Both the University of California (UC) and the California State University (CSU) have long had policies prohibiting bias against GLBT students, faculty and staff. UC and CSU are defending suits by religious groups that seek to overturn those policies.

Every student group must agree to be bias-free in order to receive “on-campus” status. In short, groups must agree that they won’t discriminate on the basis of race, religion, gender, disability and sexual orientation. If the group agrees, it can then use school facilities and obtain student funds for travel and events.

Five years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously upheld the ability of schools to condition funding these groups upon meeting these basic rules. It also found that student associations can allocate funds to GLBT groups even though some students may disagree with the views expressed by such groups.

In the ’60s, private universities such as Bob Jones University (BJU) had challenged state and federal conditions of funds. Federal law prohibits giving funds of any kind to schools that engage in race bias. BJU prohibited blacks from attending.

BJU claimed that it had a right to discriminate on the basis of race because it was dictated (somehow) by its religious beliefs. But the court upheld the right of the federal government to deny funds to private schools that discriminate on the basis of race. It also found that the IRS could deny the school nonprofit tax-exempt status. This meant donations to the school would not be tax deductible.

BJU fumed after the case, but it opened its doors to blacks. Then, however, it wouldn’t let them date white students (and vice versa). A few years ago, it lifted the ban.

At the same time BJU was in court, Sigma Chi, a national fraternity, wanted to maintain its right to exclude members based upon race, among other things. The fraternity, like BJU, argued that it was a religious group because it had some religious tenets.

Regardless of whether the group was religious or social, it found the government then (and still) has a compelling reason to eradicate bias against race. That compelling interest justifies the government from withholding support for private groups that discriminate.

Just as the Supreme Court told BJU it had the right to engage in private discrimination, a federal court told Sigma Chi it was free to exclude anyone based upon race. However, neither BJU nor Sigma Chi had a right to ask taxpayers to subsidize them by providing tax funds.

Over the last 30 years, religious conservatives have rallied against these decisions. Yet they are very quiet and inconspicuous about it. It’s politically incorrect to argue that private groups like the KKK, the Nazis, or Al-Qaeda should receive tax funds so they can wage their race wars.

So instead of asking the Supreme Court to overrule the Bob Jones case and its progeny (and offend potential black and Hispanic supporters), they turn to policies protecting GLBT students.

Two weeks ago, a federal judge upheld the right of UC and CSU to deny on-campus status to those groups that won’t abide by the “bias free” rules.

The Christian Legal Society (CLS), a national group with chapters located on campuses throughout the country, challenged the policy at UC Hastings College of Law. CLS argued that such a policy infringed upon its right to freedom of expressive association and religion.

Like several other religion-based groups, CLS argued that the state of California cannot require it to admit openly gay and lesbian persons to the CLS, either as members or as leaders. CLS also argued that, like the Boy Scouts, it has a right to expressive association based upon religious principles. Homosexuality, masturbation, premarital/non-procreative sex and working on Sundays all violate its religious views. But banning folks who like oral sex is hardly a good recruiting tool, so CLS and other groups continue to dump on gays and lesbians because they think they can.

However, a federal judge rejected CLS’s suit. The court correctly agreed with CLS that it has a right to choose its members. It has a right to exclude gays and lesbians. It has a right to exclude blacks, too. But it has no right to ask taxpayers to subsidize it. This is because the government has a compelling interest in prohibiting bias against gays and lesbians.

This reasoning of the court is completely consistent with the reasoning of the California Supreme Court, which held that Berkeley had the right to cut off its subsidy of the Sea Scouts. This is because the Sea Scouts, a branch of the Boy Scouts, discriminates against gays. Remarkably, the California Supreme Court ruled unanimously against the Boy Scouts.