Lets say I go to Annapolis, and even tho they have a very strict honor code and an equally strict no drug policy, I decide to sell answers to exams and do so while smoling dope on campus. Both of these are a violation of their rules; are you saying that even tho I knowingly violated the rules they shouldn't boot me out? Or if I have a gpa of 1.35, and applied to Stanford, no, make that NYU, and they said no way, I oughta sue them because I have some (bizarre) right to go there? Sounds like a socialist "the world owes me" mindset, which, for the life of me, I can neither fathom, condone, nor support. Sorry, even the Leningrad State University in the old USSR had requirements that if you did not meet, you were not welcome.

I wonder if we're missing something here. Are these scholarship students? Is the church, through the school, paying their way?
I'm not in favor of LDS teachings, but every LDS I've met are very forthright, so I can't help but wonder if we're not being told the entire story.

They can do whatever they want to. They can tell you if you're Mormon then you have to wear pink underwear and prance around on the roof of the dorms, but non-Mormons don't have to... it's THEIR freaking university.

That's not to say I think that it's a good rule, but it's just their rule, and every Mormon that enrolled there knew it when they enrolled.

My Dad lived and worked side by side with quotas. You have NO idea what you're talking about Maph.

Good luck with that.

I don't see how this is a problem. I'm not Mormon, I wouldn't go to BYU for that very reason, I wholeheartedly disagree with their perversion of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. So, I choose not to associate with them. If I was stupid and went there and expected to graduate without being a believer in their cult, then that's my stupid fault.

You conveniently ignore that this is not an open market transaction, it is a contract for services. The student has no open right to the services offered by the university. There is no unfettered right to an education from a specific institution - especially not a private one. GPA requirements, SAT/ACT scores, and a host of other requirements - including even the highly contentious racial quota requirements in some Michigan universities - are evidence that enrollment and attendance even in "public" universities is not open to the public at large. A student's enrollment status is subject to termination for criteria spelled out and agreed upon in the enrollment process. As soon as that contract is voided by the student, the university has every right to pursue enforcement of the terms, which includes termination of the student's access to university services.

Now if you want to argue that the contract is legally unenforceable, I would simply put forth one question: does the Democratic Black Caucus have the 1st Amendment right to restrict its membership to only persons of color?

You make the same mistake that the author makes: deducing that private entities can not create contractual restrictions on the receipt of services based on one's religious affiliation (or change in it). They can, and it is in the religious institution's interest to do so, especially when they are heavily subsidizing the service and the recipients of the service become representatives of the institution. It is no different than Catholic Charities dismissing an openly gay teacher who's contract prohibits practicing a homosexual lifestyle. Under your argument, any religious institution would be forbidden from prohibiting membership from anyone - even those who did not believe in their respective tenets. My reading of the First Amendment specifically guarantees such a right.

The classic example from "Atlas Shrugged" is when Hank Reardon refuses to do business with the Science Institute. Does he not discriminate against them wholly on the merits of their "religion"? He absolutely asserts the right to do business with whom he chooses for whatever reasons he chooses. Can you honestly say that this is different? And Reardon was dealing with a product in monopoly - one can hardly argue such with education.

No. This is just the author's individual beef with a religious institution (and/or its tenets). Nothing more, nothing less.

But they are NOT providing education to the general public. They provide education to those they allow to attend - those who agree to abide by the Honor Code. A school or university can be a private organization just as much as a business can - simply by limiting membership according to a specific rule that all follow. An employer enters into an employment contract with the employees, who then - by virtue of their employment contract - become part of the private institution: the business. There is no legal difference here. Even "public" schools have entrance requirements: live within a certain geographical region, pay certain taxes/fees, etc.

I don't agree with the practice, but this is not a freedom issue. Withdrawing a private association, for any reason, is not denying someone something to which they are, of right, entitled.

" Enforcing a particular dress code is fine, because clothing preference is not a protected status. Religious belief, however, is protected."
I really wish it weren't, not because I like the thought of an institution discriminating against someone. It's because I don't like the thought of the gov't discriminating against institutions, even ones I disagree with. Religious pluralism works. Institutions that embrace it will succeed.

Uhm so are you suggesting that people are entitled to force a university to provide them education against their (the University's) wishes?

I have to read things quickly... LOTS of reading to do... it's irrelevant really. They can do what they want and if people don't like it they should bolt... easy peasy.