| |
From: jay.thal (jay.thal@TCS.WAP.ORG)
Date: Wed May 10 2000 - 23:06:10 CDT
Jim, et al
I am not an attorney, nor do I play one on TV. Ethics is more my bag.
However, as I read it, the issue is not just whether a State has "the
right to enforce it's laws on a private organization", but whether the
said organization is, in fact, private - or a public accomodation.
Whether an unenuciated (by that I mean unwritten in any of its
publications presented to the public) interpretation represents "true"
policy, is at issue. Beyond that, and this would required a different
plaintiff, can a multi-million dollar corporation which engages in
interstate commerce claim right to descriminate?
I believe that you left out the fact that Churches, social groups, etc.
also responded for Dale.
YiWWSWd,
Jay Thal, not an Attorney at Law
***********************
Lawyernet wrote:
>
> The legal arguments in this case had nothing to do with gender, race,
> sexualality etc. The legal issue was does a State have the right to enforce
> it's laws on a private organization.
>
> Churches, social groups etc responded for the BSA. State Attorney Generals
> responded for the States in filing Amicus Curae briefs.
>
> James H. Moss, Attorney at Law
> 12340 W. Alameda Pkwy., Lakewood, CO 80228-2841
> 303-980-5353 Fax 303-989-2316
> JHMoss@Lawyernet.com JHMoss@Earthlink.net
|
 
|
|
 |
|
|
