The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Can Public School Block Rentals by Church That Had Speaker Who Said She'd Stopped Being Lesbian?
From the San Diego Union Tribune (Kristen Taketa):
On the first Sunday of this month, the pastor of a Scripps Ranch church brought in a guest speaker who talks about how she came to believe being gay is wrong.
The venue was San Diego Unified's Marshall Middle School, where the church has held its services for the better part of two decades.
The speaker was Patti Height of Out of Egypt Ministries, who told her audience she used to consider herself gay but now believes that was a "false identity." According to her website, her work aims to help Christians minister to LGBTQ people, believing that being gay is incompatible with being Christian….
Scripps Ranch residents and Marshall Middle parents are among more than 600 people who have signed a petition calling for San Diego Unified to terminate its rental agreement with Canyon Springs, contending that the church is violating the district's anti-discrimination policy by endorsing anti-LGBTQ speech. A Marshall Middle parent filed a complaint with the district, also asking the district to end its contract with the church.
Even though the church holds its events outside of school hours and the church is separate from Marshall Middle, some parents and activists argued that students could still be affected by the knowledge that their school had provided a forum for somebody who condemns homosexuality….
The petition appears to be here; but I don't think the school can act on it by excluding such speech from events on its property, given the First Amendment.
As I understand it from talking to the reporter, the school district has a general rental policy under which groups can rent space. That makes it a so-called "limited public forum"; and in such a forum, the government may impose some reasonable viewpoint-neutral restrictions, but not viewpoint-based ones. An exclusion of speech that is critical of homosexuality, or that endorses sexual orientation change efforts, would be viewpoint-based, and thus unconstitutional. (Likewise, courts have concluded that exclusion of pro-gay-rights groups from limited public fora, including ones at schools, is likewise unconstitutionally viewpoint-based.)
Indeed, Lamb's Chapel v. Center Moriches Union Free School Dist. (1992) expressly held that viewpoint discrimination was impermissible in a program that allowed groups to use public school space after hours. And it also expressly held that this rule applied to religious institutions and religious speech as well. Once the government opens up a space to groups generally, it can't exclude them based on viewpoint. (Lamb's Chapel described the forum as a "nonpublic forum" rather than a "limited public forum," but the prohibition on viewpoint discrimination applies to both categories; and in more recent cases, the Court has characterized that kind of property as a limited public forum, see Good News Club v. Milford Central School (2001).)
It's possible that the school district could just decide that it doesn't want these sorts of controversies, and close the rental program altogether (though the rules as to that are a bit complicated). But so long as it allows such rentals, it can't exclude anti-homosexuality views any more than pro-gay-rights views, anti-war views, anti-police views, or other views.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Gullible bigots and culture war losers have rights, too.
"If you look at the brain scan here, you can see increased blood flow in the feels bad region. Therefore the power of government may be used to silence political opposition."
"Finally!" sighed Hitler, Stalin, Putin, Xi, Dear Leaders 1, 2, and 3, various Ceasars, Kahns, and a thousand others, some not yet born.
Are you concerned that calling a bigot a bigot -- in this case, superstition-addled gay-bashing -- excites the "feels bad" region of a clinger's brain?
You just figured that out?? Are you really Scott Adams?
Takes one to know one!
The fee shifting provisions of section 1983 may be persuasive in these cases. Residents of my town were clamoring for a Trump supporter to be banned from speaking in a town building that hosts events open to the public. Town leaders knew they couldn’t get away with blocking the event. Power, not principle. If they can get away with breaking the law in the name of their cause they will. If the attempt will blow up in their face they won’t.
The problem, John, is getting a lawyer willing to take this into court -- and a lot of people don't care about 1993 because the suit ain't never gonna get filed...
Lesbians first thing Monday morning? is this the Howard Stern Conspiracy???
and "Out of Egypt Ministries" check out her photo,
https://cclburg.com/pattiheight/
I'd say she's still in the Nile, (get it? in dee Nile?)
Frank "Lesbian in a man's body"
it has been "guns, God, and gays" at the Volokh Conspiracy for years. This is just another morning in the clingerverse.
Re: “Lesbian in a man’s body”
A friend of mine used to perform a one-woman show which she trailed as "a drag queen trapped in a woman's body".
Prof. Volokh, now do this one.
A Pennsylvania school district has denied a parents request to form an After School Satan Club.
The debate discussed club members ages, cultural and biblical issues in the clubs formation and content that was listed on the Satanic Temples website that would be used for the program, the York Daily Record reported.
Parents who supported the clubs creation said it is their constitutional right.
But those who opposed the clubs formation cited the Bible, some holding signs containing religious messages. One person who attended the meeting said he opposed the club and that the school needed to preserve the innocence of our children, WHTM reported.
https://www.fox13memphis.com/trending_archives/school-board-denies-after-school-satan-club-s-creation-at-pa-elementary-school/article_e0d99f5a-f5f3-5089-98a0-8cf7b05b94f1.html
What did the ASSC propose that was voted down? The contrast in the article was an off-campus but during-school-hours Christian group. If ASSC wanted to use school space, that's a relevant distinction.
Right -- as long as the school has *no* after school clubs on school grounds, I *think* they are on solid ground here.
And they have two compelling state interests -- first, it is cheaper to maintain a building when you have scheduling flexibility. EG you have an extra person this afternoon -- go wax the floor of classroom 7, but you can't if it is being used. Or go flush the "mud" out of the heater lines on the west wing so it isn't so cold up there.
Second is school shooter paranoia -- and an after school group is a security risk because protocols are relaxed after the school day ends.
You're right that the physical venues are not the same, but the PA school district made a viewpoint-discrimination decision - which I think is the main point.
"The club was initially proposed after a district mother, Samantha Groome, began looking for a non-religious alternative to the Joy El Christian club that provided students off-campus, faith-based activities during the school day, serving nine of the 16 school districts in the county.
"...The students are dismissed during the school day and bused off campus for the program."
https://www.ydr.com/story/news/local/2022/04/20/after-school-satan-club-denied-northern-york-school-board-joy-el-christian-club/65351019007/
So, to give a parallel Satanic experience, the students would need to be given time off from school to do Satanic stuff off-campus.
There's nothing here that says they let the Christians meet *on* campus, and if they don't, they wouldn't have to let the Satanists do it either.
Why are students dismissed during the school day and bussed off to participate in a religious program?
That looks like the major problem here.
Zorach v. Clauson upheld just such a program:
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/343/306/
Apparently that decision is still in force, at least at the time of this article in 2009 –
https://mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/677/zorach-v-clauson
The decision gets bonus points for this juicy quote: “We are a religious people whose institutions presuppose a Supreme Being.”
Arguably, an official school club bears the school's endorsement, and perhaps material support (read, money), that a group that merely rents space does not. The latter situation is controlled by Good News Club v. Milford Central Schools 533 U.S. 98 (2001).
In fact, arguably, an official public school club that is specifically religious, and is supported by public school funds, violates the Establishment Clause. That's true whether the club is Satanic, Christian or any other religion.
Well, one can argue all sorts of things. But this argument is, rightly or wrongly, foreclosed by Board of Ed. of Westside Community Schools (Dist. 66) v. Mergens (1990), which upheld the Equal Access Act against Establishment Clause challenge; that Act provides that "[i]t shall be unlawful for any public secondary school which receives Federal financial assistance and which has a limited open forum to deny equal access or a fair opportunity to, or discriminate against, any students who wish to conduct a meeting within that limited open forum on the basis of the religious, political, philosophical, or other content of the speech at such meetings." Petitioners had argued that "because the school's recognized student activities are an integral part of its educational mission, official recognition of respondents' proposed club would effectively incorporate religious activities into the school's official program, endorse participation in the religious club, and provide the club with an official platform to proselytize other students," all in violation of the Establishment Clause; but the Court disagreed.
OK. What about the first issue?
I'm sorry, but I don't understand -- what do you mean by "the first issue"?
I think he is arguing the club is government speech.
Ah, I see -- Mergens was all about student clubs.
As I understand Mergens, the Court held the club was a limited forum, and therefore private speech, because the club used school facilities. Bored Lawyer questions whether the same applies to a club that gets financial assistance from the school (or in this case, permission to be off campus during school hours) rather than using school-supplied physical space. I think Bored is wrong, but perhaps Mergens doesn’t foreclose his argument.
Perhaps financial support rather than making space available makes a student club government speech rather than a limited forum (but, I doubt it). That being said, the article said the Joy El Christian club was given off-campus access to faith-based activities. Do you think allowing a club to exit campus during the school day suffices to make it a limited public forum?
Isn't that Rosenberger v. Rectors?
I think they've got equal protection problems regardless of the forum issue.
"Apr 21, 2022 Updated Feb 15, 2023"
It doesn't seem clear which part was updated.
Can a public school block rentals by someone who BECAME a lesbian?
And if not, then what is the difference?
And Kirkland, this is not a hypothetical — there is a major split in the Congregational Church, and the other side *has* lesbian ministers.
And didn't SCOTUS speak to this in the case of Trinity Lutheran?
What people don't realize is that true Christians don't *hate* lesbians -- they consider homosexuality to be a sin (sorta like health nuts consider smoking) and hate the sin and not the sinner.
Seriously, anti smoking zealots don't hate smokers, instead they hate the fact that they smoke -- and are trying to rescue them from something which they consider likely to kill them. Now neither smokers nor LGBTQ folk particularly want to be rescued, and they see it as an attack on them personalty, but it really isn't.
To be fair, a lot of anti-smoking zealots, even if they don't exactly *hate* smokers, certainly despise them.
And I'm convinced that a fair number of pro-vaccine types (who probably overlap the anti-smokers to a good extent) do in fact hate anti-vaxxers, as evidenced by their schadenfreude when anti-vaxxers die of Covid.
Play "no true Scotsman" all you want, the rest of us know the score.
"true Christians don’t *hate* lesbians "
It depends, are they very pretty and kissing in a video?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_and_Delirious
my Gift to the "Conspiracy" (really is turning to a Howard Stern bit) 2001 Flick with a 15(!) year old Mischa Barton, (20yo)Jessica Pare' before she hooked up with Donald Draper, and Piper Pebabo in her "Coyote Ugly" phase
takes place in an all-girl Boarding School (of course) lots of Lesbians AND Smoking (cigarettes and muff diving)
Frank "Where's Dilbert today????"
Well like our former POTUS Barry Hussein O, I like Lesbians AND Smoking (cut way back, as BHO said about his Cancer-Stick habit, it's a "Work in Progress")
Mostly stick to the Marriage-a-Juana-A, Glaucoma you see (get it?) (it's legal, got the Rx and everything, you know, my Primary Care Provider, Dr. Tommy Chong)
But it's still Ill-legal to fly with Medical Marriage-a-Juan-a as despite 10 + years of Barry H and Senescent J, it's in Schedule 1 right next to the Heroin and Meth, maybe someone could pull Pete Booty-Judge away from Chasten's (redacted) for a minute, wake Sleepy J up, fix that shit?
Frank "man I'm hungry"
What people don't realize is that true Christians -
"think we should shoot ILLEGAL aliens".
Those splits seem common. The bigots vs. the better people.
The better people, over time, prevail. The bigots lose. That's the American way.
and our bigoted POTUS brags about threatening a Black dude with a Bicycle Chain, now I know he just made that up, like his Navy Football Scholarship, bailing out Mandela (or was it Bishop Tutu??), marching in Selma, but how about the 94' Crime bill?? the one thing he voted right (get it?) on he claims he's against now.
Frank
I don't think it's quite all-or-nothing, in the sense that once you open the school for some after-hours uses you have to allow just about anything. What you can't do is discriminate based on viewpoint (a highly unoriginalist view of the First Amendment, but people seem to like it). You can, however, discriminate by categories not related to viewpoint. Thus, you don't have to allow me to stage a mud-wrestling exhibition in the school gym after hours for titillation and money, but you can't let me do that and then ban a religious group sponsoring Mud Wrestlers for Christ to attract converts.
I wonder. What does the church in question teach about "that disciple whom Jesus loved" (John 21:7)? How do they teach about David and Jonathan, who had a love that was "wonderful, passing the love of women" (II Samuel 1:26)?
They might teach, as most people know, that there are many kinds of love, most of those not sexual.
And some of which are.
The original question posited a contradiction between church (or, for that matter, Jewish) teaching and verses. There is no contradiction. That's the point.
Sex is natural sex is good
Not everybody does it
But everybody should
Sex is natural sex is fun
Sex is best when it's one on one
One on one
How do you know?
That disciple was John, who is traditionally depicted as being young and pretty. In the Last Supper painting he’s resting his head on Jesus’s shoulder.
The truth is, every purported Christian rejects one part of the Bible or other. As one might expect, because some parts of it contradict other parts.
Don't forget Ruth and Naomi.
And of course there's Jesus and Mary Magdalene, proving of course that Jesus' *real* blood line is with the Merovingians.
The Christians suppressed all that, but reliable historians like Dan Brown have revealed the truth unto us.
I don't read a same sex undertone into the story of Ruth and Naomi. Indeed, Ruth wound up marrying Boaz and bore a son by him.
Next you'll say there are no sex undertones in 2 Samuel 12:3.
Wake up, man!
"I wonder."
I wonder why non-believers think believers care what they think.
I wonder why believers think non-believers care what they think.
FTFY.
I guess for the same reason Bob thinks anyone cares what he thinks. And just for the record, there are plenty of Christians, and Jews, who don't believe the Bible is anti-gay. This is not a dispute between believers and unbelievers since there is no reason for unbelievers to care what the Bible says. Rather, it's an internal dispute among believers who do care what the Bible says.
A theologian I don't normally agree with made an interesting point, that liberals are more to be trusted with honestly interpreting the Bible than conservatives are since liberals aren't stuck with the results. If Moses really did say that homosexuals should be executed, the liberal response is to admit that he said it and then have a good horse laugh over how silly Moses was. Conservatives, on the other hand, give lip service to the Bible being authoritative, so if Moses really did say that, they have to either agree with him or twist themselves into pretzels trying to find a way around what the text very clearly says.
"who don’t believe the Bible is anti-gay"
You don't have to be anti-gay to want people to avoid bad and dangerous behavior which (inter alia) can lead to nasty diseases.
"Anti-gay" is a deformation of the language, like "fat-phobia."
Arguably, any sexual behavior (with the possible exception of masturbation) is dangerous. Among heterosexuals, it can lead to unwanted pregnancies, 18 years of child support, and the same venereal diseases homosexuals get. So, gay people, like straight people, either take steps to protect themselves, or assume the risk of bad consequences if they don't.
This argument becomes less and less believable (not that it ever was) every year, as conservatives get more and more anti-vax, anti-science, and anti-health.
What’s anti-science about being anti-vax in regards to the current mRNA vaccines? Right now, there is a lot more scientific and medical evidence that those vaccines are extremely dangerous, than that they are safe.
There is no evidence that they are dangerous.
... and the left becomes more in favor of experimental and poorly proven injections, chopping off bits of bodies, and chemical sterilization? (Oh, wait, progressives have always been big on that last bit. But the broader point stands.)
If you're talking about Buck v Bell and Skinner v Oklahoma, the idea that 1920s Virginia and 1930s Oklahoma were run by progressives is laughable. As is that the Supreme Court was progressive at the time it handed down those decisions.
I am a bit surprised that Justice Alito in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health did not cite Buck v. Bell as precedent for a state making reproductive decisions for its citizenry.
You don’t have to be anti-gay to want people to avoid bad and dangerous behavior which (inter alia) can lead to nasty diseases.
Ban sex!
"there is no reason for unbelievers to care what the Bible says."
My point. They don't believe but they use it as a weapon against believers.
Oh, I think it's fair game to argue that the text doesn't support the claims of conservatives (or, alternatively, is so riddled with internal contradictions that you can interpret it to say just about anything, thereby rendering it useless as any real moral guidebook). I don't believe the Bible, but if someone showed up here and claimed that the Bible teaches it's a sin to eat chocolate, I don't think it would be hypocritical of me to say "no it doesn't".
Hypocrites seldom admit it.
Fine, so explain why holding someone to their own standards is hypocritical.
Superstitious bigots are among my favorite culture war casualties.
These gullible losers can't be replaced fast enough. (In the normal course, as elderly conservatives take their stale, ugly thinking to the grave and are replaced in our electorate and society by younger, less religious, more diverse, more inclusive, better Americans.)
I'll bet MTG is around longer than Senescent J.
Lots of miles on that odometer. You're confident she'll make it to 80?
No, just that she'll be around after Senescent J, who I'll be surprised makes it to summer.
That's hilarious. Christians turned their faith into a sword first, and now here you are complaining that it's one that bites both ways.
Lay down the sword and it won't be used against you.
"I wonder why non-believers think believers care what they think."
Bob, how do you claim to know what I believe or disbelieve?
I do believe that Jesus is classier than His present day followers (especially those who posit a deity who is so weak as to need help from Caesar). Nothing Jesus is reported to have said concerns others' sexual orientation, let alone condemns the same.
Would Jesus condemn calling a woman a whore because that woman accused a president of sexual assault?
I have no idea. Jesus was pretty harshly critical of the political/religious leadership of His day, having a low tolerance of hypocrisy. (See, e.g., Matthew 23) He also strongly criticized those motivated by the pursuit of money. (Matthew 6:24)
All the door-to-door religion salesman I got when I lived in the city.
The deluge of "please share my religious opposition to gay people [existing/domestic partnering/adopting/marrying/getting death certificates/visiting each other in the hospital/etc.]" ads in the mid 2000s.
The many people who default to an assumption that strangers share their beliefs regarding what is and isn't a sin.
The annual "if you, a non-Christian, don't say 'merry Christmas' that is a personal attack" headlines.
If Christians don't care what non-believers think, they have an awfully strange way of showing it.
From televangelists to corner preachers, and door-to-door religion peddlers to the people who blew millions on a Super Bowl ad for superstition, it appears religious believers are intensely interested in what reasoning people think.
I can't speak to the first verse, but as to the second, the whole point of it is that David and Jonathan had a closeness that ordinarily is only achieved between a man and a woman. Given that David had multiple wives, and sinned with Bathsheba, the notion that there was anything sexual there is absurd.
As is the notion that any love must be sexual.
"Given that David had multiple wives, and sinned with Bathsheba, the notion that there was anything sexual there is absurd."
Uh, what do you think the B in LGBT stands for? David had plenty of women, but preferred his brother-in-law.
You are simply interpolating your own views. There is zero evidence that David and Jonathan had any kind of sexual relationship. Because the notion that two men can love one another without sex being involved has never occurred to you.
David's eulogy for Jonathan is at best ambiguous. Something about the relationship between the brothers-in-law provoked King Saul to murderous rage. (I Samuel 20:30-33)
Yes, and those very verses say what it was: David was a threat to Jonathan becoming king. Which Samuel had made clear was going to happen.
not guilty....Sorry, but Bored Lawyer is in the right here. It was not sexual love, as the original hebrew text makes clear.
And they were roommates!
I bet you think Achilles and Patrocles were just good buds, too.
I don;t think much about those two Greeks. But the notion that David and Jonathan had a sexual relation is just the interpolation of modern minds.
Whereas straight-washing queer folk is a time-honored tradition to which you are deeply committed.
Whereas saying every bachelor was gay is a time-honored tradition to which you are deeply committed.
... did you just call David and Johnathan bachelors?
Jonathan apparently was though he had a son.
The revisionist gay theory is that all close male friendships in history meant that they were really closeted gays.
Oh cool, someone else that doesn't know what "B" in "LGBT" stands for.
Absence of homo evidence is not evidence of homo absence
On the off chance this could ever be a genuine question . . .
Just from my rudimentary understanding, there are a number of ancient Greek words, maybe 7 or so, that might be translated as “love” in English, and they all have different meanings.
Some of the main ones are eros which is romantic or sexual love, then there is philia which is non-sexual brotherly love or affection, then there is agape which is a sort of highest form of spiritual love associated with God himself (paraphrasing here). I’m going to go out on a limb and guess that the verse you are asking about from John is the 3rd one, maaaybe the 2nd one, and 0% chance it’s the 1st.
As far as what churches teach about the phrase, I don’t know. A quick Google search turns up this: https://www.desiringgod.org/interviews/who-is-the-disciple-jesus-loved
Religion does not improve bigotry, nor does it transform bigotry into anything other than bigotry.
Clingers struggle with that concept.
In addition to paying to rent the space, the members of the religious organization also pay the same taxes as everyone else. Citizens of all viewpoints paid for the school buildings. Citizens of all viewpoints are owed the same opportunity to use the buildings in an equal manner without discrimination.
The school board has a chance to decide: do they serve the public or do they serve their own personal agenda. The public includes everyone of every viewpoint.
I will be very surprised if the school board decides in favor of serving the public.
Why can't everyone take a chill pill? There are lots of groups that I don't particularly like. Would I bother caring a whit about them using school grounds to have meetings after hours--um, no.
When the liberals stopped being liberal and became totalitarians, your sort of tolerance became unfashionable.
“who the fuck is scraeming "LOG OFF" at Ben's house. show yourself, coward. he will never log off”
Because if you have any clubs related to Hey-Zeus (How about one worshiping Jesus Alous?? (Trivia Time, which Hey-Zeus brother was a Lefty??) I could go for that one.
Oh yeah, any clubs related to Hey-Zeus, Moe-Hammad, or J-Hey, might make the students in the "Very Special Drag Queen Story Hour" un-cum-fortable....
Frank
Honestly, this sort of thing could be easily avoided if schools required that any group renting their rooms has a non-discrimination policy at least as restrictive as the the school.
The real question though is this: is the church paying fair rates for the rental? The school may be obligated to rent to them without concern for what they preach, but they aren't obligated to give them a sweet-heart deal.
They are obligated to give them the same deal they give anyone else. Whether it's a church service or a kid's birthday party.
Talk (at a public event) isn’t discrimination. No one has alleged that the religious organization discriminated against anyone. There’s an intolerant call to discriminate against the church though.
Correct.
Which makes me wonder what you think you're objecting to.
What objection are you referring to?
"this sort of thing could be easily avoided if schools required that any group renting their rooms has a non-discrimination policy at least as restrictive as the the school"
There’s nothing in the story to indicate that anything could be avoided with such a policy, since the church hasn’t been shown to discriminate.
Ah. You are objecting to the idea that my idea would work.
That's pretty simple: self-selection.
1) What makes you think schools can constitutionally require that?
2) Such a requirement would not assist with the situation posed by this post.
Can Public School Block Rentals by Church That Had Speaker Who Said She'd Stopped Being Lesbian?
No.
Next question.
My conclusion as well. Lambs Chapel decided the question 30 years ago.
"The speaker was Patti Height of Out of Egypt Ministries, who told her audience she used to consider herself gay but now believes that was a "false identity." According to her website, her work aims to help Christians minister to LGBTQ people, believing that being gay is incompatible with being Christian . . . "
This is hate speech?? What am I missing?? Sounds like a personal testimony about this lady's path through life with her take on Christian theology. Not quite the same as "Find the nearest gay person and toss them off a building"