Sometimes I really hate being in law school and seeing both sides of issues. It really makes for a conflicted me.
On the one hand, I see what CLS is saying. On the other hand, I see what Martinez is saying.
It’s all really about what we are willing to sacrifice.
CLS says if they allow anyone and everyone, then they cannot stand for what they want to stand for. They will be forced to be a contradiction, a juxtaposition of what they are and what they are not.
Alternatively, they say that they can be overrun by those that do not believe in their beliefs. If there are five of them currently in the group, they could be forced to allow 20 that disagree with them to also join the group. Those 20 non-believers can now vote the original 5 out and shut the whole organization down by a vote of 20 to 5. That’s 4 to 1 ratio.
Martinez says they cannot grant public taxpayer money to an organization that excludes people based on religion, a fundamental protection granted by the Constitution.
So it’s really about what we value more. Do we value prohibition on exclusion based on religion? Or do we value the freedom to be whoever we want to be? In other words, do we value the freedom to be who we want to be and thus, be able to discriminate, as a state, based on religion? Or we do want to prohibit discrimination based on religion, and in the process, take away the freedom to organize with others who share our beliefs?
Here’s a link to the oral arguments.