The Stranger isn't a student alt weekly paper at a public university that takes funding from the university, funds derived from fees paid by all students.

Agree with Ken, and I'm a gay Canadian dude. What is this guy doing in a fundie Christian a cappella group? Don't you think it was his responsibility to understand the mandate of the group (no matter how effed up and stupid it happens to be?)

Derp, rescind my comment, just read Dan's. I understand the difference now.

While I agree that this is shitty-hateful-bigotty behavior, I do question the tactic of bring more attention to the story this time around...Unlike school districts and local politicians, this is a musical group. You know what they say about "all press is good press"

The Bible does not "clearly" say anything about homosexuality. The word used to describe homosexuality is used many times in the Old Testament to refer to things like eating pork, working on the Sabbath, and being un-Kosher. In those places the word is translated to English words like "unclean" or "unholy". But somebody with a stick up his ass decided to translate the word to "abomination" in the part about homosexuality. It is a TRANSLATION people, and a politically motivated one at that (reflecting the politics of the day). The Bible is therefore not at all clear about homosexuality, or if you think it is then you had better not eat pork or work weekends.

Wow, that's some nice weaseling on part of the student group. If Thomason would have said "Yup, I'm gay and that's totally wrong!" he would get to stay?

Can you imagine what would happen if an a Capella group kicked out a christian because of their beliefs? I'm sure Fox News would run with it for at least a week as proof of an attack on faith. This is an attack on tolerance, something I'm sure the bible says nothing about.....

Except for "love thy neighbor". But that's from the gay portion of the bible (Mathew is a total queen) that I'm sure they don't hold as canonical in Psalm 100.

I wonder if any of them masturbate? As I recall, that is an abomination in the bible, right along with homosexuality. Maybe Psalm 100 should cull their ranks of the vile masturbatory members sullying the good name of the LORD. amen.

If you kick all the gays out of the choir, who's left to sing? Straight people? Please.

I guess I kind of look at it like the Boy Scouts. Yes, they have a right to be homophobic douche bags. They have a right to their bigotry. I also have a right to call them on their bullshit bigotry. And They should not receive one penny of public funds to support their group.

@8, I think that would be covered by the right to now allow people who are disruptive and bother others in a group to stay.

The problem is that policies that are designed to prevent people from discriminating based on innate features are incompatible with policies that do allow discrimination based on ideology when the ideology of a group is partly driven by discrimination of innate features. So a policy made, for instance, to prevent young republicans from joining and fucking up progressive groups on campus (or visa versa) can't properly deal with a group that is by its very nature racist, or homophobic.

The same justification they used, which boils down to "We're ok with him being homosexual, just as long as he's ashamed of it" could be used by a racist group "Oh we're fine with black members, just as long as they agree that they are an inferior subspecies to whites".

Anyway, they're in full martyr mode at this point. They're going to dislocate a shoulder from patting themselves on the back so hard for making a stand on principle by kicking out a sexual minority. Because you know, life is so damn hard for Christians, ain't it?

I can't say I feel too worked up about this. I think student groups should have the right to some ideological discrimination. The Campus Dems should not have to put up with republicans trolling their meetings nor the Bird watchers with pheasant hunters. I mean they got 150 bucks. Big deal.

Doesn't seem worth the fuss.

@6 Eh. Holy books are not all that clear on much of anything. I'm fine with people finding what they want in there provided that they leave secular society alone.

@2 I'm with Ken. Organizations are organizations. Businesses don't have to hire every applicant. Singing groups don't have to accept everyone who auditions. This singing group is called "Psalm 100". It is very obviously Christian.

What if, at a state university, a men's singing group discovered that one of their members was a disguised woman, and kicked them out?

What if, at a state university, a black men's choir turned down a white applicant?

What if, at a state university, a young men's choir turned down an older applicant?

What if, at a state university, a gay men's choir kicked out a straight man?

Sure, in the example of this post, the kids are being assholes and douchebags. But are you saying that singing groups shouldn't be allowed to make their own admission requirements?

I think the relevant quote is here: "Thomason said his views became an issue for the group after he came to believe that homosexuality does not conflict with Christianity." He felt that God still loved him, that he could be a part of the Christian community, that he could raise his voice in song to glorify his God.

Do all the group members tithe? That's hard on a student income. Do any of the men shave? What's their stance on bacon? Any of 'em have premarital sex? All of these things are just as proscribed by the Bible as homosexuality is.

This choir is focused on the wrong things.

From my tangential experience with a cappella (my girlfriend in college was in a group), there's going to be a lot more than one gay man in that group. A cappella was almost 90% gay dudes and women standing around and singing in what can only be described as a very gay way. And I went to a Southern State school - not exactly a hotbed of liberalism or openess.

There must be some serious 1950s looking the other way, let's all pretend and stay friends going on in that group.

They also claim to be non-denominational, yet are enforcing beliefs that correspond to only some denominations of Christianity.

Anybody who joins a Christian anything deserves whatever they get. Fuck those assholes.

I hope my alma mater takes away their funding.

@8 that Christian would be kicked out for disrupting the group's proceedings and undermining their mission. Christians, even homophobic ones, would be allowed to attend meetings of the gay-straight alliance I attended at the same university - if they were there to participate and learn, rather than to preach.

However, this gay guy was not preaching against Christianity, but considered himself a Christian and wanted to spread the word. His interpretation of the issue was in line with several major denominations of Christianity, and he was a member of an ostensibly non-denominational group. Sure, what they did was in line with typical Christian fundamentalism - but the group was not an explicitly Christian fundamentalist group. He was not disrupting their mission, unless their mission was to sing homophobic songs or look like petty Pharisees.

@17 that reasoning would require the university to agree that (self-accepting) gays and lesbians can't be Christians. Which not only would not be their place, but isn't even in line with the group's own rules. Unless they wish to claim that despite being "non-denominational", they actually don't consider Episcopalians or United Church of Christ members to be Christian.

Being obviously Christian does not preclude being gay, and it's conceding the point to homophobes if you agree with that.

Considering that the strongest mandate of the new testament is to love thy neighbor, not judge them, the bigger sin here is being committed by the members that voted him out. I might have to join facebook just to give these douchebags a better understanding of the Bible.

@15: I do.
Here.

Hey, they can't be bigots. They have a token black chick.

@15 there's way too much research to cite here. Look up "Biology and sexual orientation" on wikipedia though I should note that you should go to the original research for a guarantee of accuracy.

@23, I should have said the ONLY sin. Homosexuality is not a sin. Period. As said earlier, it entered the Bible as a sin via later translations due to political shit.

Good to know about the "no women speaking up in church" thing. I'll add that to the Hypocrisy List I carry around mentally and pull out when I speak to Christian fundies who oh so love strict interpretations of scripture.

@26 that's a good question.

I'm guessing not, but even if they did, it would still not be in line with their ostensibly non-denominational group constitution.

Hey maybe next they can start kicking out people who claim to be Democrats and Christians at the same time!

Looks like they disabled peoples abilities to post facebook comments on their wall. You can still comment on things they post though.

I sure as hell hope someone's checking up on this group's wardrobe. You know what it says in Deuteronomy 22:11 about wearing clothing made of different types of fabrics. You KNOW those cotton/poly-blend golf shirts are a one-way ticket to H-E-double-hockey-sticks, and someone with a better grasp of Biblical law than I should investigate.

I'd harass them on Facebook but that would require me to like their page...

I'm too wordy. This falls under tl;dr category, so it isn't on the wall, Dan.

Members of Psalm 100,

I feel morally and ethically obligated to express my disappointment with your decision to expel a fellow member for essentially  believing what I see as a central tenant of Christianity, believing that John 3:16 applied to their person and therefore they in good faith can raise their voice in praise alongside everyone elses. 

I would like to challenge your interpretation as to why you seem to believe your decision is God honoring and that you have Biblical justification for your attitudes.  My reasons are numerous:
 
a)    The word “homosexual” was coined around 1890-1895, making it impossible for homosexuality to have been mentioned in the Bible or to have been used by Jesus.  After all the King James translation was completed from 1604-1611. To claim it is listed as a sinful behavior, when it didn’t exist as a word, in the Bible is an outright lie. There are sixty-six verses on or about lying, though.
b)      The English translation of those seven or so verses proclaimed to be ‘homosexual’ passages found in Genesis, Leviticus, 1 Corinthians, and Romans are poorly translated from their original Greek and Hebrew. You are correct they do condemn actions and behaviors, but they are narrowly defined: same-sex rape, same-sex ritual sex used in Pagan worship, heterosexuals engaged in same-sex ritual sex, men who sexually abused and molested boys. The Bible, however, is silent on loving, committed same-sex relationships. And, just because there are no mentions or affirmations directed towards same-sex relationships does not mean that they are disapproved by God, or will you like to argue that locomotives, airplanes, telephones, movies, the United States of America, and the Internet are all disapproved of by God?
c)      Perhaps, you wish to hold up Genesis 2:24 as your argument that God intended sexual relationships to between one man and one woman in marriage?  In doing so you must also acknowledge that there are eight different types of marriage found in the Bible, seven of which we do not practice in the United States:
·        Standard nuclear (Genesis 2:24) between two individuals.
·        Polygynous marriage (Genesis 4:19 is the first place you find it mentioned) one man is permitted multiple wives. The following is a shortened list of individuals in the Bible that had polygynous marriages: Lamech, Esau, Jacob, Gideon, Elkanah, David, Solomon, Rehaboam, and Herod the Great. God cannot be found expressing his displeasure at one man having multiple wives within the Bible, although it can be shown in 1 King 11:1-6 the there is displeasure that many of Solomon’s 700 royal wives were foreigners and worshiped foreign gods. But, that verse isn’t disapproving of polygynous marriages themselves.
·        Levirate marriage (Genesis 38: 6-10) from the Latin ‘levir’ meaning brother-in-law. A widow was required to marry her brother-in-law to produce an heir for her dead husband if he died before fathering a son.
·        A slave as a piece of property in a plural marriage (Genesis 16), Sarah gives her slave Hagar to Abraham as a substitute womb.
·        Concubine marriage (Genesis 22: 24) to a woman of lesser status, but not a slave or prisoner of war than “official wives”. A brief, but not exhaustive list include: Abraham, Nahor, Jacob, David, and Solomon.
·        A male soldier and a female prisoner of war (Numbers 38:1-18; Deuteronomy 21: 11-14) the woman was made to shave her head and allowed a period of morning before she was placed in a marriage.
·        A male rapist and his victim (Deuteronomy 21:11-14) provided she wasn’t engaged her rapist pays her father fifty shekels of silver and then marries her.
·        Male and female slaves (Exodus 21:4), a slave owner could assign a slave woman to become another slave’s wife. She remained the property of the slave owner though, and if her husband was freed she and their children could not go with him. If he wished to stay than the slave owner would pierce his ear as evidence of his permanent status as a slave to his owner.
d)      Perhaps, you cling to the story of Sodom and Gomorrah as your defense? You cannot ignore the parallel story of Judges 19 of the Levite and his concubine who went to stay the night with an elderly man in Gibeah (which was in Benjamin). You must be familiar that a group of wicked men surrounded the home of the old man demanding that the visitor be given over to them for sex. The old man refused to offer up his guest, but the Levite threw his concubine wife out to the men. And, in verse 25 it tell us that the men raped and abused her throughout the entire night and left her dying on the threshold of old man’s door at dawn. The chapter finishes with the Levite returning to his home in the hill country of Ephriam with her body, where he chopped it into twelve pieces and sent a piece to each of the twelve parts of Israel. Do wish to still wish to argue that God smote Sodom and Gomorrah because men there wished to rape other men, when Judges 19 tells you that men who wished to rape men lived within Isreal in Gibeah and who raped a woman to death were not destroyed? God did not rain down burning sulfur upon Gibeah. You cannot blame the story of Sodom and Gomorrah on homosexuality as the grievous sin, because Jesus tells you something entirely different in Luke 10: 9-15. Jesus says that Judgment day will be more bearable for Sodom than it will be for those towns that refused him welcome and rejected him.
e)      Jesus says nothing about same-sex attraction. He did heal the catamite servant of the Centurion and praise him for his faith in Luke 11, though. Loving one’s neighbor is a subject which Jesus had something to say about. 
f)        You cannot argue that God hates homosexuality for many reasons. And, not just because the word ‘homosexual’ didn’t exist, but also because the concept of sexual orientation was unknown during biblical times. But most importantly because He states what he hates in Proverbs 6:16-19, there are seven detestable things and six things that he hates, sexual orientation isn’t one of them nor are loving, consensual same-sex relationships between adults.  I will remind you, and you do know this, that God makes it very clear as to what he does require. You’ll find it in Micah 6:8.
                          He has showed you, O man, what is good.
                          And what does the LORD require of you?
                          To act justly and to love mercy
                              and to walk humbly with your God.
 
 
 I am asking you to look deeply into your own heart and examine your own ability to follow everything to the letter in the Bible. Do you follow it all? You do not.  Like everyone you pick and choose what you obey. The very Bible you claim to trust, rejects  your attitude in Romans 12:18; John 13:34. As individuals you might like to believe that consensual same-sex relationships are condemned as sexually immoral, but they are not within your Bible. The Bible itself does not justify your opinion. You are welcome to your beliefs, be they denominational or personal, just stop proclaiming that God said a single word about homosexuality or that he rejects gays and lesbians. And, have the integrity to acknowledge denominations within Christianity that believe that God's love is for everyone  and allow for different opinions and interpretations. Your actions are turning people away and that should grieve you. 

Assholes. Every single one of them. If they follow the literal word of the bible, then they are also ok with buying slaves as well as other people's children. If they've EVER touched a shrimp or lobster then they're ok with going to Hell. Dumbass, hypocritical, hateful bigots using religion to spread hate.
I think we all know what Jeebus would say about that...

Nobody's mentioned this yet but, if they're going to be so observant, then all the girls in the group had better not attend rehearsals or perform when they're having their periods. It's the Red Tent for them!

So why not remove that obstacle and have separate female and male singing groups? Just get rid of that particular "temptation" altogether and form an all-male singing group? They could even call it The Disciples.

Someone above mentioned that none of the members had better not masturbate. But, then again, they still could ... just feel incredibly guilty, ashamed and repentent afterwards. Ugh. Dogmatic douches.

Facebook page has been taken down apparently.

@ Ken,

For me it was over the subject of divorce, not equality. I unrepentedly helped women who attended my DV support group file for divorce, overriding the pastoral counseling they received. I don't have your answer. I suppose it would be dependent upon the groups compliance requirements.

And, it was that experience that caused me to trust myself and to seek to become biblically literate. I've been studying and compiling notes for years. I've lost the names of all those authors and professors whose work I owe huge amounts of acknowledgement and thanks.

Dan, you aren't defending gay rights, you're just bullying. These people have a different interpretation of the Bible from yours - arguably an ignorant and self-serving one, but they're allowed to have their own poorly-researched, hypocritical interpretation. It's not OK for them to use their interpretation to deny gay people the right to marry, adopt children, live openly with their partners, or other fundamental rights that actually matter - but denying gay people the right to be in fundamentalist Christian, college-age a capella groups? As Rick Santorum knows, you've achieved real power with your Slog readership, and now you're using it to pick on kids. If they don't want to spend their leisure time with gay people, they don't have to, and you won't miss them.

And now their Facebook page is gone. Very sad. I soooo wanted to preach at them.

I think it's irrelevant that they aren't technically following everything in the Bible. Plenty of religious groups ignore the awkward parts about dietary and clothing restrictions, women as second class citizens, slaves as a good thing, and how great it is to allow strangers to rape your daughter. That's not really the point.

It's more a question of where the line should be for groups receiving state funding. Do you have to allow anyone? The fundy Christian has to be allowed into the atheist club and the gay/straight alliance, as long as he keeps his proselytizing non-threatening? The guy who writes torture porn screenplays has to be allowed into the romance writer's club?

I feel kind of divided on this issue. Yes, the actions of Psalm 100 are disgusting and I'm glad my college daughter would never hang around with such people (she's a straight girl who always speaks up strong for gay rights/marriage equality and I'm very proud of her!)

I guess at the end, I think it should come down to whether or not it's hate-group-ish. A club suggesting that blacks or gays or Jews or whoever should be summarily executed would be a hate group and should certainly not get funding. But just because a group wants to hang out with like-minded folks, I'm not sure I really care. For that matter, it's got to be pretty psychologically unhealthy for a gay kid to be in a group like that, whether or not they're getting any funding.

I think the progressives are winning in the important arena of public opinion and that soon a group like this would be given such dirty looks by every around them, that they wouldn't make an issue of it. Kind of like the way you know lots of people are today with issues like inter-racial marriage and black presidents. You know there's a small core of people as racist as ever, but they can't admit it in public.

Yeah, and having said all that, it would really piss me off if I saw some kind of ad for a known anti-gay group at my daughter's university that made it look like the u. endorsed them. I dunno. Can't all the bigots just get raptured or something?

Setting the state funding issue aside (for a moment), to borrow a phrase from Dan, Mr. Thomason is well rid of them.

I'd encourage him to look a few miles up 15-501 to Durham, where there are (at least) two excellent choirs (the Choral Society and the Duke Chapel Choir) that would welcome him with open arms. And also no small number of affirming churches--the last time I was there for the NC Pride parade, I think there were at least a dozen participating.

As to the funding--this is a prime example why state funds shouldn't go to religious organizations, period. They should be able to believe and practice whatever nonsense they choose, and the state shouldn't have to be in the business of parsing what is and isn't acceptable.

"But are you saying that singing groups shouldn't be allowed to make their own admission requirements?"

Look, if it's something like all women or all men, sure, have your admission standards. (And if you want a choir, start one.)

However, was this guy trying to convert them? Was he not Christian (and therefore eligible to be in their group)? Was he talking about being gay?

Or, was he just someone who wanted to sing in a group?

They deserve to lose any funding status they have because they are discriminating against him.

Also, that "holier than thou" attitude should have them turning on each other pretty soon because the minute you try to define who is the "best" Christian, it's over.

Very sad.

Kim in Portland makes me proud to also be named Kim.

The Stranger isn't a student alt weekly paper at a public university that takes funding from the university, funds derived from fees paid by all students.

The Supreme Court disagrees with you. Religious student organizations are entitled to funding from public universities.

@45 First off, as I've mentioned before, this group is not explicitly fundie Christian. It is non-denominational.

I guess technically racists can use their "code words" to get together and express their hatred of certain races and keep certain races out of the group using more informal means (they could have a Confederate Heritage Club or Youth for Western Civilization). But they're at least forced to pretend like black people are allowed and welcome in their club, and would not be allowed to simply kick someone out for being black or even for "thinking that blacks and whites are equal and should have equal rights".

If a group wanted to form around the KKK, and explicitly say, hey, black people are welcome, as long as they agree with our ideology that blacks are inferior and meant to be slaves, nobody would have a problem saying that it shouldn't receive government funding.

The only difference that I see between that and similar clubs that refuse to let gays in, or at least will only allow self-hating gays in, is that not all Americans agree that sexual orientation is something you're born with. White supremacists of course think that it's proven or at least legitimate to think that blacks are inferior, and so they ought to be allowed to have a KKK group. The homophobes (shockingly!) also think it's still controversial - the difference is that society hasn't yet come to same consensus that homophobes are to be regarded as promoting an immoral and harmful ideology and their right to hold that opinion should be respected but never given any form of official support. We agree that it's right to deny university funding to the KKK.

I think it's right for the university to do the same to homophobic groups, and their protestations that it's just their religion are no more valid in my eyes than the same complaints from the KKK that the Bible supports their racist ideology. The societal consensus isn't there yet, but that's not a defense.

They can have their group, but they shouldn't get student fees to fund their bigotry.

This sort of conduct has been expressly, and recently, identified as illegal by the Supreme Court. In Chriatian Legal Society v. Martinez (2010), the Court held that university groups cannot violate their universities' nondiscrimination policies. UNC's is excerpted below:
"Consistent with this principle and applicable laws, it is therefore the University's policy not to discriminate in offering access to its educational programs and activities or with respect to employment terms and conditions on the basis of race, color, gender, national origin, age, religion, creed, disability, veteran's status, sexual orientation"
From The Daily Tar Heel:
"Psalm 100 is a student organization that receives student fees and is bound by the University’s non-discrimination policy. Between Feb. 17 and June 30, Psalm 100 received $152.20 in student fees."
As such, discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation (which this is, unquestionably) by the group is illegal.

Sorry to double post, but excerpting from the CLS v. Martinez:
"This case itself is instructive in this regard. CLS contends that it does not exclude individuals because of sexual orientation, but rather 'on the basis of a conjunction of conduct and the belief that the conduct is not wrong.' Our decisions have declined to distinguish between status and conduct in this context ... 'A tax on wearing yarmulkes is a tax on Jews.'"

I know this group from my time in school there. They are Class 5 crazy. It's part of this heaving subset of student organizations for those kids who go way evangelical instead of wild when they leave home. We're talking rules where a girl and a boy cannot even be in a room alone with the door closed, chaperoned dates, jealousy over who spoke in tongues at Wednesday service, the works. I went to the wedding of a girl who sang in this group--her first kiss with her husband was at the ALTAR.

@59: Be careful with those matches, Bidoof.

I don't begrudge people their bigotry. That's their business.

What I have absolutely no tolerance for are the people who paint themselves as victims because of their bigotry.

If this group did not receive any student activity funds from the university, and if they were required to pay the public rate to use any university facilities, they can be as bigoted as they want. But the moment they take any sort of university money, or subsidized use of school facilities, all bets are off.

It's like the pharmacists who whine about how they can't give out certain medications, and expect the company they work for to make special accommodations for them. Whatever happened to sacrificing comfort for principle? After all, that's what Jesus was supposed to have done. Sure, he whined a little bit to his dad, but then he manned up and got all crucified. He could have just as easily have stayed a carpenter and made a name for himself as the guy who really knows how to party, what with the loaves and fishes, and the wedding wine and all.

Conservatives are weenies. They thrive on being victims and refusing to take any personal responsibility for their failings. And Christian conservatives are the absolute queens of that scene.

Hmmm,,,,,, "Asses handed to them". Well, that's certainly an interesting theory, troll dear. I know you couldn't have come up with that yourself. It must have been one of the people on your TV.

Let's review some history, shall we?

We had Eisenhower. He was a good President. He also would have been happy to run as a Democrat. The Republicans just got to him first.

Nixon got elected. Twice. But he was a criminal and a sociopath, and he got caught. In those days, Republicans still had enough shame to force him out. Nowadays, they just look for the most criminally insane candidate, and give him or her the nomination.

Ford was cute and comatose. That worked for the seventies, but he wasn't elected, and he didn't get elected when he actually ran. Besides, his wife was pro-choice.

Reagan only won a first term because the RNC was in bed with the Iranians, and a second because his handlers put some adult diapers on him and propped him up long enough to advocate for raising taxes, because they saw what a mess he had made fiscally.

They put Reagan's VP in for a term, but everyone decided that he was even more boring than Reagan, so out he went.

When Clinton came in, they tried and tried to get rid of him, but people liked him enough to keep him for a second term, even though he was dumb enough to fall for a Republican plant.

The GOP only "won" the White House in 2000 because the Supreme Court installed that fetal alcohol syndrome survivor (Barbara could certainly knock them back, couldn't she?). He won in 2004 mostly because of voting technology.

Congressionally speaking, The 2006 election certainly wasn't a picnic for the Republicans. Neither was 2008.

I'll give you 2010, but a lot of that had to do with the stupid people - of which there are many, and as you ably represent - showing up, while the normal people were either too lazy or had their feelings hurt because Obama wasn't the liberal they thought he was.

But it certainly is an interesting theory on your part. Just think of the things you could accomplished if you could only have a regular bowel movement and occasional non-self-stimulated orgasm!

Really though, does the gay person REALLY want to be in a group of ignorant, mindless drones anyway? I for one would be happy to leave such a group, no matter what the law or anything else says. Though the student should push to have them all disbanded for such behavior, fighting to stay would only feed their hatred and illogical logic.

In answer to those who ask why the fellow would want to be a part of the group, well, it was a Christian choir. And he's a Christian singer. Seems like a natural fit, no?

We can't all be as principled as Groucho Marx.

BRB, telling everyone I know about this bullshit.

Also, I'm the faculty advisor for an RSO on our campus (not UNC but the rules are pretty standard for all universities) and this club should absolutely lose university standing and funding for their discrimination against this student. Their whole defense is that they didn't kick him our for being gay, just for ~choosing~ to be gay (which makes no sense and is absolutely about BEING GAY)..if they want to hold these beliefs, fine. They don't get to use university funds (ie, taxpayer money) to do so.

The Supreme Court is not infallible, people. I recall they used to hold that black people could never be American citizens.

This is an important issue. Not every gay kid can afford to go to a warmly welcoming, inclusive private college. The least we can do for Will is impose financial consequences on this group that seems to be taking marching orders from Rick Perry.

They've inadvertently done him a favor if he wakes up to what a load of BS religion is, and how his "christian brothers" were prepared to reject him.

Kim in Portland has covered "what the Bible says" angle very well. I would also invite these students to read Psalm 100 again: "Know ye that the Lord he is God: it is he that has made us, and not we ourselves..." Do they really want to add a footnote to this? ('Unless you're gay, in which case you must suffer for how you were made.')

@24: something tells me the troll doesn't have personal or institutional access to JSTOR.

@45: There's a problem with your "is it a hate group" test for groups receiving state funding: it would likely be an unconstitutional viewpoint-based restriction on free speech. If groups that say blacks or gays or Jews should NOT be executed are allowed, groups that say they SHOULD be executed also have to be allowed. Marketplace of ideas, both sides of a free public debate, and so forth... hate speech is protected free speech under the First Amendment.

@72: I can walk into a crowded theater* and shout "There's no fire here! Everything is absolutely all right! Continue enjoying the movie!" Should we allow someone to express the opposite viewpoint, in accordance with the marketplace of ideas and the free public debate?
Speech that is an incitement to chaos or violence is not protected. And just because all suitable speech must be allowed to be expressed doesn't mean that it must be equally endorsed. You have the right to express yourself, within reason, but you don't have the right to government funding in order to express yourself.

*the theater management would probably kick me out, but hey...

@73: The way the First Amendment works, there is a very narrow exception for speech that has a strong danger of leading to immediate violence. Expressing a political belief on an issue, even an offensive and inflammatory one such as racial hate speech, does not fall under that exception.

You're correct that the government is not obligated to fund all speech: however, the matter is different if the school funds a group on one side of an issue but not the other. Then it's a viewpoint-based speech restriction, which is much less likely to be allowed.

@57: I think that about amounts to "case closed!" The Supremes have spoken!

And, as, inter alia @18, @32 and @36 have pointed out, the fact that the group applies its "obey the Bible" code in a patently discriminatory way (kicking out homos but not, say, cotton/poly-blend-wearers) weakens the group's arguments pretty severely.

@74: Explain exactly how it is restriction of free speech to not get funding. The government is obligated to allow you to express yourself. It is not obligated to fund your expression. There are things that you are allowed to say that the FCC will fine you for if you say them on the airwaves.

@76 The FCC is bullshit. ;)

But here's the thing, the freedom to say it is one thing, the article was not talking about that freedom but effecting another person's participation, which is a very different matter entirely. There are actually many groups that preach hatred and even cry for violence that get government funding all the time, most are environmentalist groups, others are lobbyists, and there are a few that I don't know off hand which are effectively racist groups disguised as something else. But the point is, it's not the message but the action that should be the cause for them losing funding. The law is suppose to be blind, not mute, because if we applied the rule based on message or what is said, almost no government funding would be accessible ... though I can't say that would really be a bad thing, just think of the can of worms you would open by making such a thing the criteria.

@77: Why is the FCC bullshit?

@78 Why isn't it?

@76: OK, you sent me to my First Amendment textbook... As a general principle of First Amendment law, restrictions on speech are not allowed if they ban some viewpoints but not others. When a government organization such as a school funds some viewpoints but not others, this is considered a restriction. You're correct that the government is not outright preventing the speech, but it is still unconstitutional for the government to benefit some viewpoints but not others by funding student groups.

The relevant Supreme Court case here is Rosenberger v. Rector and Visitors of University of Virginia, 515 U.S. 819 (1995), where the Court struck down UVA's policy of not funding any student organization that "primarily promotes or manifests a particular belief in or about a deity or an ultimate reality." The Court explained that when the government is promoting its own policy, it can say what it wishes, but when the government expends funds to encourage a diversity of views, it cannot use viewpoint-based restrictions.

The FCC is a different and special case, and that's a different topic. More restrictions are allowed because there are a limited number of broadcast frequencies, which are considered public property. But even so, the FCC can't make viewpoint-based restrictions. (And it's bullshit because there's so much sent over cable and the Internet now, so there's no reason broadcast should be special.)

@81 .... um .... naive, you are. But details, you must seek elsewhere.

@80 Not to mention that the FCC has been controlling content wrongly because, wait for it ... wait for it ... people wanted to be "protected" from "bad" things. Technically, the FCC has been breaking the 1st and should never have been allowed to overstep those bounds. Now, just as people finally start getting them back in line, others are begging to be "protected" again but even beyond reason. Sad. Anyhow, back to your law debating and such.

@17: "Organizations are organizations. Businesses don't have to hire every applicant. Singing groups don't have to accept everyone who auditions."

They absolutely do if they are to receive public funds from a University which has an anti-discrimination policy in place.

If they wish to discriminate, they are free to do so without financial support from the University.

"What if, at a state university, a black men's choir turned down a white applicant?"

What if nothing happened? When I was at UW, there was a white president of the Black Student Union. The world did not end.

If a group wants official support and association with a publicly funded university and taxpayer funding, they cannot discriminate.

If they want to form their own private group without taxpayer support and university imprimatur, they are free to go do that.

@84: Repeat after me, discrimination based on categories you can jump into or out of at the drop of a hat is not at issue here.

@84: I don't think they should be able to do that, either. That depends on the anti-discrimination policy of the University, which I think should be very robust.

Clearly, this kid should appeal to the University's board to make them either let him back in, or to withdraw funding from the group. After CLS v. Martinez (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_L…), which had very similar case facts, Universities have the right to withhold funding from organizations which violate their anti-discrimination clauses.

Clearly, this kid should appeal to the University's board to make them either let him back in, or to withdraw funding from the group. After CLS v. Martinez (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_L…), which had very similar case facts, Universities have the right to withhold funding from organizations which violate their anti-discrimination clauses.