Have I not commanded you? Be strong and courageous. Do not be terrified; do not be discouraged, for the LORD your God will be with you wherever you go.”
Joshua 1:9
Washington, DC – Liberty Counsel has filed an amicus brief at the U.S. Supreme Court supporting a law school student group of the Christian Legal Society (“CLS”). The CLS group naturally requires voting members and officers to uphold basic Christian principles and thus was denied the same student funds allowed to all other student groups at the University of California Hastings College of the Law, a public law school in San Francisco.
When a school provides equal access to everyone except a Christian
group, it is discrimination plain and simple. Liberty Counsel has filed the amicus brief on behalf of Child Evangelism Fellowship and Lamb’s Chapel, both of which won ground-breaking equal access cases before the United States Supreme Court. If the Supreme Court sides with Hastings College of Law, then equal access under the First Amendment will be set back.
In 2004 the Christian Legal Society required voting members to sign a statement committing to orthodox Christian beliefs and disallowing a student to vote if he or she “advocates or unrepentantly engages in sexual conduct outside of marriage between a man and a woman.” The school refused to even recognize the group, claiming that its membership requirements violated the school’s policy against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. The Christian Legal Society then filed suit. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals sided with the law school.
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2001 in Good News Club v. Milford Central School that whenever the government establishes a “limited public forum,” it may not discriminate against speech because of its Christian viewpoint. Liberty Counsel’s brief focuses on Good News Club and how the Ninth Circuit’s ruling will adversely affect the equal access rights granted to religious groups in Good News Club.
Mathew D. Staver, Founder of Liberty Counsel and Dean of Liberty University School of Law, commented: “Of all places, you would expect a law school to respect the robust freedom of the First Amendment. But, political correctness often blinds even the best from the clear commands and protections of the Constitution. A public law school cannot give the boot to a Christian group simply because its views do not conform to the school’s discriminatory policies.”
2 comments
Comments feed for this article
February 6, 2010 at 2:08 pm
Del
So the “Nutty Ninth Circuit” has followed its standard extra-constitutional decision pattern. It is far past time that the Ninth Circuit Appeals Court be disbanded and reconstituted with judges schooled in U.S. Constitutional law. “The judges , both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behavior.”
…It is my understanding that action may originate in the executive branch to remove a judge for misbehavior and that the U. S. Senate would be called on the take the matter under advisement and vote to concur or refuse to remove said judge. After the 2010 mid-term elections would be a good time to begin requesting application of Article III, Section 1 of the Constitution. A few such actions would, hopefully, wake up the judiciary that they must apply the U. S. Constitution or face removal from office.
…No where in the Constitution does it state that a Judge holds lifetime tenure.
April 20, 2010 at 4:26 am
acts1126c
Hate to burst the bubble of the ACLU and the nineth appeals court but I am a Christian and will remain a Christian first no matter what the decision is made. Not an American, not a Japanese but a Christian period.