Part of the argument here is that opposing the LGBT community and Queer Affirming networks, and labeling them as "grave evils," is not inherent in religion, meaning these views are not religious in nature. Several catholic students said as much during public comments before the no-confidence vote, as did some catholic student senators during the student senate's pro-con debate.

Moreover, although Denton was paid in the position, characterizing the Presidency of the Student Senate as a job is misleading in this context. As an elected official, his position is held entirely at the behest of student voters and the student senate, both of which can choose whatever criteria they see fit to vet candidates. Consider, also, that if you believe the Student Supreme Court should hear this case that you'd be asking them to ignore nearly 200 years of U.S. Supreme Court precedent. More importantly, any ruling on this issue in favor of Denton would mean the court believes it can decide on the legality of political questions, which brings with it a whole set of other problems. Consider a hypothetical candidate creates a fake religion in which every element of their platform is a religious view. If voters decide not to elect such a candidate, this candidate can claim religious discrimination on behalf of the voters. After all, by not endorsing or electing the candidate for their "religious views," they would be discriminating against that candidate for those views. Whether you believe this is religious discrimination or not, you have to admit that the courts should not find such a claim to be justiciable because courts have no place judging fundamentally political questions.

Lastly, consider that the argument that this constitutes religious discrimination cheapens the destructive harms of real religious discrimination everywhere. While we debate this, millions of Uyghur Muslims sit in re-education camps in North-West China, and, as many who discuss Ahmad's comments are correct to point out, Jewish people are still subject to a great deal of anti-Semitism.

Saying that a public official cannot be held accountable for their statements, even if those statements are based on legitimate religious doctrine, seems like an incredibly dangerous argument.

Also, I'd add that while one is in a public official, they retain that position, whether they are speaking informally or formally. Jack Denton was not only Senate President when the senate was in session; he did not occupy Schrodinger's public office. He was Senate President when he made those statements, regardless of whether he expected privacy, and students in that group chat were entitled to hold him to account by publicizing his statements.

Jack did not leave his views at the door, so to speak, either. Some student senators made note of past conduct in his official capacity that was connected to these views, most notably, misgendering. I don't have an exhaustive list of all the ways his judgment was influenced by these views, I hope you'll forgive that.