The U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments last week in Christian Legal Society v. Martinez.  At issue in this case is whether it is unconstitutional for UC Hastings College of the Law to refuse official recognition to the Christian Legal Society (CLS) on the grounds that eligibility for membership and leadership is contingent on affirmation of a statement of faith. The college asserts this requirement is not in compliance with its nondiscrimination policy.The question presented by the CLS in the Brief for the Petitioner filed in the case is “whether the Constitution permits a public university law school to exclude a religious student organization from a forum for speech solely because the group requires its officers and voting members to share its core religious commitments.”The CLS claims the refusal to recognize it as a registered student organization (RSO) violates its  constitutional rights of expressive free association and freedom from viewpoint discrimination.The CLS bylaws require all members and officers affirm in writing a Statement of Faith. Officers and members must also “abstain from ‘acts of the sinful nature,'” which was clarified in March 2004 as “all acts of sexual conduct outside of God’s design for marriage between one man and one woman, which acts include fornication, adultery and homosexual conduct.”The CLS does not exclude homosexuals from membership. Rather, it excludes those who practice sexual conduct outside the confines of the marriage between one man and one woman. Some may scoff and claim it is essentially the same thing. However, both a person who believes him/herself to be homosexual but does not engage in acts of homosexuality and a heterosexual who refrains from fornication and adultery are welcome to join.The restriction is not on the status or class of the person. Rather, it is on behavior contrary to core beliefs held by the majority of Christians.To force a private, religious organization to accept members and leaders who do not adhere to beliefs basic to the group by excluding them from a forum of free speech, the school is violating “rights of speech, expressive association and free exercise of religion.”The argument of UC Hastings is remarkably simple. It adheres to a strict nondiscriminatory policy which states “The University of California, Hastings College of the Law shall not discriminate unlawfully on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, ancestry, disability, age, sex or sexual orientation.” RSOs are required to open their membership to any student who wishes to join because RSO’s are provided with money that comes from student fees.It may be reasonable and noble to ensure equal opportunity and membership for all students.But it’s not only Christian groups taking the side of the CLS.The Gays and Lesbians for Individual Liberty (GLIL) provided a Brief as Amicus Curiae in support of the petitioner — CLS. The brief states, “Gay organizations limit their membership for the same reason that countless expressive associations do so: a belief-centered group cannot maintain its distinctive voice and identity if its members reject its core beliefs.”In addition, expressive association is essential to the protection of First Amendment rights — “an indispensable means of preserving other individual liberties.” Roberts v. United States Jaycees, 468 U.S. 609, 618, 622 (1984).The College claims it does not force the CLS to accept all members. Rather, it only stipulates that official recognition is contingent on membership open to all students. Further, unregistered organizations can use school facilities for meetings regardless of membership policies.But, as the GLIL’s brief states, this “impairs CLS’s ability to express its core beliefs, because the policy would require CLS to cede control over its message to those who reject its core beliefs as encapsulated in its Statement of Faith.”The UC Hastings College of the Law should protect a diverse voice by allowing the CLS to remain true to its core beliefs — by limiting membership to those who embrace its beliefs.Nathan Shull is a 35-year-old finance junior from Seattle.  Follow him on Twitter @TDR_nshull–Contact Nathan Shull at [email protected]