Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

US Supreme Court rules school can refuse to recognise anti-gay student group

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. When it comes to the christians, the Romans had the right idea – throw those hideous bigots to the lions.

  2. Superb news…. finally the US making a decent move to stamp out this ridiculous discrimination.

    The ‘right’ to discriminate is anything but a right, after all. And being a bigot because you believe god told you to be one, doesn’t detract from the fact that you are still a ignorant bigot, and not suitable to live in civilised society.

  3. I’m glad commonsense prevailed in this case – but a worryingly close result :s Judge Alito is a Roman Catholic, isn’t he? That would explain his little speech about religious freedom.

    But what gets me is that ‘christians’ only want PARTICULAR freedoms – a big one of which is to be free to discriminate and harrass LGBT people. I don’t see them pushing for permission to discriminate against black people (which could be ‘proved’ as allowed according to the Bible)or permission to disobey the homocide laws so they could stone adulterers to death etc etc. No, their current target, having seen their freedom to persecute women and other races curtailed, is us.

    You have to wonder about people who feel such a burning need to victimise others.

  4. Iris – I couldn’t agree more.

  5. Alito, Scalia, Thomas and Roberts, all Roman Catholics are the best examples of religious bigotry in action. There are six catholics on the bench. The four I’ve referenced when they were confirmed to sit on the Supreme Court bench took an oath to remain impartial in dispensing justice, yet here Alito is blatantly proving the opposite. These conservatives want it both ways. Alito’s view is twisted, this was not about freedom of expression. On the contrary, when you barr someone from something, that is an action, not an expression. He’s an idiot and highly unsuitable to sit on any judicial bench, just like the other three.

  6. Why has Pink News not opened the comments page on the article about Mr Gay UK and his trial for rape? If he were a victim of male rape the comments page would be flooded by now.

  7. This decision was indeed uncomfortably close. Let the fools operate a club which only admits Hobbits or one-handed albinos if they choose – but they can’t expect subsidies and priority rooming from an organisation whose non-discrimination policies they violate. That is the issue and it is perfectly simple.

  8. Ignacio, re: the Mr Gay UK rape article – it may be a legal thing – not wanting to prejudice his trial before it happens.

  9. Yes, beautifully put Iris. You strangely don’t seem to find even very fundamentalist Christians these days excluding the divorced or remarried. Their values system is absolutely capable of change, despite claiming to be bound to an immutable system. Institutions shouldn’t have to humour their obsessions.

  10. “Their values system is absolutely capable of change, despite claiming to be bound to an immutable system. ”

    Indeed, Greeks, and it HAS changed as times have moved on. That’s why I find the obsession with homosexuality so annoying.

    Personally, I think it’s because they feel that’s it’s somehow OK to discriminate against us because they feel they’re getting tacit approval from society. They know that racism, for example, wouldn’t be tolerated by the majority, but they think they can get away with a bit of anti-gay bile, and so that’s where they focus their hate. If women or whoever were the weakest target, they’d aim there as they have done in the past.

    It’s become a bit of an obsession with them, and a nasty one at that. It’s as childish as primary school bullying, where the bully always has issues of their own that they take out on others, but a lot more dangerous because these people have far more power.

  11. Fantastic news . . . at least the message is dripping through – bigotry is not only unacceptable, but also will be met with opposition and the arm of the law

  12. de Villiers 29 Jun 2010, 10:07pm

    Yes. I agree with most of the above. But surely one’s view of what is the law when the law is little more than a political decision depends upon one’s prior political position.

    Those who are religious probably consider that the constitution does allow the behaviour complained of. Those who are secular probably consider that it does not. Whether one considers that the judge has made new law or merely upheld existing law depends upon one’s starting point

  13. silly billy 30 Jun 2010, 2:28am

    YAHOO

  14. Emmarainbow 30 Jun 2010, 12:57pm

    The Christian Union at my University was not recognised by the Union for similar reasons originally. Glad that protection to exclude and make others unsafe is being challenged.

  15. Do Law Schools traditionally have high school lockers???

  16. Violated their first amendment rights?

    “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances”

    I’m no expert on American law but I don’t think the University of California is Congress.

    I’d hope that law students would be able to figure that much out.

    Also they’re not even stopping them from meeting or speaking, just from using the University’s clubrooms and not paying for their trips. I don’t think the wording of the first amendment supports the interpretation that “universities shall not refuse to fund groups that fail to meet the rules”.

These comments are un-moderated and do not necessarily represent the views of PinkNews.co.uk. If you believe that a comment is inappropriate or libellous, please contact us.

Top commenters this week

Latest stories

See all