Excluding gays and getting paid to do it: Christian students want to have their cake and eat it, too
Chicago Tribune:
TEMPE, Ariz. -- A legal confrontation is playing out here as a student organization seeks official recognition and money from a state-run university even though the students plan to exclude non-Christians and gays.
A group of Christian students at Arizona State University's law school formed a chapter of the Christian Legal Society, a national organization that unites Christian lawyers and law students for fellowship, mutual legal support, meetings and Bible readings.
After the university refused to recognize the group, the society's national headquarters in Washington, D.C., drafted a lawsuit challenging the university over its anti-discrimination policies, a move that echoes similar and sometimes successful efforts across the country.
In the lawsuit, the society argues that the members at Arizona State have a constitutionally protected right to organize and receive university recognition under the 1st and 14th Amendments.
Well, the Christian Legal Society is half right. Its Arizona chapter is entitled to exemption from a university policy prohibiting discrimination on account of sexual orientation. But the chapter is not constitutionally entitled to university funding if it won't follow the school's policy.
The Christian students are guilty here of a sin usually associated with liberals: confusing rights with benefits. Are the students entitled to free speech and free association? Yes, they are; those are their rights. But are they entitled to public funding, even though their membership practices violate university policy? No, they aren't. The funding is a benefit, not a right, and the Government often sets conditions for receiving benefits.
For the same reason that the Government must respect the rights of the New York Times but isn't required to buy the Times a printing press, Arizona State must respect the rights of its students but isn't required to subsidize the application thereof. The Constitution promises that the Government won't interfere with the exercise of our rights; it doesn't promise public funding.