Freedom of Association

[A18]

Is there a constitutional right to free association?

NAACP v. Button, 371 U.S. 415 (1963)
Roberts v. Jaycees, 468 U.S. 609 (1984)
Boy Scouts v. Dale, 530 U.S. 640 (2000)

[John Dibble]

What do you mean by "right to free association"? I could take that a number of different ways.

[Citizen James]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

As long as they do so peacefully, I would say so.

The three rulings cited appear to be in tune with first amendment.

[A18]

Read the relevant case law.

The four stooges voted to dismantle free association. All we need is one more liberal extremist on that court, and churches could be forced to ordain women or homosexuals as priests.

[Emsworth]

The protections of the speech clauses of the First Amendment extend to communicative acts, including conduct. However, not all conduct is protected by the First Amendment. Only "symbolic speech" is covered by the First Amendment. There is little doubt, I think, that associating with other people can be a form of symbolic speech (although this is not always the case).

I prefer to say, "Association can be a form of speech protected by the First Amendment," rather than "The Constitution protects freedom of association." The latter statement leaves itself open to all kinds of misinterpretations; it might be taken to justify Lawrence v. Texas, Griswold v. Connecticut, Lochner v. New York, and so forth.

[A18]

The right to free association does not encompass those things any more than the right to bear arms encompasses the right to possess nuclear weapons. All rights can be misconstrued.

Are you the guy who voted no, BTW?

[Emsworth]

Are you the guy who voted no, BTW?

No, I haven't voted yet (I'm doing so now, for the "yes" option).

[YRABNNRM]

Are you the guy who voted no, BTW?

I did by accident. I meant to vote for the "Yes" option.

[J. J.]

I am voting yes as well.  I would note that we are referring to a private organization not offering goods or services to the public.

[© tweed]

Yes, based upon the first amendment

[opebo]

Read the relevant case law.

The four stooges voted to dismantle free association. All we need is one more liberal extremist on that court, and churches could be forced to ordain women or homosexuals as priests.

That would be hilarious!  And then feed anyone who protests to the lions.

[Citizen James]

Read the relevant case law.

The four stooges voted to dismantle free association. All we need is one more liberal extremist on that court, and churches could be forced to ordain women or homosexuals as priests.

Care to elucidate for those of us who are not mind readers?

As far as I can guestimate from your rather short posts, your reference to the 'four stooges' could, I suppose, refer to the dissenting opinions in Boy scouts v. Dale.  I will go so far as to agree that the dissent in that case was weak, though I think it is a valid point that if you are going to discriminate you ought to be open about it.  From this you add a massive slippery slope arguement, despite the lack of similar dissent in the Roberts v. Jacees case.  I am still waiting to find out why you consider the NAACP case to be relevant.

Personally, I prefer liberal/libertarian leaning moderates.   I know in some people's shallow black and white worlds there are only extreme conservatives and extreme liberals, but the real world involves compromise, negotiation, and subtlety rather than the eternal conflict and hatered.  But, as those who have studied history know all too well - even when one group of extremists wins, they just end up fighting amongst each other between the extreme and ultra extreme.  See the French revolution for more details.

[Schmitz in 1972]

Read the relevant case law.

The four stooges voted to dismantle free association. All we need is one more liberal extremist on that court, and churches could be forced to ordain women or homosexuals as priests.

That vote is currently on the court. Note that this case was decided in 2000 when Kennedy was decidedly less of an activist loony. Now, as decisions like Gonzales, Kelo, and Roper indicate, he seems to have unalterably become the fifth horseman.