Rachael Fried, a Y.U. alum and the director of Jewish Queer Youth, an organization that has been supporting the YU Pride Alliance in its bid for recognition, criticized the latest move. “Stern afforded me the opportunity to serve as president of the student body in a shomer Shabbos and Torah environment — I certainly would not have been able to do so in another university,” she told the New York Jewish Week, using terms meaning religiously observant. “I do not believe I would have attended YU undergrad had there not been student council or student clubs in which I could participate.”
“To postpone all student clubs, leadership, and essentially all student-led initiatives on campus in order to avoid allowing queer students to create community and share pizza in a dignified way is wrong, cowardly, and shameful,” Fried said.
I wrote in a comment on a related post:
ReplyDelete"To me, this means Yeshiva University lost. Sure the school can eventually, years from now perhaps, win in the Supreme Court, if necessary. But in the interim the club will operate, likely expand, and become part of the fabric of the school."
I was wrong. In the interim the club will, in fact, not operate.
That is, it will not operate as a functioning club. But it will fulfill it's true purpose even as it is suspended along with much student extracurricular activity.
Because from my perspective, the club was never really about "allowing queer students to create community and share pizza...." Rather, it was about undermining the school, a role it has now brilliantly achieved, twisting the university into pulling the trap door underneath all student clubs.
LGBT is like radical Islam, they want to spread their pernicious ideology to every part of the world.
ReplyDeleteWhile YU lost, this move puts the gay club in an awkward spot. All other clubs are shut down. They want their club and now all the other kids on campus and all their clubs are shut down. Will they look at all those other students and say "Okay, we're ruining your year, we'll back off" or will they say "Fine, if we can't have a club, no one can have a club because only we truly matter!"?
ReplyDeleteI see in SCOTUS 22A184:
ReplyDeleteJUSTICE ALITO, with whom JUSTICE THOMAS, JUSTICE GORSUCH, and JUSTICE BARRETT join, dissenting.
Does the First Amendment permit a State to force a Jewish school to instruct its students in accordance with an interpretation of Torah that the school, after careful study, has concluded is incorrect? The answer to that question is surely “no.” The First Amendment guarantees the right to the free exercise of religion, and if that provision means anything, it prohibits a State from enforcing its own preferred interpretation of Holy Scripture. Yet that is exactly what New York has done in this case, and it is disappointing that a majority of this Court refuses to provide relief....
Beautiful. Allow me my letter today to the NYS Court of Appeals:
8The NYS Court of Appeals Rules state: (c) Content. The motion shall state briefly the ground upon which reargument is sought and the points claimed to have been overlooked or misapprehended by the Court, with proper reference to the particular portions of the record and to the authorities relied upon. (d) New matters. The motion shall not be based on the assertion for the first time of new arguments or points of law, except for extraordinary and compelling reasons.
9.The NYS Court of Appeals in their September 15, 2022 dismissal of my motion 460 June 27, 2022 overlooked and misapprehended that I assert that Judge Prus committed crimes. This is an extraordinary and compelling reason for the NYS Court of Appeals to grant my motion for reargument October 3, 2022.
Bravo Joe Orlow’s comments.
They organize themselves around their self-determined desires to conduct activities contrary to G-d's laws. Doesn't seem like they are going to be too concerned about the ramifications of their actions. They satisfy their whims without much regard it seems for the sinful nature of their organizing principle; are they then going to be sensitive to how other students feel?!
ReplyDeleteImagine a theoretical Thieves Club of students in accounting and business majors who have a feeling that stealing is a good practice when one employed as an accountant or running a business.
How much would they care if they found out their official club was responsible for financial patrons cutting back on donations to their school? Would we expect the club members to be concerned when others lose money because of them?
I see in SCOTUS 22A184
ReplyDeleteARGUMENT
I. THE COURT SHOULD DENY APPLICANTS’ PREMATURE AND
IMPROPER APPLICATION TO STAY A STATE TRIAL COURT
ORDER BEFORE ANY STATE APPELLATE REVIEW
A. There Is No “Reasonable Probability” that This Court Will
Grant Certiorari Because the Court Cannot Grant Certiorari in
this Posture
The first factor to obtain a stay under 28 U.S.C. § 2101(f) is a “reasonable
probability” that the Court will grant certiorari. Applicants fail this test because the Court can only grant certiorari to review a state court order when the state’s highest court has finally determined the federal issues in the case. The trial court’s order in this case has yet to be reviewed on the merits by any state appellate court.
No. NYS Court of Appeals, the state’s highest court, is bound by NYS Constitution that limits::
[Court of appeals; jurisdiction]
§3. a. The jurisdiction of the court of appeals shall be limited to the review
of questions of law except where the judgment is of death, or where the
appellate division, on reversing or modifying a final or interlocutory judgment
in an action or a final or interlocutory order in a special proceeding, finds new
facts and a final judgment or a final order pursuant thereto is entered; but the
right to appeal shall not depend upon the amount involved.