Tax-payer dollars should never be used to further the special interest of one group who works to discriminate against another.

Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court heard a case of a Christian group at the University of California Hastings School of Law which was not given the same status or recognition as other clubs on campus because it does not allow non-Christians to serve as voting members of the organization. This group, the Christian Legal Society, similar to San Diego State’s own Alpha Gamma Omega fraternity, requires officers to sign an oath where they acknowledge their Christian faith. Members who do not sign this pledge are barred access to leadership positions within the group.

While I can logically see how a Christian group would want to maintain and ensure the proper observance of the religious values and tenants of their faith, this is a private function and as such should not seek public sponsorship or funding.

Religious groups can’t have it both ways. They can’t discriminate against others with the protections afforded to them as a private religious organization and then in turn claim to be just like any other public student group and demand recognition and funding like other groups on campus.

Stating that religious groups such as these should receive university support, funding and representation forgoes the fact that we attend a public university supported in large part by tax-payer funding.

There is little difference between these groups and youth groups such as the Boy Scouts of America, which I believe openly discriminates against atheist and gay youth. In essence, this organization promotes a private faith and value, which it has every right to do. What it doesn’t have a right to do 8212; and this is what the court needs to recognize 8212; is receive any kind of state-sponsored recognition or support a discriminatory organization.

If this group wants to claim that they are a private entity not subject to the same civil rights laws as public entities and businesses, that’s fine, but don’t expect any government subsidies or support.

We have a separation of church and state in this nation. I would never say AGO and the Christian group at Hastings doesn’t have a right to meet and assemble, but neither has the right to have discriminatory rules in place and expect a public entity to provide them with direct services and funding.

Discriminatory religious ideals cannot continue to be masked under the claim to freedom of speech. Its speech is not being limited; it is just not being further promoted by public entities.

If these groups want to receive tax-payer sponsored support, it can’t limit its leadership positions to people of different or no faith nor to people of different sexual orientations.
There are many other faith-based and value groups on college and high school campuses, and they function well by allowing all people to join and participate at all levels or the organization, including having voting rights.

This isn’t a special rule put in place for only faith-based organizations. To be recognized as a public club on a public university campus, you have to play by the rules. And the rules say do not discriminate against the basis of religion or sexual orientation.

All other groups are expected to abide by these rules and it would not be fair to make special exceptions for Christian-based organizations which want to function as public student groups but maintain their private group ability to limit membership based on identity.

We have a Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender Queer Questioning student union on campus and this group welcomes all people to join and participate in events, programs and even officer elections. They don’t have rules saying you need to be gay to run for office or even that you need to support marriage equality. All people are given the opportunity to participate and speak their minds and even run to be an officer.

Now, granted, if you run to be an officer of the LGBTQ and you don’t support equality, you may not get many votes, but there are no rules against you running. Similar policies could work for these groups as well. Rather than mandate through rules that all officers and members can’t be gay, let the views of the club be known openly and let people vote for who they want to represent them. If most people believe that a gay person can’t be a good Christian, then that person will simply not be elected.

I think there is more to gain for these groups if they stop holding fast to such strict rules and open their membership. I think they will be surprised by the large number of gay-identified Christ worshippers.

First Amendment rights are important, but you can’t use them to justify asking for tax-payer funded support and recognition from a public entity when you are trying to say you are allowed to discriminate because you are a private entity.

I’m sorry but you can’t have your cake and eat it, too.

8212;Allan Acevedo is a political science and comparative literature junior.

8212;This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of The Daily Aztec. Send e-mail to opinion@thedailyaztec.com. Anonymous letters will not be printed. Include your full name, major and year in school.