The Supreme Court is set to hear oral arguments Monday in CLS v. Martinez, a case pitting the right of a public University to set nondiscrimination policies, against student religious groups' right to associate with exclusionary membership rules. The Baptist Joint Committee filed a brief on behalf of neither party, arguing that while groups should have the right to limit membership, protections should remain in place to keep public funds from supporting religious activity.
In a compelling Washington Post op-ed today, law professor Jonathan Turley explains why this "collision course" needs to be resolved in favor of free association and free exercise.
We need to accept that certain forms of government support are meant to foster associations generally and should not turn on the insular views of any particular group. For example, tax exemption should aim to encourage citizens to participate in our society through groups that deepen public debate. These associations not only help individuals define their own values, they also protect the pluralism that defines our nation.
adding…
Such neutrality does not mean discrimination is a protected religious right….
Moreover, no discrimination should be allowed in government-funded social programs.
Read a Q & A with BJC general counsel Holly Hollman on the case here.
