Universities to Religious Clubs: Let non-believers lead you!

[MarginOfError]

By unregistering the groups their access to students is more limited, more difficult, and yes, more costly.  The schools don't "fund" registered clubs much.  Rather, these groups get access to rooms not in use, to student fairs, etc.  Unregistered groups are treated like outside advertisers, and must pay for everything, apply well in advance, etc.  All this because Christians refuse to allow non-believers to stand for club offices???

 

or in some cases, Christian homosexuals are not allowed to stand for club office.  Also, Mormons are not allowed to stand for club office in Campus Crusade (or membership, for that matter.  At least not while I was in school).

[Just_A_Guy]

A.  He shows up at the meeting and is told he may not join because he is not Muslim.  Even though the group is meeting in a building funded by Jim's tuition dollars and his parents taxes. 

 

 

So, what?  The U of U has faculty meetings on campus all the time.  But I can't go to those meetings--even though my tax dollars go to the State of Utah, and thus the University--because I am not a member of the U of U faculty. 

 

If I am a student and wish to use U of U facilities to facilitate the meetings of a group that I want to form, I am free to do so.  But I don't think I should have a right to use state ownership as a bludgeon to force my way into a group people who don't feel my input is relevant, and compel them to tolerate my antics anyways.

 

 

Why are we so afraid of second option in both of these instances?  All the school is saying is that if you want to use our facilities then you have to provide equal access to all students.  The group is still free to not vote for the atheist in the second instance.  If you want to discriminate against LEGALLY PROTECTED CLASSES then we cannot be a party to that discrimination.  You will need to do so on your own time, your own location, and at your own expense.

 

What if Jim isn't an atheist, he's a Fundamentalist Christian; and the university is in Louisiana?  And after the first meeting (where twenty or thirty actual Muslims attend) Jim goes to his next off-campus meeting of the Ku Klux Klan and says "Hey!  There's Muslims at that thar campus!  Let's git 'em outta there!"  And he rounds up about fifty of his Klan buddies and they start going to the Muslim group meetings.  They pay dues and demand to be admitted.  They won't leave.  They insist on the club's having activities like a "Bacon Night" and book discussions on The Satanic Verses and other texts that actual Muslims find reprehensible.

 

What then?  The real Muslims can go start a different club, I suppose--but the Klan-infested organization retains the rights to the name "Muslim", and they can do the same thing to the new club that they did to the old.

Edited September 11, 2014 by Just_A_Guy

[Just_A_Guy]

..or consider it this way.  I would like to bring my non-member neighbor in to see the celestial room.  I pay tithing after all so I should be permitted to do this, correct? 

 

No?  Why not?  Because the building is owned by the church.  They are permitted to set the rules governing who is admitted or not and under what conditions. 

 

(Tongue only partly in cheek):  But the Church gets tax exemptions.  And the Church didn't really build that temple.  It is accessed by roads built by the community, benefits from security, fire, and medical resources funded by the community, is powered on utilities provided by communitarian undertakings, and constructed using materials and tools made from wood, steel, and concrete that were extracted from land originally owned by the government.  So really, all the Church's goods are belong to the people, meaning The State.

 

 

The university or college is permitted the same right.  They own the buildings and the power to recognize registered student organizations or not.  That doesn't mean the students can't organize, and it doesn't mean they can't meet.  It just means they can't reserve a room at the university or call themselves a university group if they aren't willing to abide by the rules the governing organization has set, which rules are not based on a whim, but in compliance with applicable law.

 

But if the university is public entity, it is essentially an agent of the state and therefore subject to the First Amendment.  The university's restrictions aren't based on private property rights; they're based on time/place/manner restrictions on speech that are logically necessary and that courts have previously upheld.

Edited September 11, 2014 by Just_A_Guy

[prisonchaplain]

Let's try this from a slightly different standpoint though completely hypothetical. 

 

Let's assume for a moment that a muslim group forms on a local campus.  Their stated goal is to study the Koran to better understand the words of Allah. 

 

Jim Jones from backwoods middle of nowhere is attending the university.  He is an atheist.  In his required math 101 class he meets Ibrahim, a member of our muslim group.   Ibrahim invites Jim to their next meeting.   Jim decides to attend why not, he is friends with Ibrahim and is curious about his religion and culture. 

 

A.  He shows up at the meeting and is told he may not join because he is not Muslim.  Even though the group is meeting in a building funded by Jim's tuition dollars and his parents taxes. 

 

B.  He shows up and is welcomed to join the group. 

 

We go with scenario B.  Jim attends the meeting and at the end decides to join the group.  He is still an athiest and there is a lot of suspicion among some members of the group. 

 

Jim attends meetings and activities regularly.  He makes a number of friends.  Though he still doesn't believe in Allah or Islam he still finds value in his participation.  3 years later Jim is a senior.  Some of his closest friends on campus are members of the group.  He decides to run through the election process for treasurer.  That is when is is told:

 

A.  Sorry, no one can have a leadership position in this student group unless they are Islamic and appointed by the local Imam. 

 

B.  Please feel free to run.  The members of the group will vote you in or out as they deem fit. 

 

Why are we so afraid of second option in both of these instances?  All the school is saying is that if you want to use our facilities then you have to provide equal access to all students.  The group is still free to not vote for the atheist in the second instance.  If you want to discriminate against LEGALLY PROTECTED CLASSES then we cannot be a party to that discrimination.  You will need to do so on your own time, your own location, and at your own expense.  

 

If this muslim student group meets at the local mosque they are free to not allow anyone in their doors they choose.  They are free to select their leaders anyway they like. 

 

Seems pretty simple to me. 

 

RMGuy, if a group wants to operate that way, fine.  Apparently Campus Crusade for Christ has chosen to do so.  However, for the university, after decades of having no issues, tells a religious grorup that they are PROHIBITED from requiring LEADERSHIP to actually affirm their religious beliefs is absurd on the face of it.  It is not bigotry for Christians to require the leaders of their associations to be Christians.  If academics cannot distinguish between obvious spiritual requirements for leadership and malicious bigotry then we may have bigger problems than clubs getting bullied by administrators.

[Guest]

A perfect example of being so "open-minded" that your brains fall out.

[RMGuy]

So, what?  The U of U has faculty meetings on campus all the time.  But I can't go to those meetings--even though my tax dollars go to the State of Utah, and thus the University--because I am not a member of the U of U faculty. 

 

JAG, I'm surprised, your logic is usually a lot tighter than this.    The UofU is not discriminating against you by not allowing you into the faculty meetings because you do not hold the same status WITH THE UNIVERSITY as the faculty do.  In my stated example the hypothetical Jim is a student as are the other members of the club.  For the university to saction Jim's exclusion is for them to say that two students holding the same status are not entitled to equal protections under the law.  The problem here is that we are dealing with two individuals of the same status - STUDENTS, and an organization that is sponsored by the university.  Hence, the university cannot condone the discrimination.  We had this very instance in our stake.  LDSSA moved its meetings into the ward building a block off of campus because they wished to retain the right to have the local ecclesiastical leadership appoint the president.  LDSSA still exists as an organization it was simply not allowed to register as a student organization.  Note that BYU operates under different guidelines as it is a private school. 

 

If I am a student and wish to use U of U facilities to facilitate the meetings of a group that I want to form, I am free to do so.  But I don't think I should have a right to use state ownership as a bludgeon to force my way into a group people who don't feel my input is relevant, and compel them to tolerate my antics anyways.

 

Again.  What is the bludgeon.  The rules state that the group(s) cannot place a discriminatory limit on who may or may not be a leader of that group.  In other words the group, by charter, may not discriminate.  This does not in anyway prohibit the individual members of that group for believing and voting as they see fit.  In otherwords and individuals beliefs, and the right to express them including in what may ber percieved a discriminatory manner, is in no was limited.  If you belong to LDSSA and don't want a non-LDS member as president, don't vote for him or her. 

 

 

What if Jim isn't an atheist, he's a Fundamentalist Christian; and the university is in Louisiana?  And after the first meeting (where twenty or thirty actual Muslims attend) Jim goes to his next off-campus meeting of the Ku Klux Klan and says "Hey!  There's Muslims at that thar campus!  Let's git 'em outta there!"  And he rounds up about fifty of his Klan buddies and they start going to the Muslim group meetings.  They pay dues and demand to be admitted.  They won't leave.  They insist on the club's having activities like a "Bacon Night" and book discussions on The Satanic Verses and other texts that actual Muslims find reprehensible.

 

What then?  The real Muslims can go start a different club, I suppose--but the Klan-infested organization retains the rights to the name "Muslim", and they can do the same thing to the new club that they did to the old.

 

This is a slippery slope arguement and as such is a logical fallacy.  If someone is willing to lie, obfuscate the truth and practice deciept to get what they want is not going to be stopped by a rule that says you have to be a member.  We have individuals that have joined the church and obtained a temple recommend only to tape the endowment and "expose" the church.  The rules that you had to be a member and pass a worthiness interview did not stop them from dastardly behavior.  The rules you propose leaving in place don't prevent the situation you describe above. 

[RMGuy]

RMGuy, if a group wants to operate that way, fine.  Apparently Campus Crusade for Christ has chosen to do so.  However, for the university, after decades of having no issues, tells a religious grorup that they are PROHIBITED from requiring LEADERSHIP to actually affirm their religious beliefs is absurd on the face of it.  It is not bigotry for Christians to require the leaders of their associations to be Christians.  If academics cannot distinguish between obvious spiritual requirements for leadership and malicious bigotry then we may have bigger problems than clubs getting bullied by administrators.

PC, I don't take issue with Christian groups wanting to have their leaders affirm their beliefs. Please don't misunderstand me, I fully support them doing so.  On our campus we have numerous christian groups of various denominations.  Many of them are RSO (registered student organizations) and as "student organizations" they are governed my the office of student life.  Including the requirement that they not discriminate with regards to membership or leadership eligibility. 

 

I am unaware of any problems of them being overrun by the heathen hordes.  Most of students who don't believe in God or agree with the precepts of an organization simply don't join it.  I am sure it is possible, but I'm not really a fan of discriminating against others on the basis of what might possibly happen. 

 

There are other christian and non-christian organizations in our community that students participate in (LDSSA for one) that are not RSO's.   The university does not inhibit those institutions in anyway, because they are not part of the university nor recognized by it.  They meet in locations of their choice, allow or disallow members as they see fit, and select their leaders as they wish. 

 

Back in 1987, I heard a number of people complain about how allowing women into Rotary was going to ruin the organization.  I know individuals who resigned their membership because they shouldn't have to allow women into their club if they didn't want to.  The ones who lost out were the ones that left.  I think it is a more vibrant organization because of it. 

[Just_A_Guy]

 

JAG, I'm surprised, your logic is usually a lot tighter than this.

 

HEY!  You watch your mouth, bud; I'm married! 

 

The UofU is not discriminating against you by not allowing you into the faculty meetings because you do not hold the same status WITH THE UNIVERSITY as the faculty do.  In my stated example the hypothetical Jim is a student as are the other members of the club.  For the university to saction Jim's exclusion is for them to say that two students holding the same status are not entitled to equal protections under the law.

 

With all due respect, your explanation of different "statuses" seems wholly arbitrary and based, in essence, on the whims of the people running the institutions.  There are plenty of grounds on which one could argue that the students have different "statuses" (for example, one individual has a particular interest and agenda, which he shares with a particular group.  The other seeks to undermine that same interest or agenda, but nevertheless wants to be allowed into the group).  And indeed, administrators are (for now, at least) happy to make "distinctions" about who can use the women's locker room. They make a point of putting specialists in the same academic disciplines, in the same structures.  They're happy to make distinctions about why a particular piece of ground is dedicated to players of football and not players of soccer or swimmers--and, moreover, go so far as to exclude non-athletes from that piece of ground entirely.

 

It's just that most university administrators don't care to make a distinction based on people who self-select for religious (rather than gender, professional, academic, or athletic) reasons, because most of 'em get their kicks out of seeing those uppity religious nuts get their comeuppance.  "Might makes right", and all of that.

 

Hence, the university cannot condone the discrimination.

Let's be clear:  Universities can, and do, condone discrimination.  Otherwise they would have to stop penalizing males for rape.  Because what right does a young woman have to discriminate against a particular male who wants to have sex with her, really?

 

The problem isn't discrimination.  The problem is discrimination against Administration's pet groups.

 

Again.  What is the bludgeon.

 

You mean, besides the fact that students are banned from peaceably assembling on a public university campus because of a particular political or religious viewpoint?   

 

   

 

This is a slippery slope arguement and as such is a logical fallacy.

 

Over the past two decades, the slippery-slopists have had an uncanny propensity for being right.  Remember how repealing sodomy-bans wasn't going to lead to domestic partnerships?  And domestic partnerships weren't going to lead to strikedowns of DOMA.  And the strikedown of DOMA wasn't going to lead to judicially-enforced gay marriage.  And judicially-enforced gay marriage wasn't going to lead to compelling individuals to participate in those gay wedding ceremonies.

 

If someone is willing to lie, obfuscate the truth and practice deciept to get what they want is not going to be stopped by a rule that says you have to be a member.  We have individuals that have joined the church and obtained a temple recommend only to tape the endowment and "expose" the church.  The rules that you had to be a member and pass a worthiness interview did not stop them from dastardly behavior.

 

An exception that proves the rule.  The general efficacy of the Church's procedures to keep the public out of temples, is what makes a few isolated individuals go to such lengths to get into them. 

 

The rules you propose leaving in place don't prevent the situation you describe above.

 

No, but the make it harder.  And the "you can't completely eradicate the problem, so you shouldn't try to address it at all and you should cede your constitutional rights in the process" is a pretty tenuous argument to make, whether the "problem" is sexual assault, drug use, poverty, or any other social ill.

[Backroads]

I think of RM's story about the institute--and I find the solution reasonable.

 

If it's worth it to you, in the face of a threat to your existence, to go without university recognition and/or funding, well, so be it.

 

So, no, under the policies as I understand them, I think the ruling is fair.

 

I look at JaG's and RM's arguments and find them intriguing on both accounts.

 

But... I still say house makes the rules.

 

As for the slippery slope, wisdom would suggest tackling that slippery slope. Would organizations not have a voice if Jim Jones and his KKK buddies were attacking the expressed and recorded purpose of the charter?

Edited September 11, 2014 by Backroads

[Just_A_Guy]

As for the slippery slope, wisdom would suggest tackling that slippery slope. Would organizations not have a voice if Jim Jones and his KKK buddies were attacking the expressed and recorded purpose of the charter?

 

On what basis do you tackle it?  You've already made club membership open, and required that club leadership be chosen purely by democracy without regard to the individual leader's actual commitment to the stated purpose of the club.

 

That works fine--if the club reflects the outlook of the majority of the larger society. But for clubs whose members are a minority of the university population--on what basis do you stop my hypothetical scenario from happening to a club whom the majority of students really, really want to see shut down?

 

Yes, the club's old guard has a "voice".  So, what?  In a raw majority rule situation--they lose, and the organization they formed ceases to exist.

Edited September 12, 2014 by Just_A_Guy

[estradling75]

For me... I tend to run on the idea that those that seek or want change have to make the case why change is better.

 

The case I see is to stop discrimination...  Which is a good sound-bite but really we all have to discriminate between things every day of our lives... So lets dig deeper...  The is about groups that wish to bring together people with some similarities not commonly held.  And then requiring these very selective groups to allow an even smaller and rarely accurring case were someone not having that similarity wishes to be a part of the group and manages to convince a voting block of that group to make them a leader...  Now according to posters here this should be so rare as to be trivial.   

 

So that is the gain... The trivial (in numbers) ability for anyone to be come a leader of any chartered group assuming they can get enough vote by that group.

 

So what is the cost...  if you have a group that wants more then just a majority vote qualification for there leaders they lose the access and voice that they once had.  Or in other word they get censored, silenced, blocked.  In a place were different ideas, thought, and voices are supposedly encouraged, in the name of diversity they become less diverse.  In the name of tolerance they become less tolerant.  It appears that only those that 'think alike' are worthy enough have a voice.

 

Seems to me that the cost completely out weigh the gains 

[FunkyTown]

"Total agreement, I could forgive. Disagreement? Never."

[MarginOfError]

Special privilege?  A Christian group says its leaders must be Christians.  The schools derecognize them, accusing them of discrimination (a kind of blacklisting, no?)  You agree, and say the group is clammering for special privilege?  Really?

 

BTW, many of these clubs have been on the campuses for decades.  The schools changed their rules, and are going after these clubs retroactively.  Unintended consequences or intentional?

 

They very much are asking for a special privilege.  No other group can disallow leadership in the group based on religion, sexual orientation, gender, etc.  But Intervarsity wants to be able to.  I think that qualifies as special privilege.  

 

And applying this retroactively?  The relevant law in California is at least 5 years old.  http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2009/2009_08_1371  It states, simply, that " any student [be allowed] to participate, become a member, or seek leadership positions, regardless of their status or beliefs."  Intervarsity has had over 5 years to figure out a solution.  They've had 5 years that they've been operating contrary to state law.  Retroactive punishment would involve demanding compensation for all of the benefits they received in that 5 year period (in the form of room fees, etc).  And if the University asks this of them, I'll stand with you and say that such retroactive punishment is wrong.  But a decision to no longer support the behavior that runs contrary to law is not retroactive punishment.

[estradling75]

They very much are asking for a special privilege.  No other group can disallow leadership in the group based on religion, sexual orientation, gender, etc.  But Intervarsity wants to be able to.  I think that qualifies as special privilege.  

 

And applying this retroactively?  The relevant law in California is at least 5 years old.  http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2009/2009_08_1371  It states, simply, that " any student [be allowed] to participate, become a member, or seek leadership positions, regardless of their status or beliefs."  Intervarsity has had over 5 years to figure out a solution.  They've had 5 years that they've been operating contrary to state law.  Retroactive punishment would involve demanding compensation for all of the benefits they received in that 5 year period (in the form of room fees, etc).  And if the University asks this of them, I'll stand with you and say that such retroactive punishment is wrong.  But a decision to no longer support the behavior that runs contrary to law is not retroactive punishment.

 

 

This is ignoring a very important fact.  Its not about extending a special privilege, its about removing privileges that everyone had but not everyone used. Before this... all groups had the freedom to define their leadership however they wanted.  Some had restrictions some did not.  Now they are selecting targeting groups that don't do it the way they think is best.  Freedoms are being taken away and lost and restricted.  All for the simple fact that they disagree, and are different.

 

If this had be targeted at a womens or other minority group everyone would be up in arms against it... But since this is attacking white male Christians it seems to be OK

[MarginOfError]

This is ignoring a very important fact.  Its not about extending a special privilege, its about removing privileges that everyone had but not everyone used. Before this... all groups had the freedom to define their leadership however they wanted.  Some had restrictions some did not.  Now they are selecting targeting groups that don't do it the way they think is best.  Freedoms are being taken away and lost and restricted.  All for the simple fact that they disagree, and are different.

 

If this had be targeted at a womens or other minority group everyone would be up in arms against it... But since this is attacking white male Christians it seems to be OK

 

Again, I want evidence of an institutional tolerance that women's or minority student groups on campus are formally disallowing certain members to seek leadership positions in those groups.  

 

Your argument sounds an awful lot like, "we're being singled out because we choose to discriminate.  You wouldn't single out a group that chose not to discriminate!  Therefore, we're the victims!"  It comes off very circular and absurd.  

[estradling75]

Again, I want evidence of an institutional tolerance that women's or minority student groups on campus are formally disallowing certain members to seek leadership positions in those groups.  

 

Your argument sounds an awful lot like, "we're being singled out because we choose to discriminate.  You wouldn't single out a group that chose not to discriminate!  Therefore, we're the victims!"  It comes off very circular and absurd.  

 

 

Simple... the idea that we can put other qualification on a leader besides the vote has a Constitutional Example.

In the past every group has the privilege to put whatever qualifications on a leader they desired.  This was not a 'special privilege' that only a select few enjoyed.  Therefore labeling it a 'special privilege' smacks of the tactics of class warfare.  With this action everyone loses a privilege they once had. (Even if only a few used it)

 

Quite simply this is a tactic to bully a select group, on a technicality of enjoying a privilege everyone had 

[MarginOfError]

Simple... the idea that we can put other qualification on a leader besides the vote has a Constitutional Example.

In the past every group has the privilege to put whatever qualifications on a leader they desired.  This was not a 'special privilege' that only a select few enjoyed.  Therefore labeling it a 'special privilege' smacks of the tactics of class warfare.  With this action everyone loses a privilege they once had. (Even if only a few used it)

 

Quite simply this is a tactic to bully a select group, on a technicality of enjoying a privilege everyone had 

That really doesn't make much sense.  Prior to the law, all groups had the privilege of imposing additional requirements for leadership in recognized student groups.  After the law, no groups have the privilege.  To say that religious groups should retain the privilege that no other group has would, I'm pretty sure, make it a special privilege.  

[estradling75]

That really doesn't make much sense.  Prior to the law, all groups had the privilege of imposing additional requirements for leadership in recognized student groups.  After the law, no groups have the privilege.  To say that religious groups should retain the privilege that no other group has would, I'm pretty sure, make it a special privilege.  

 

Just because it is a law now... doesn't mean it is a good law... or even that those that passed it expected it to be used this way.

 

I have a lawyer friend who said when ever a law is passed two laws really happen.  The law they intended and the law they didn't foresee

[Just_A_Guy]

Prior to the law, all groups had the privilege of imposing additional requirements for leadership in recognized student groups.  After the law, no groups have the privilege.  To say that religious groups should retain the privilege that no other group has would, I'm pretty sure, make it a special privilege.  

 

That seems rather like the gay marriage opponents who say "look, we aren't discriminating.  Straight men can't marry other men, either".

 

It is possible for a law to be facially neutral but still calculated to have a disproportionate impact on a particular religious, ethnic, or political minority--poll taxes and grandfather clauses being two of the most notorious examples. 

 

As to the situation at hand:  I daresay that if anyone seriously thought that it were politically and demographically possible that California's new law might force black members of a black students club to accept a Klansman as the club's leader, or a LGBQT-alliance club to install a duly elected leader who was also a practicing member of the Westboro Baptist Church--that law would never have seen the light of day.

Edited September 12, 2014 by Just_A_Guy

[MarginOfError]

That seems rather like the gay marriage opponents who say "look, we aren't discriminating.  Straight men can't marry other men, either".

 

It is possible for a law to be facially neutral but still calculated to have a disproportionate impact on a particular religious, ethnic, or political minority--poll taxes and grandfather clauses being two of the most notorious examples. 

 

As to the situation at hand:  I daresay that if anyone seriously thought that it were politically and demographically possible that California's new law might force black members of a black students club to accept a Klansman as the club's leader, or a LGBQT-alliance club to install a duly elected leader who was also a practicing member of the Westboro Baptist Church--that law would never have seen the light of day.

 

Well if you're going to be like that, I'll stick with "turnabout is fair play" 

[Just_A_Guy]

Hmm.  MoE will agree to ban gay marriage, if I agree to exile Mormon and conservative Christian student associations from public university campuses . . .

 

I won't deny that I'm tempted.  :)

[prisonchaplain]

I'm going to say this, and let folks either say, "Oh, yeah...common sense," or, "What ya smoking, PC?"

 

Religious groups, by their nature, are lead by people of that religion.  To call this historic reality bigotry, and rescind the kind of club status that goes to all other groups, is a back-door attack on religion.  The beauty--they get to call us the bigots!  And...some of us even agree.  Yikes!

[Just_A_Guy]

"The Universities of California:  We discriminate--so you don't have to!!!!"

[RMGuy]

Many individuals here seem to be taking the stance that an organization should be free to determine its own rules and then simultaneously denying that right to the larger organization.

If a student organization is allowed to set its own rules governing its operation, then why is not the parent organization permitted to do the same?

The problem here is that these are not independent student organizations but rather organizations that are sponsored by and affiliated with the attendant university and as such different laws apply to universities (particularly public ones) than apply to religious organizations.

Should a bishop be allowed to ordain women if the majority of his congregants support that? No! Why? Because the affiliated with a larger church organization that sets other guidelines. That bishop and ward membership would be free to start their own church and set whatever rules they want, but they are not free to call themselves The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, nor to continue to use the ward building. The church is and probably would excommunicate them for not "following the rules." Rightly so.

It is the same thing here. No one is saying that these groups may not form, nor that these groups may meet, nor establish whatever rules that they see fit for membership or leadership. What is being said is that the parent organization (in this case the university) gets a say in what those rules are. If you don't agree then you cannot be a UNIVERSITY Club.

Edited September 13, 2014 by RMGuy

[estradling75]

Many individuals here seem to be taking the stance that an organization should be free to determine its own rules and then simultaneously denying that right to the larger organization.

If a student organization is allowed to set its own rules governing its operation, then why is not the parent organization permitted to do the same?

 

 

 

No we are not...  We are pointing out that the organization allowed this before.  Now they are changing the rules (which is technically fine)  But those changes are having a disproportionate impact a small minority group.  They do it in the 'name of' diversity and tolerance which is the exact opposite of what they are accomplishing.

 

If they want to say Christians are not allowed any more then they should come out an say so...  This will allow the even larger groups (voters on the State and National level) to decide if that is what they really want to allow them to do this.  But instead they hide the bigotry behind labels of Law, Tolerance, and Diversity.