Jump to content
Okrahomer

LDSSA kicked-Off U of Iowa campus

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Gray said:

Perhaps as a Christian he thought the point of Christianity was preaching Christ, not railing against gay people. The name of the group after all is Business Leaders in Christ, not Business Leaders against Gay People.

I reject the notion that not supporting SSM is equal to 'railing against gay people' and being 'against gay people.'   

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I reject the notion that not supporting SSM is equal to 'railing against gay people' and being 'against gay people.'   

Of course it is. If I tried to say I wasn't anti-Mormon, but that Mormons should not get married to other Mormons or otherwise engage in any "Mormon" activity, my protestations would be transparently untrue.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I get that this is your perspective gray, but I don't agree. 

I don't support premarital sex, but that doesn't mean that when I affirm that i'm 'railing against my friends who live together but aren't married' or that i'm 'against' my friends who have had children out of wedlock (I've been invited to all of their baby showers and have always been very happy to have been included.  They know my beliefs and even from their perspective i'm not railing or against them).

 

Being married out of wedlock isn't an identity. It's a situation.

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, Gray said:

Being married out of wedlock isn't an identity. It's a situation.

SSM isn't an identity either.  

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
19 minutes ago, bluebell said:

SSM isn't an identity either.  

Being gay or lesbian is. Like being Mormon.

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, Gray said:

Being gay or lesbian is. Like being Mormon.

I agree (kind of-being mormon is a choice).  But SSM, which is what we are talking about, isn't.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
46 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I agree (kind of-being mormon is a choice).  But SSM, which is what we are talking about, isn't.

Marriage to someone of the same gender is a part of being gay. Just like doing "Mormon" things is a part of being Mormon. If I said that it's immoral for Mormons to go to church, go through the temple, or marry each other, that would be a pretty anti-Mormon thing to say.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, bluebell said:

SSM isn't an identity either.  

Is being a wife or husband an identity?

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Walden said:

Is being a wife or husband an identity?

Yes, I think so.  It's a choice, but that doesn't mean it's not still an identity.  But agreeing or disagreeing with same sex marriage is not an identity.  It's a belief or position.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, bluebell said:

Yes, I think so.  It's a choice, but that doesn't mean it's not still an identity.  But agreeing or disagreeing with same sex marriage is not an identity.  It's a belief or position.

IMO, agreeing to become a husband/wife is a choice to take on an identity, that identity being one of commitment, fidelity and loyalty to our chosen spouse.

I think it is sad that some try to deny others from choosing to take on that identity.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
34 minutes ago, Walden said:

IMO, agreeing to become a husband/wife is a choice to take on an identity, that identity being one of commitment, fidelity and loyalty to our chosen spouse.

I think it is sad that some try to deny others from choosing to take on that identity.

I can understand that.  I'm sure there's stuff that you believe that makes me sad too.  Reasonable people often disagree.

To be clear though, I don't think the organization was attempting to deny the gay member's choice to become a husband to the spouse of his choosing.  They just didn't agree with it from a religious perspective. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, Walden said:

IMO, agreeing to become a husband/wife is a choice to take on an identity, that identity being one of commitment, fidelity and loyalty to our chosen spouse.

I think it is sad that some try to deny others from choosing to take on that identity.

I’m wondering how the idea of marriage can be extended to this case in a more general sense.  If a marriage is two people choosing to commit to be faithful and loyal to each other, what happens when one of them refuses or otherwise cannot keep the commitment?

The answer is that one or both will choose to end the marriage, and they would be well within their rights to do so.  People in such decaying marriages often say things like:  We just wanted different things.  We had nothing in common.  We stopped loving each other.  We grew apart.  Etc.

How is this different from a group of like-minded university students who choose to affiliate in an on-campus club?  These clubs are all predicated on common interests and membership comes with certain commitments.  Not unlike a marriage.

If one of the members decides that he/she can no longer keep the commitments, why should the group not be allowed to sever ties with him/her or otherwise limit participation (as it was in this case)?  Why should the university have the authority to dictate to the group what those commitments are?

One gets the impression that the University of Iowa was caught off guard here.  It seems to me that the university had an obligation to protect the rights of both the gay students as well as the religious; and in the end what the university did was to protect only the gay student, while actually harming the religious.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

UPDATE:

The court has ruled in favor of “Business Leaders in Christ.”  Per the ruling:

The Constitution does not tolerate the way defendants [the University of Iowa] chose to enforce the human rights policy," the decision said. "Particularly when free speech is involved, the uneven application of any policy risks the most exacting standard of judicial scrutiny, which the defendants have failed to withstand." 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
On 8/10/2018 at 11:01 AM, Okrahomer said:

 

"When a voluntary student organization chooses to become a registered student organization, it must adhere to the mission of the university, the UI's policies and procedures, and all local, state and federal laws," Bassett said. Deregistered groups cannot access school funds, reserve on-campus facilities or participate in student organization fairs."

I think BYU has used a very similar type statement to defend some of its own decisions in the past

Share this post


Link to post
On 2/8/2019 at 6:40 AM, sjdawg said:

I think BYU has used a very similar type statement to defend some of its own decisions in the past

I was trying to think of a BYU student group that had been "deregistered."  Do you have one in mind?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
On 2/8/2019 at 6:40 AM, sjdawg said:

I think BYU has used a very similar type statement to defend some of its own decisions in the past

Maybe, but the school got in trouble for 

 

On 2/7/2019 at 1:06 PM, Okrahomer said:

the uneven application of any policy risks the most exacting standard of judicial scrutiny, which the defendants have failed to withstand." 

It wasn't the policy, but that they enforced unevenly. If they held all groups to the same standards, the ruling could have gone the other way.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

Maybe, but the school got in trouble for 

 

It wasn't the policy, but that they enforced unevenly. If they held all groups to the same standards, the ruling could have gone the other way.

And that is the crux of the difficulty:  How will the University of Iowa enforce a policy "evenly" when the competing interests cannot apparently be reconciled?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, Okrahomer said:

And that is the crux of the difficulty:  How will the University of Iowa enforce a policy "evenly" when the competing interests cannot apparently be reconciled?

They are trying but when the Business Leaders for Christ was kicked out, most of the student groups on campus were not compliant with the schools policy. https://www.thegazette.com/subject/news/education/judge-sides-with-university-of-iowa-student-group-accused-of-discrimination-business-leaders-in-christ-blinc-20180717

"The student group accused the UI of, among other things, discrimination for unequally enforcing its policy. It noted that other UI groups also limit leadership and even membership in some cases to those who agree with their ideology or religious beliefs. BLinC has pointed to the UI student group Imam Mahdi as one that reserves leadership posts for Shia Muslims.

The university has said student organization membership should be open to anyone, regardless of race, creed, color, religion, national origin, age, sex, gender identity or other protected class.

But a recent UI review of how it administers its human rights policy found just 157 of 513 student organizations were in compliance by having the full and correct human rights clause in their constitutions. More than 350 groups were out of compliance, according to the review, which was part of the court record."

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
27 minutes ago, Okrahomer said:

And that is the crux of the difficulty:  How will the University of Iowa enforce a policy "evenly" when the competing interests cannot apparently be reconciled?

The judge reinforced that her decision should not be viewed in that context.

Rose's decision said while she suspects some will portray the case "as a fundamental conflict between nondiscrimination laws and religious liberty," that "overinflates" the issue that was before the court. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, bsjkki said:

The judge reinforced that her decision should not be viewed in that context.

Rose's decision said while she suspects some will portray the case "as a fundamental conflict between nondiscrimination laws and religious liberty," that "overinflates" the issue that was before the court. 

Yes.  It’s clear the ruling did not address the ultimate problem.  I would not want to be the U of Iowa administrator now who has to figure out how to enforce a policy that simultaneaouly and evenly ensures that both sexual orientation and religious belief are protected in voluntary on-campus student groups.  

I wonder if they’ll look to South Dakota for the solution?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
On 8/10/2018 at 1:16 PM, Okrahomer said:

ICollege should be about learning and making new connections, not appearing in court, Blomberg said.

"These students are students. They have better things to do with their time than fight their own administration," he said.

Actually going to court to defend your rights under the Constitution against the infringement by institutions is not only a learning experience but also an excellent use of their time.

'Bloomberg the administration has better use of their time than to deny the students their basic rights under the Constitution.  You will also learn that bullies do not always win by trash talking the other side.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

UPDATE 1/23/2019

 

Quote

 

More than a year after a faith-based student group sued the University of Iowa for stripping its campus affiliation based on controversial leadership requirements, the two sides are set to face off next week in U.S. District Court over sticking points in advance of a jury trial in March.

The case involving Business Leaders in Christ — a student group known as BLinC, founded in the Tippie College of Business in 2014 — prompted an expansive university review of its student organizations; deregistration of dozens more groups; and a second lawsuit against the UI over how it handled a faith-based group.

The student groups — represented by the high-profile Becket Fund for Religious Liberty from Washington, D. C.— have attracted the eye of the U.S. Justice Department, which recently filed court documents asserting its opinion that the UI violated the Constitution by deregistering faith-based groups.

“The exclusion of religious viewpoints from colleges and universities risks the suppression of free speech and creative inquiry in one of the vital centers for the nation’s intellectual life,” according to the Justice Department statement telling its interest in the case BLinC filed in 2017.

In advance of a scheduled March 4 jury trial, a judge has invited the two sides next Wednesday to the federal courthouse in Des Moines. BLinC attorneys say they will ask there “for permanent protection from the university’s religious discrimination.”

https://www.thegazette.com/subject/news/education/university-of-iowa-to-argue-student-organization-discrimination-in-federal-court-business-leaders-in-christ-blinc-intervarsity-graduate-christian-fellowship-20190123

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
On 8/29/2018 at 8:55 AM, bluebell said:

I reject the notion that not supporting SSM is equal to 'railing against gay people' and being 'against gay people.'   

But would you agree that by not allowing someone who is married to the same sex a leadership role in a club that has to abide by university rules which require no discrimination is discrimination and should be kick off of campus for not following the criteria set up by the university?

Share this post


Link to post
12 hours ago, california boy said:

But would you agree that by not allowing someone who is married to the same sex a leadership role in a club that has to abide by university rules which require no discrimination is discrimination and should be kick off of campus for not following the criteria set up by the university?

I thought the judge ruled that it wasn't discrimination?

Share this post


Link to post
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...