Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
Anonymous wrote:We've collectively lost our minds if we can't see the difference in excluding gay students versus excluding non-disabled students or excluding male students.
What if a white supremacist wants to lead a black students club? Or an antisemitic student wants to lead a Jewish group?
Presumably they wouldn't be elected. FCA was objecting to the fact that Christian students who don't believe homosexuality is a sin would be allowed to run for office.
I’m imagining a scenario where a malicious student garners enough faux members to elect a leader. You’d want a way to prevent that sort of hostile take over. Unfortunately that also works in ways people don’t like to support opinions people don’t like. And in my (not a lawyer) understanding that’s what the courts said you can’t do. They can’t apply rules to one group just because people don’t like it.
Legality aside, I feel like this is a funny hill to die on. It’s a small student group that has barely had a presence. Unless you’re concerned that they are going to successfully evangelize and convert everyone it seems like it’s hardly a group to worry about. Your kid is probably more likely to encounter a street preacher than a FCA person. So in the end it’s really just making a point because you can, not because you so firmly believe in it. And that’s why I can’t understand why someone went to the lengths to get a court decision that now becomes law.
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}