brawling in as far as what this speech mean in the equal access act and i think any fair interpretation of the equal access act in regard to speech could be no less than what's offered in a free speech because certainly the act was promulgated in connection with the with more verses basic case where it referred to actually as of university groups student groups on a public university and trying to conduct that  found in free speech and in influence of your honor i think we have a clear violation here of the equal access act as well as the first amendment when you consider certainly i think  order of this court regarding the nondiscrimination policy and its its application of the nondiscrimination policy which is unequal there can be no question when you consider the girls on a club the boys on a club w is required to essentially grant privileges to any club that discriminates based on viewpoint or based on that that's the basis and that is one which the club itself alexis membership  requiring them to hire people in positions of leadership who are going to be spokespersons for the group and i know we have a you know that the officer clauses in this third application that we're looking at but think take it your answer then is yes that the school is required to allow students at a high school to organize themselves around a particular point of view or religion exclude anybody who does not swear allegiance to the point of view or religion no question and i think the school district recognizes that because in their charter application they have membership criteria and essentially any student group is selective of its membership according to their ideas according to their viewpoints that's the same with the earth corpse of y m c a they limit their membership to those who are dedicated to environmental issues gay straight alliance they limit their membership to those to foster the gulf's of the club and that being to to deal with homophobia to to fight heterosexism they deal with those issues they are not i suppose of they decided to limit membership only to people who were first to be gay or lesbian that would be ok under your theory i think where the dividing line would be with the audi ology not on the classification or category as much as would be believe in what we're doing  because otherwise what's happening is it seems out that income group and group messages sent out an inconsistent message when you have members who do not agree with your philosophy and that that applies across the board just c kept a sort of moral conduct on this when you have to have the profession before you can even become a member and attend that's not quite right your honor what was set out in the third and this was  work for the the name truth and why they want to to have that name and an article three specified what the membership would be and that is basically straight categories that can attend the group one as voting members and these are these are non voting general membership is a code of conduct requirement and that but basically it's not according to your beliefs is according to your conduct that because you're representing yourself as a member of tru free speech because you have a open forum for expressing groups and yet truth is being then that in fact what you've got here is a two tier system that's very similar to what this court struck down in craps we've got a s p stand next and then you've got equal access act and instead of dealing with religious and political groups it dealt with military recruiters and what the court said there is you don't look at the content of the policy you look at the result what is the result and the res suggest such a limited reading of the equal access act that it only deals with verbal discussion during the course of the meeting that is simply too limited and that is something that the quack sesac cannot count and i think this court recognize if i understand correctly there is limitations on that that any any discrimination will only give way when there is a material effect on the groups ability to exercise their expressed the purpose that's right you have to show that it impacts the expressive purpose of the group ok so if if you have for example the gay straight come club which is has club membership on the campus in what way in what way are they different from your organization which is not received to accept a certain point of view before they can come members yes try they could say that you cannot whether you're gay or straight or bar or whatever you cannot be a member of our club and membership criteria and in response to that that's what they put down i'm out of time and i thank you it may seem like it's high tech with its when i struggle with my usual tendency which is to really raise my voice when you're right in the microphone so often i'll go ahead and raise it then i'm accompanied by mr charles lamb who's the general counsel for the can school district i think what i'd like to do is just kind of jump right into some of the threads of discussion that were present in the opening argument and i think it's important to point out some critical facts that i the prince court pointed out that it is the a s b council not the school district that approves constitutions and charters and it is the a s b council not the school district that and we have a situation before the court where the a s b council over over a period of time considered this club in its various permutations at least six times and voted on it three t but i believe that the fact that the a f p council participated in this since the court pointed that out as a distinction and the establishment clause argument that is now present in this case  believe what i'm what i'm leading to is to point out that the a s b council this takes us into a discussion of what is the a s b what is it what is being asked for here of the associated student body now that gives the associated student body its own rights of choice its all rights of association its own rights of speech  in a situation where it does not want to engage in the speech and to apply relief where the school district has to in essence force the a f p to spend a s p funds on a project just not want to do that we have moved into the the professors signed an agreement to be in favor of gay marriage so is that the kind of regime that exists and if it does then how was it that the students can selectively pick which ideologies they are willing to associate with i believe that is correct that there are ideologically based groups now whether anybody ha actually been prohibited from joining them i don't know but there is no doubt and i will agree with council on that point that there are either charters or constitutions that set forth some sort of mission statement or criteria that says what the purpose and that you know we want people who want to believe in cleaning up the earth or something like that that is true and i'll have a sudden i'm drawing a blank because i was ready for this question i can't remember the name of the case where the court went through a list of allowable discrimination such as great point average such as the kinds of beliefs we're talking about such as political parties and distinguish that from grounds of discrimination that are not allowed so easily learn to counsel as i understand those trying to move away from religion in some respects by saying this is this is an ideology in this case it happens to allowable i don't know if it's true that there are no clocks espousing any type of religion i think i may have always spoke i am assuming that the question managed to the point is the point is the point in time in the why is it that religion is singled out as being something that should not have a club on campus when you can have those who believe in a gay way of life you can have people who are only women can join or only men can join but you can't have a a question was that these clubs are limited to jewish limited to islamic limited to hinge and that is the distinction that and this is why i was implicit in my question because that seemed to be the  any other religious group and well that the two clubs that do exist that are in the record allow all students to join regardless of their faith regardless of their beliefs or in this case i understood correctly which a nyone who will live a certain kind don't believe kind and be a member of voting members have to have a certain point of view of religion association the restriction ensued was much less restrictive it was only to the qualifications of officers i understand there are certain offices but the principle is there that you can distinguish between leadership and members well but that isn't what we have in this case and the sioux court specifically pointed out that a general restriction on members was plainly unsupportable and that's exactly what we have in this case understand why it why is that so in this case if you are willing to have the certain kind you can become a non voting member i can explain how to become a voting member i can explain that it will take a couple minutes there are what's happened is the focus has been shifted to just one aspect of what the left of the club put forth but there are further sources in its charter and its applications about what the purpose of the club is to associate in fellowship with fellow believing christians that cetera but the primary point on that is as the district court describing and its opinion that the definition of conduct  here is necessarily a religious definition that is very very good and i and it's going to court which is some examples in the united for a difficult for me to see i'm going to join a club they say you have to act this way i don't have to believe in anything you have to act with that's no belief that's kind of what will make let me point out the club says you have to act in accord with christian principles as generally defined in the bible ok now i'm in a club and i say well that means you have to receive christian sacraments every saturday or every sunday now if you don't want to receive christian sacraments and that conflicts with your faith you can't be a member of the club if the club says in your if you're going to obey the christian principles and you're a woman you have to be submissive to met ok let's say let's say that if you have a need of homosexuals and and i agree that homosexuals should have equal rights with everybody so i don't want to associate myself with them i'm heterosexual so i join into that club and i can they keep me out because i'm heterosexual on campus frankly at this point i'm not positive since the because we want to have only homosexuals who are going to be leaders because it will do away with our message the strength of our message does that make it a violation although it might under current law now it might under the  discrimination law in washington but prior to that i would say probably not and the difference is that historically in this country and based on the first amendment and the establishment cause and the free exercise clause that religious discrimination  been prohibited discriminating for an association because now we're not over in religion or an association class so why is this different from john's new boy scouts what they're trying to do here why is it different from jones and boys because this is an arm of the state operating through the a s b and the school district in a public school with mandatory attendance where students of all faiths attend and where some of the students are being told you cannot be a member of this club because of your faith and that's a fundamental difference from a private organization not a fly because running i'm sorry you're telling us that jones boy scouts do not apply because run a high school campus  question in france was open to all members equally equal equals equal well he was equally open to all students for that second level that came up with after garnett is not accepted i'm not sure it's all that that well i think you could argue that all we're dealing with is the fact that the threshold question of whether the policy maker requirements apply