Today the Supreme Court held that universities can require student organizations to require that student groups must accept “all comers” for membership and leadership positions, even if those people oppose the group’s main purpose. You can find the opinion here, and I’ve only just read the syllabus, but the court has gutted the Constitution’s freedom of association right in the interest of “inclusivity.”

The target of this unconstitutional infringement was the Christian Legal Society at Hastings School of Law. The school said that the society couldn’t require members to actually be Christians or hold Christian beliefs. This appelate court ruling has been used by schools across the country to crack down on religious student groups – including a Christian religious group at San Diego State and here at Cal Poly to bar Christian greek organizations Alpha Gamma Omega and Alpha Delta Chi from the Inter-Fraternity Council.

There’s a solution to this outrage – and it’s a solution that the liberal majority dismissed as unlikely to occur during the oral argument. Christians must infiltrate left-leaning organizations and co-opt them as a form of civil disobedience. The campus Sierra Club must come out for offshore oil drilling. The campus Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation must come out and condemn homosexual behavior, student Amnesty International groups must praise Guantanamo bay.

This shouldn’t have to happen. The Court should’ve upheld the Constitution. It didn’t and must be forced to see the error of its ways.

The court is fine with their side silencing Christians and treating them as second class citizens. It won’t be so fine with it when it’s their friends who are affected.

UPDATE

Here’s a couple of posts on this case over on National Review’s “Bench Memos” blog by Richard Garnett and David French. The Alliance Defense Fund’s news release can be seen here.

Also, the summary from Justice Alito’s dissent in the case:

I do not think it is an exaggeration to say that today’s decision is a serious setback for freedom of expression in this country. Our First Amendment reflects a “profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open.” New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U. S. 254, 270 (1964). Even if the United States is the only Nation that shares this commitment to the same extent, I would not change our law to conform to the international norm. I fear that the Court’s decision marks a turn in that direction. Even those who find CLS’s views objectionable should be concerned about the way the group has been treated—by Hastings, the Court of Appeals, and now this Court. I can only hope that this decision will turn out to be an aberration.

I hope so too, but with the types of judges Obama’s appointing, I wouldn’t hold my breath.