Brad Tupi [Allied attorney, Alliance Defense Fund]: "Christian Legal Society v. Martinez is another example of the conflict between secular morality and religious morality. In secular morality, homosexuality is a wholesome lifestyle choice and should not be the subject of criticism or discrimination. In religious morality, homosexuality is sinful conduct. Where institutions include "sexual orientation" in their diversity and non-discrimination policies, people of faith sometimes find themselves under pressure to surrender their religious beliefs.

In the CLS case, Hastings School of Law has an anti-discrimination policy that, inter alia, prohibits
discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Applying this policy, school officials denied CLS funding and recognition because CLS requires members to adhere to a Statement of Faith which, among other things, prohibits extramarital sex.

In legal terms, CLS' argument in the US Supreme Court on April 19 focused on freedom of association and freedom of religion under the First Amendment. In practical terms, the power of CLS' argument is apparent by analogy. Would a gay club be required to admit members and elect officers opposed to homosexuality? Would the Campus Democrats be required to accept Republicans as members and officers? Would a black students association be required to welcome members of the Klan? The answer: Of course not. An organization formed around a given activity or belief must necessarily be entitled, both practically and Constitutionally, to limit membership to those of like mind.

I predict that the district and circuit court decisions against CLS will be reversed, following the logic of Boy Scouts v. Dale."