Do SF student fascists pose valid questions?

Dear freedomseekers,


The Hastings case is more complicated than it may first appear. Two precious freedoms here collide --
the freedom to express dissent, versus the freedom to live in civil society without being ostracized and ghettoized.


First, individuals have a right "to assemble", and hence
"to expressively associate", under the U.S. Constitution. And thus they may lawfully create PRIVATE organizations with discriminatory membership policies; which may offend others. Think of Mensa.

This right is cherished by freedom-lovers
and fascists alike.

This right allows queer pride parades to exclude rabidly anti-queer contingents; who may still protest from the sidelines (as happens yearly in San Diego, tho not in SF). Likewise it allows a fascist parade to exclude queer fascists.

Freedom to associate? Think of a lesbian separatist group which admits only lesbians. Or which only admits Marxist non-smoking vegan vanilla pagan lesbians of color. Or which prejudicially defines terms such as "womyn" (to ban post-op transwomyn); or "lesbian" (to ban pansexual/allsexual/fluid womyn).

So each church, synagogue, coven, temple, masjid, ashram, prayer circle, gudwara, sweat-lodge society, monastery, whatever, has a constitutional right to shun non-believers and expell "heretics".

And so these fundi-fascist students DO have a right to exclude queers from a truly PRIVATE club. (Is it private? See below.)



(1A) But SHOULD freedom-seekers respect the civil liberties of fascist bigots?

There are some ultra-partisans who argue that First Amendment freedoms should only help SOME persons.
Like, "Let's have free expression for (almost) all; EXCEPT for racists and homophobes".

Our short-sighted friends, however good their motives, just don't understand our U.S. Constitution. It's our basic "social contract", whereby Americans agree to disagree. This contract is the glue which holds fifty states and hundreds of subcultures together. When this contract gets violated, as it often does, we usually go to court instead of reaching for a shotgun. If our U.S. Supreme Court ever stopped defending civil liberties, especially those in the First Amendment, our nation would splinter.

Once you let government limit free expression (or free assembly, etc.) for some persons, even for good reasons, you will lose more freedoms than you expect.

In some well-meaning European countries, which don't sufficiently honor individual freedoms, queers and feminists could be punished for "hatefully" denouncing anti-woman and anti-queer aspects of Islam, Hinduism, etc.; or for using derogatory terms like "fundi"; or for ridiculing the Pope. And religious leaders could be punished for expressing their sincere (tho stupid) beliefs about what G-d will do to "unrepentant sinners". If you trust governments, please consider the history of censorship.


(2) Okay, now let's turn from civil liberties to civil rights. While a private church may exclude queers or Muslims or even non-whites, California won't allow supermarkets and banks and secular colleges to do so. Allowing such "nonprivate" discrimination would make life nasty, brutal, and short, for many persons and groups.

Now here's the trickiest part: Exactly when and how does a private entity become nonprivate?

In theory, that happens (2a) when it operates as a business, serving non-members; and/or (2b) when it accepts government funding and/or privileges. A similar private/nonprivate distinction bedevils church/state controversies. The complexities and nuances guarantee long-term employment for lawyers.


Tortuga Bi Liberty,
for Senior Unlimited Nudes of SF
Saturday, 23 October 2004
http://pages.prodigy.net/seniornude


.......
PS 1:
If the above letter leaves you thinking
that the writer is anti-feminist, anti-lesbian,
anti-leftist, pro-carnivore, pro-racist or pro-fundi,
then you need to work on your reading skills.

PS 2:
Partial disclosure of biases:
This queer writer strongly supports the ACLU;
and is/was an off-and-on member of Mensa.

PS 3:
FYI, here's part of the AP report on the
start of the UC Hastings case:

Campus Christian Group Sues To Exclude Gays 

by The Associated Press
[....]

(San Francisco, California)

  A Christian group sued the University of
California's Hastings College of the Law
in federal court here Friday [22 Oct. 2004]
for not recognizing it as an official campus organization.

The Christian Legal Society says it should get campus funding and other benefits, but does not have to open its membership to gays, lesbians and nonbelievers - all requirements from the San Francisco law school.

"The First Amendment provides a right of expressive association," said Tim Tracey, an attorney for the society. "We want to associate with people that affirm a certain number of our beliefs."

[et cetera]
©Associated Press 2004
.......
###