a group decided to go pro-slavery or pushed a mysogenistic agenda and rooted that belief in the Bible? What if a radical Islamic group formed for the purpose of instituting a harsh version of Sharia law? These are analogous to supporting homophobia... the only difference is that they aren't mainstream and popular views. Does the school have to give financial support to these types of groups?

User avatar
jks289
Posts: 1415
Joined: Sun Nov 01, 2009 9:42 pm

Re: Wise to affiliate with conservative or liberal law clubs?

Postby jks289 » Tue Apr 27, 2010 1:39 pm

cwkenneth wrote:
jks289 wrote:Tolerance for who? People who start a club and then say "No gays allowed" because being gay doesn't fit in their core values? What if I start a White Supremacists club and say "no black people" or rather only black people who admit white people are better? This is a case in which the legal community and the law school communities need to say "We will NOT tolerate this."


Oh JKS, arguing with you is like arguing with a 12 year old, but I will engage once again to demonstrate your utter lack of intelligence and reasoning. Can you really not see the difference between being gay and being black? If you cannot, I wish you the best of luck in your legal academic endeavors.

Let me explain. The christian faith finds the actual "acting out" of one's homosexual nature immoral, not the intrinsic nature of their homosexuality. In this is sense, this is the difference between being black and being gay. In no way can one "act out" through behavior or action his or her "blackness". Put another way, being black is an intrinsic quality that in no way can be manifested into any form of behavior or action. However, the intrinsic nature of homosexuality can indeed be manifested into a specific action or behavior, i.e. "homosexual intercourse". In this sense it is intellectual dishonest to claim that being black and being gay are equivalent.


I usually would just laugh at this but you have obviously invested a lot of time in this little rant. It seems only fair to address it. (Besides, obviously I've ruffled your little feathers elsewhere, though I can't for the life of me remember it).

You refer to my analogy as "intellectually dishonest" and lacking in "intelligence and reasoning." I'll direct your attention to a summary of the transcript of the SCOTUS arguments:

"Justice Sonia Sotomayor asked: So what if a group "wanted to exclude all black people, all women, all handicapped persons?" Are you saying the school would have to "give it funds and otherwise lend it space?"

"Not at all," McConnell responded. There is a difference between discrimination based on belief and discrimination based on status, he said. "We have only challenged the beliefs, not status."

Justice John Paul Stevens followed up: "What if the belief is that African-Americans are inferior?"

If belief is the basis for exclusion, then that is permissible, said McConnell. But exclusion based on status is not."

So my point about having a white supremacists club that allowed black people only if they shared the belief whites were better actually originates with Supreme Court Justices John Paul Stevens and Sonia Sotomayor. In fact, in my initial statement I even made the distinction about status versus belief, albeit in a clumsy manner. I'll be sure to pass along your concerns as to their intellectual abilities in this particular case.

SauerGrapes and I actually managed to have a civil and interested discussion on PM yesterday about this very thing. I don't think anyone's mind was changed, but we both walked away with a slightly better understanding of where the other was coming from. I may be mistaken, but despite our very divergent views on homosexuality I think we both agreed on this particular case, at least in theory. (Sorry if I'm representing you incorrectly here Sauer.)

At any rate, bravo on your truly admirable ability to understand basic points of reasoning.

'Til we met again,
JKS

User avatar
cwkenneth
Posts: 33
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 11:00 pm

Re: Wise to affiliate with conservative or liberal law clubs?

Postby cwkenneth » Tue Apr 27, 2010 2:24 pm

romothesavior wrote:
rsuelzer wrote:Freedom of Association anyone?

And to cwkenneth: As pearalegal said, anti-homosexuality groups get a pass because gay-bashing is popular and mainstream. But what if a group wanted to form for the purpose of instituting some of the oft-ignored aspects of Biblical doctrine? What if a group decided to go pro-slavery or pushed a mysogenistic agenda and rooted that belief in the Bible? What if a radical Islamic group formed for the purpose of instituting a harsh version of Sharia law? These are analogous to supporting homophobia... the only difference is that they aren't mainstream and popular views. Does the school have to give financial support to these types of groups?


How do you possibly draw this conclusion? You make a claim by using dissimilar analogies, or at least never demonstrate how they are similar. You merely state, "this is analogues", and further, you subtly try to frame your opposition as "homophobic" because they disagree with you on the morality of homosexual intercourse. People can reasonably agree to disagree on certain moral behavior. If someone finds homophobia morally offensive this does not make them homophobic. In fact, there are many Christian churches that welcome homosexuals into their church even though they will still disagree with homosexual behavior on a moral level. These churches do not "fear" homosexuals as a true homophobe would.

Feel free to have the last word.

User avatar
D-hops
Posts: 688
Joined: Wed Jan 20, 2010 5:48 pm

Re: Wise to affiliate with conservative or liberal law clubs?

Postby D-hops » Tue Apr 27, 2010 2:28 pm

Nightrunner wrote:
cwkenneth wrote:
[strike]How do you possibly draw this conclusion? You make a claim by using dissimilar analogies, or at least never demonstrate how they are similar. You merely state, "this is analogues", and further, you subtly try to frame your opposition as "homophobic" because they disagree with you on the morality of homosexual intercourse. People can reasonably agree to disagree on certain moral behavior. If someone finds homophobia morally offensive this does not make them homophobic. In fact, there are many Christian churches that welcome homosexuals into their church even though they will still disagree with homosexual behavior on a moral level. These churches do not "fear" homosexuals as a true homophobe would.

Feel free to have the last word.[/strike]


Damn, you beat me to it.

User avatar
Mce252
Posts: 940
Joined: Thu Jun 11, 2009 12:43 pm

Re: Wise to affiliate with conservative or liberal law clubs?

Postby Mce252 » Tue Apr 27, 2010 2:46 pm

Freedom of association is fine, and if this group wants to form and meet, great for them. But the school shouldn't have to support it financially. They should have the right to distance themselves from unsavory and immoral viewpoints, rather than fund them and give them the credibility of school-support.

And to cwkenneth: As pearalegal said, anti-homosexuality groups get a pass because gay-bashing is popular and mainstream. But what if a group wanted to form for the purpose of instituting some of the oft-ignored aspects of Biblical doctrine? What if a group decided to go pro-slavery or pushed a mysogenistic agenda and rooted that belief in the Bible? What if a radical Islamic group formed for the purpose of instituting a harsh version of Sharia law? These are analogous to supporting homophobia... the only difference is that they aren't mainstream and popular views. Does the school have to give financial support to these types of groups?


I don't think there is nearly as much of a state interest in suppressing anti-homosexual organizations as there would be in suppressing a pro-slavery or radical (violent) Islamic group. To find homosexuality immoral, even if simply based upon the idea that it does not support the continuation of our race, probably won't be considered as much of a problem as some of the examples you mentioned. Therefore, if your organization isn't overriding a crucial state interest (I don't think finding homosexuality immoral is one), what's the problem with qualifying your leadership to have the same beliefs?

And I say leadership because I thought I remembered reading in the Economist that the issue was making members at least "repent" before they could be both homosexual and in a leadership position of the organization. I don't recall any of the other details. Just my two cents...

User avatar
cwkenneth
Posts: 33
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 11:00 pm

Re: Wise to affiliate with conservative or liberal law clubs?

Postby cwkenneth » Tue Apr 27, 2010 5:09 pm

Nightrunner wrote:
Nightrunner wrote:
cwkenneth wrote:
I say your views are intolerant because you completely ignore this axiom and label other as bigots merely because they have a different moral perspective than yourself regarding the specific actions of homosexual "behavior".


So...if a group of people (say, a Christian group) decides to dislike the actions of another group of people (say, gay people being gay), then it is cool and moral. But if a group of people (like, say, JKS and I) decide to dislike the actions of another group of people (say, y'all for actively discriminating based on the unfounded assumptions of people who thought the sun revolved around the earth), then we're intolerant?

GTFO.


You have zero to stand on until you can resolve this hypocritical inconsistency.


You perhaps misunderstand what the “basic principle/axiom” that I refer to actually is. You label, what I call a “basic principle/axiom”, as “unfounded assumptions”. Let me be clear. The basic principle/axiom I refer to in my argument is that there is a difference between an intrinsic quality (for example skin color) and one’s behavior or physical actions (homosexual intercourse). For you to label this as an “unfounded assumption” is completely absurd. It is merely a plain self-evident observation that is not rooted in any ideology or belief. If you cannot see the difference then I'm not sure I can help you understand any better.

You have every right to “hate or passionately dislike” my views or anyone else’s. In fact, I don’t really care what you believe. One is not labeled intolerant merely because he or she "dislikes the actions of another group" or even hates the actions of another group. Someone is considered intolerant when they deny the existence of a “basic principle/axiom”, and as a result, denounce any view that runs counter to their faulty belief (faulty because they deny the existence of fundamental observable fact).

You can have the last word. I really don’t think this needs any more explanation. It is pretty clear. If you cannot understand this then perhaps you should reconsider your interest in the legal field.

270910
Posts: 2437
Joined: Thu May 21, 2009 9:51 pm

Re: Wise to affiliate with conservative or liberal law clubs?

Postby 270910 » Tue Apr 27, 2010 5:11 pm

Oh hai TLS students arguing like 5th graders over a murky and nuanced area of the law that has produced splits amongst the federal courts of appeals!

Threads like these really ARE why we can't have nice things.

User avatar
jks289
Posts: 1415
Joined: Sun Nov 01, 2009 9:42 pm

Re: Wise to affiliate with conservative or liberal law clubs?

Postby jks289 » Tue Apr 27, 2010 5:16 pm

disco_barred wrote:Oh hai TLS students arguing like 5th graders over a murky and nuanced area of the law that has produced splits amongst the federal courts of appeals!

Threads like these really ARE why we can't have nice things.


Oh hai! Disco_barred weighing in on another thread to say it's pointless and contributes nothing of value with a comment that is itself pointless and contributes nothing of value! :roll:

User avatar
1ferret!
Posts: 280
Joined: Thu Oct 22, 2009 4:59 am

Re: Wise to affiliate with conservative or liberal law clubs?

Postby 1ferret! » Tue Apr 27, 2010 5:22 pm

What we need is some kind of a count-down clock to see how long it takes posters to completely depart from the topic which started the thread and begin squabbling amongst themselves...

270910
Posts: 2437
Joined: Thu May 21, 2009 9:51 pm

Re: Wise to affiliate with conservative or liberal law clubs?

Postby 270910 » Tue Apr 27, 2010 5:29 pm

jks289 wrote:
disco_barred wrote:Oh hai TLS students arguing like 5th graders over a murky and nuanced area of the law that has produced splits amongst the federal courts of appeals!

Threads like these really ARE why we can't have nice things.


Oh hai! Disco_barred weighing in on another thread to say it's pointless and contributes nothing of value with a comment that is itself pointless and contributes nothing of value! :roll:


Sup!

APimpNamedSlickback
Posts: 1126
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2009 1:33 am

Re: Wise to affiliate with conservative or liberal law clubs?

Postby APimpNamedSlickback » Tue Apr 27, 2010 5:39 pm

x
Last edited by APimpNamedSlickback on Thu May 06, 2010 6:38 am, edited 1 time in total.

rando
Posts: 908
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2010 1:57 pm

Re: Wise to affiliate with conservative or liberal law clubs?

Postby rando » Tue Apr 27, 2010 5:53 pm

Can someone explain to me why that Ben Franklin guy is arguing that there is a purported difference between the act of being gay and just plain old intrinsically being gay?

I'm not that smart. I probably won't make it in law school but at least i'll understand this.

User avatar
cwkenneth
Posts: 33
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2009 11:00 pm

Re: Wise to affiliate with conservative or liberal law clubs?

Postby cwkenneth » Tue Apr 27, 2010 10:51 pm

jks289 wrote:
cwkenneth wrote:
jks289 wrote:Tolerance for who? People who start a club and then say "No gays allowed" because being gay doesn't fit in their core values? What if I start a White Supremacists club and say "no black people" or rather only black people who admit white people are better? This is a case in which the legal community and the law school communities need to say "We will NOT tolerate this."


Oh JKS, arguing with you is like arguing with a 12 year old, but I will engage once again to demonstrate your utter lack of intelligence and reasoning. Can you really not see the difference between being gay and being black? If you cannot, I wish you the best of luck in your legal academic endeavors.

Let me explain. The christian faith finds the actual "acting out" of one's homosexual nature immoral, not the intrinsic nature of their homosexuality. In this is sense, this is the difference between being black and being gay. In no way can one "act out" through behavior or action his or her "blackness". Put another way, being black is an intrinsic quality that in no way can be manifested into any form of behavior or action. However, the intrinsic nature of homosexuality can indeed be manifested into a specific action or behavior, i.e. "homosexual intercourse". In this sense it is intellectual dishonest to claim that being black and being gay are equivalent.


I usually would just laugh at this but you have obviously invested a lot of time in this little rant. It seems only fair to address it. (Besides, obviously I've ruffled your little feathers elsewhere, though I can't for the life of me remember it).

You refer to my analogy as "intellectually dishonest" and lacking in "intelligence and reasoning." I'll direct your attention to a summary of the transcript of the SCOTUS arguments:

"Justice Sonia Sotomayor asked: So what if a group "wanted to exclude all black people, all women, all handicapped persons?" Are you saying the school would have to "give it funds and otherwise lend it space?"

"Not at all," McConnell responded. There is a difference between discrimination based on belief and discrimination based on status, he said. "We have only challenged the beliefs, not status."

Justice John Paul Stevens followed up: "What if the belief is that African-Americans are inferior?"

If belief is the basis for exclusion, then that is permissible, said McConnell. But exclusion based on status is not."

So my point about having a white supremacists club that allowed black people only if they shared the belief whites were better actually originates with Supreme Court Justices John Paul Stevens and Sonia Sotomayor. In fact, in my initial statement I even made the distinction about status versus belief, albeit in a clumsy manner. I'll be sure to pass along your concerns as to their intellectual abilities in this particular case.

SauerGrapes and I actually managed to have a civil and interested discussion on PM yesterday about this very thing. I don't think anyone's mind was changed, but we both walked away with a slightly better understanding of where the other was coming from. I may be mistaken, but despite our very divergent views on homosexuality I think we both agreed on this particular case, at least in theory. (Sorry if I'm representing you incorrectly here Sauer.)

At any rate, bravo on your truly admirable ability to understand basic points of reasoning.

'Til we met again,
JKS


In framing your argument, you site two Supreme Court Justices both of whom share the exact same view. What insight or depth have you provided other than the perspectives of two liberal leaning members of the Supreme Court? Would you at least acknowledge the validity of the opinion’s from Roberts, Scalia, Alito? Perhaps you mistakenly left out the views of these other justices? If you reject these views, you should have at least made an attempt to refute them instead of merely quoting the two liberal justices who also do not address the contentions made by Robert's and Alito. Did you even know what any of the other justices said? Or did you just pull your quotes from an article from the Daily Kos?

I think the words of Roberts, Scalia, and Alito do an excellent job of providing a little more balance and perspective to your argument and the comments made by Sotamayer and Stevens.

You are more than welcome to read this article which contain the words of the Roberts and Alito. I hope this proves to be enlightening.

http://powerlineblog.com/archives/2010/ ... rmat=print

User avatar
jks289
Posts: 1415
Joined: Sun Nov 01, 2009 9:42 pm

Re: Wise to affiliate with conservative or liberal law clubs?

Postby jks289 » Tue Apr 27, 2010 11:07 pm

cwkenneth wrote:
jks289 wrote:
cwkenneth wrote:
jks289 wrote:Tolerance for who? People who start a club and then say "No gays allowed" because being gay doesn't fit in their core values? What if I start a White Supremacists club and say "no black people" or rather only black people who admit white people are better? This is a case in which the legal community and the law school communities need to say "We will NOT tolerate this."


Oh JKS, arguing with you is like arguing with a 12 year old, but I will engage once again to demonstrate your utter lack of intelligence and reasoning. Can you really not see the difference between being gay and being black? If you cannot, I wish you the best of luck in your legal academic endeavors.

Let me explain. The christian faith finds the actual "acting out" of one's homosexual nature immoral, not the intrinsic nature of their homosexuality. In this is sense, this is the difference between being black and being gay. In no way can one "act out" through behavior or action his or her "blackness". Put another way, being black is an intrinsic quality that in no way can be manifested into any form of behavior or action. However, the intrinsic nature of homosexuality can indeed be manifested into a specific action or behavior, i.e. "homosexual intercourse". In this sense it is intellectual dishonest to claim that being black and being gay are equivalent.


I usually would just laugh at this but you have obviously invested a lot of time in this little rant. It seems only fair to address it. (Besides, obviously I've ruffled your little feathers elsewhere, though I can't for the life of me remember it).

You refer to my analogy as "intellectually dishonest" and lacking in "intelligence and reasoning." I'll direct your attention to a summary of the transcript of the SCOTUS arguments:

"Justice Sonia Sotomayor asked: So what if a group "wanted to exclude all black people, all women, all handicapped persons?" Are you saying the school would have to "give it funds and otherwise lend it space?"

"Not at all," McConnell responded. There is a difference between discrimination based on belief and discrimination based on status, he said. "We have only challenged the beliefs, not status."

Justice John Paul Stevens followed up: "What if the belief is that African-Americans are inferior?"

If belief is the basis for exclusion, then that is permissible, said McConnell. But exclusion based on status is not."

So my point about having a white supremacists club that allowed black people only if they shared the belief whites were better actually originates with Supreme Court Justices John Paul Stevens and Sonia Sotomayor. In fact, in my initial statement I even made the distinction about status versus belief, albeit in a clumsy manner. I'll be sure to pass along your concerns as to their intellectual abilities in this particular case.

SauerGrapes and I actually managed to have a civil and interested discussion on PM yesterday about this very thing. I don't think anyone's mind was changed, but we both walked away with a slightly better understanding of where the other was coming from. I may be mistaken, but despite our very divergent views on homosexuality I think we both agreed on this particular case, at least in theory. (Sorry if I'm representing you incorrectly here Sauer.)

At any rate, bravo on your truly admirable ability to understand basic points of reasoning.

'Til we met again,
JKS


In framing your argument, you site two Supreme Court Justices both of whom share the exact same view. What insight or depth have you provided other than the perspectives of two liberal leaning members of the Supreme Court? Would you at least acknowledge the validity of the opinion’s from Roberts, Scalia, Alito? Perhaps you mistakenly left out the views of these other justices? If you reject these views, you should have at least made an attempt to refute them instead of merely quoting the two liberal justices who also do not address the contentions made by Robert's and Alito. Did you even know what any of the other justices said? Or did you just pull your quotes from an article from the Daily Kos?

I think the words of Roberts, Scalia, and Alito do an excellent job of providing a little more balance and perspective to your argument and the comments made by Sotamayer and Stevens.

You are more than welcome to read this article which contain the words of the Roberts and Alito. I hope this proves to be enlightening.

http://powerlineblog.com/archives/2010/ ... rmat=print


This is becoming tiresome. (Have you been working on this since PMing me all day? Sad.) My point was you accused me of lacking intelligence and reasoning and called the analogy "intellectually dishonest." I wasn't further discussing the point, I was simply pointing out that the analogy (you called dishonest) was also employed by two sitting SCOTUS Justices. I am aware of the responses, which I disagree with but seem to be perfectly logical points (unlike your incoherent, offensive, anti-gay distortions of Christianity). The implication was that you considered yourself intellectually superior to Stevens and Sotomayor. (I am not sure the relevance of my quick googling to find the Stevens quote coming up with the Daily Kos article? I don't know where I copy-pasted it from, it was just the first link I came across.) So my point wasn't to further discuss the issue (as I told you in the PM earlier, I am not particularly interested in discussing this case with you) just to point out that you aren't nearly as smart as you think you are.

At this point, you appear to have secured the universal revile you seek out in all threads. As I mentioned before, most of us use these boards to ask questions and give advice about law school applications, not to relentlessly troll a political agenda (see your multiple previous threads on John Yoo, etc). There are websites that are dedicated to these debates, which better serve your purposes. Your energy on these boards may be better directed sharing your personal law school experiences (Santa Clara, USD, and Chapman, right?)

User avatar
presh
Posts: 8026
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2008 1:00 am

Re: Wise to affiliate with conservative or liberal law clubs?

Postby presh » Tue Apr 27, 2010 11:17 pm

.
Last edited by presh on Sun Dec 27, 2015 2:36 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Drake014
Posts: 886
Joined: Tue Jan 13, 2009 4:22 pm

Re: Wise to affiliate with conservative or liberal law clubs?

Postby Drake014 » Tue Apr 27, 2010 11:24 pm

cwkenneth wrote:
In framing your argument, you site two Supreme Court Justices both of whom share the exact same view. What insight or depth have you provided other than the perspectives of two liberal leaning members of the Supreme Court? Would you at least acknowledge the validity of the opinion’s from Roberts, Scalia, Alito? Perhaps you mistakenly left out the views of these other justices? If you reject these views, you should have at least made an attempt to refute them instead of merely quoting the two liberal justices who also do not address the contentions made by Robert's and Alito. Did you even know what any of the other justices said? Or did you just pull your quotes from an article from the Daily Kos?

I think the words of Roberts, Scalia, and Alito do an excellent job of providing a little more balance and perspective to your argument and the comments made by Sotamayer and Stevens.

You are more than welcome to read this article which contain the words of the Roberts and Alito. I hope this proves to be enlightening.

http://powerlineblog.com/archives/2010/ ... rmat=print


This is a persona right? No one claims to be this smart and makes arguments this bad all while seeming like a villain from a 19th century novel.

User avatar
presh
Posts: 8026
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2008 1:00 am

Re: Wise to affiliate with conservative or liberal law clubs?

Postby presh » Tue Apr 27, 2010 11:26 pm

.
Last edited by presh on Sun Dec 27, 2015 2:37 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
facetious
Posts: 196
Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2009 4:56 pm

Re: Wise to affiliate with conservative or liberal law clubs?

Postby facetious » Tue Apr 27, 2010 11:45 pm

APimpNamedSlickback wrote:doesn't the freedom of association, by definition, presuppose the freedom of disassociation?

i really dont want to waste brain cells on this since i care so little, but by golly there are better arguments in defense of cls' position that can be made


i think the point is not so much a freedom of association, but whether CLS has the freedom to associate/disassociate (ie: discriminate based on sexual orientation) while also receiving public (school) funding and resources. its not a case of private actors deciding to discriminate on their own time and dime; there is state involvement if the school provides funding to CLS to discriminate. hastings is not prohibiting CLS from meeting or requiring them to admit people they do not approve of. hastings is withholding funding and official recognition of the group b/c of its discriminatory policies.

anyway, i end my 0L venture in the confusing abyss of first amendment jurisprudence.

rando
Posts: 908
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2010 1:57 pm

Re: Wise to affiliate with conservative or liberal law clubs?

Postby rando » Wed Apr 28, 2010 7:27 am

presh wrote:
rando wrote:Can someone explain to me why that Ben Franklin guy is arguing that there is a purported difference between the act of being gay and just plain old intrinsically being gay?

I'm not that smart. I probably won't make it in law school but at least i'll understand this.


Ok. I would like to note that I do not actually believe this myself. However having grown up in a very conservative Christian family (think Focus on the Family level), I can answer this for you.

Generally speaking, they would make the argument that the desire to commit homosexual acts is a sinful desire, like that split second impulse you have to kill your boss when he assigns you five new tasks five minutes before you are supposed to leave for the date. The desire is not a problem. Actually giving in to the desire is a problem.

I would also like to make a Christians/Christianity distinction here. Christianity encompasses a large group of people with varying interpretations of its tenets. While the majority of Christian groups believe homosexuality is a sin, not all Christian groups do. I am a member of the latter group. I am a Christian, and I do not think it is a sin.

Please realize that not all Christians support this. I agree with a point I think JKS made earlier that it is upsetting that this group seems to purport that it speaks for all of Christianity on this issue.


Ok good. I got it. Nonsense just as I presumed.




Return to “Legal Employment”

Who is online

The online users are hidden on this forum.