NJCubScouter

All I know about this is that our troop trailer is registered in the name of the charter organization, which (I hear) is how it is supposed to be done. I assume that the annual registration fees and insurance are paid for from the troop treasury, but I am not sure about that.

Evidently so, KS. I must have given irony up for Lent. Or Passover. By the way, for Eisely and everybody else, I found something else linked to those trademark documents. If you scroll back up the document that has the links for documents 13 through 1, you will see "Boy Scouts of America" as a link. Before you click on it, note the name of the BSA's trademark attorney right underneath it, which is interesting to me only because I have met the guy, in fact I referred a case to him once. He is a well-known and well-respected specialist in the field of trademarks and patents (which no doubt, is why the BSA hired him.) So anyway, when you click on "Boy Scouts of America" you will get links for EVERY trademark dispute in which the BSA has been involved in the Patent and Trademark Office for what looks like 1976 forward, and there are 69 cases. These are only cases in which one party is challenging the issuance of a trademark to another, and in the vast majority of the cases the challenger is the BSA. (The only exception I saw was a case, apparently still pending, in which BSA is attempting to register "Pinewood Derby" as a trademark and various parties including the "Pinewood Derby Suppliers Association" are challenging it.) Two of the cases I followed the links for were, Silva company was trying to trademark "Explorer" as the name of a compass, and some little company was trying to trademark the phrase "Star Scouts" for videotapes about space exploration, and the BSA challeged both. (Apparently both gave up, though the system doesn't say why.) This is not, however, the full body of BSA trademark litigation. It only covers litigation in the Patent and Trademark Office before a trademark is approved for registration. It does not cover trademark infringements suits which would be filed in a U.S. District Court. So the fact that SpiralScouts (which has a TM symbol after it) does not appear on this list does not necessarily mean that the BSA has not tried to stop them from using it. There does not seem to be any logical reason why they would let SpiralScouts go without a fight in light of their challenge to "Youthscouts," not to mention many of the other challenges that might seem more peripheral, such as Silva wanting to name a compass the "Explorer."

I don't see anything he said as particularly conttoversial. Or is it just the fact that he spoke at a BSA fundraiser? I doubt that he is the only governor, senator or congressman who has done this.

Eisely, I think you are correct that there is no trademark for the word "Scouts." But it's a bit more complicated than that. I have read or at least skimmed some of the documents filed in the trademark case between the BSA and Youthscouts (actually there are 2 cases but the more interesting one so far is the one pending before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, Trademark Trial and Appeal Board) and the BSA does seem to claim at least some rights in the word "Scouts," at least the right to prevent someone else from using the word as part of a trademark for a youth organization. But rather than me try to explain the BSA's position, you can read it for yourself. Go to www.youthscouts.org, click on "News," which will give you 4 links, click on the bottom one ("Youthscout's Motion for Judgment, etc."), then scroll down on that document and you will see a numbered list of documents 1 through 13 (actually 13 through 1.) The main document with the Boy Scouts' position in text form is number 10 (it is listed as "Other filing" but it is the one you are looking for.) This is a brief (ha ha, it's 24 pages long plus about 15 pages of exhibits, but that is really a medium-sized brief) in which the BSA explains among other things why "Youthscouts" should not be permitted to trademark that word for a youth organization. The good stuff starts at section C.1. I haven't really had a chance to closely read it, and honestly it isn't the easiest thing in the world to follow, so if you do, maybe you can explain it to me. Other interesting documents on that list are number 1 (filed by BSA) and 4, 8 and 13 filed by Youthscouts, and if you want to skip some of those I'd say the most important overall are 8, 10 and 13 (they all get pretty long so if you print them I would at least de-select the exhibits or you will wind up with a lot of dead tree.)

Heh heh, OGE. But I like Timon and Pumba's alternate lyrics to that song better.

Rooster says: In regard to my so-called hatred...Did you ever consider the possibility that one can be disgusted by someone's behavior and still not hate that person? I don't need to consider the possibility because I know that such a feeling can exist, having experienced it myself. But that is not what is at issue here. Look, since I do not know you, I cannot know for sure what you are thinking or feeling. All I really know is your expressions, and that is all I can draw a conclusion about. And I have, and others can draw their own. I get angry with my children when they behave badly, but I still love them. Me too, but to the point of what we are talking about: When you do get angry with your children, do you call them nasty names? (Just so you don't take that as a personal attack or something, I am expecting that you don't.) BTW, when you climb into bed tonight, before you go to sleep - I dare you to pray and listen for God's voice. One can only deny the truth of His righteousness for so long. Gee, it's been awhile since someone "dared" me to do something. Like not since about the sixth grade. It's interesting that you appear to be making an assumption about what I do or don't do anyway, but I'll just let that go. I won't spoil the mystery. But assuming that I were to do that and it were a new (or long-lost) experience for me, and if I did get an "answer," it occurs to me that there wouldn't be much point in mentioning it to you. If the "answer" that I received (about the issue we are talking about) contradicts what it says in the Bible, or your interpretation of what it says in the Bible, you wouldn't believe me anyway, would you?

pdunbar says: Today, we found out that all money and equipment will be turned over to the Nnew CO. Congratulations to you and the boys, pdunbar! It would be interesting to know whether the old CO just came to its senses or whether some "pressure" was applied by the DE or other council representative. This would seem to indicate that this was not a situation in which the CO intended to keep "its" unit going with new boys and leaders. It sounds like the CR was just being difficult and that someone convinced him (or made clear to the IH) that the purpose of the money and equipment was to allow boys to get the benefits of Scouting, not for the benefit of the CO.

Shell, you have nothing to be "sorry" for, and you didn't make any "trouble." You started a discussion in "Issues and Politics" and it provoked some debate and disagreement. That is what is supposed to happen. That's what this section of the forum is here for, so that hopefully the controversies remain confined here and do not spill out into the other sections. (Or at least that is what I think the forum owner means in the "introduction" to this section on the main index page.) As for Gov. Locke, I only mentioned him because I thought you were an admirer of his from your post under "Another Famous Boy Scout" and because his statements about the "gay issue" provide another perspective on the speech that you provided a link to. I assumed your opinion of him incorrectly, for which I apologize. Actually though, it seems to me that almost any politician risks "losing supporters" by saying anything on either side of this issue. I also think that many governors, including yours, have a better reputation outside their own state than inside, I guess on the theory that "familiarity breeds contempt." Nationally, I believe he has a good reputation -- certainly better than my own governor whose appointees (and sometimes his own actions) seem to get him into some potential scandal or near-scandal or gaffe or some other problem just about every other week.

KS says: So, while we're circling the wagons and defending our right to associate, we're providing free advertising for "the competition"... I'm wondering who is the "we" in the first "we're" and who is the "we" in the second "we're." I have to assume that the the second "we" is the owner of scouter.com, since he is the only one "providing" anything around here, and more to the point, the person who makes the decisions about what advertising (or advertising services, in the case of "Ads by Google") to place on this site. (And by the way, it's not "free advertising," is it? I would hope that it is paid advertising.) I do see the irony. But the forum owner also provides a section on Girl Scouts, which could also be seen as "competition" in the 14+ age group. Or if you mean "competition" in terms of the idea of admitting or not admitting certain people, I have seen no official expression of what this forum's opinion is on that. He's just providing us with a place where we can talk about it, and I (and I assume most of us) appreciate it. As for "Youthscouts" (youthscouts.org) I had never heard of it before, but I looked at the site and found a lot of neat legal briefs to read. "Youthscouts" does not appear to have any units as of yet, at least none that are mentioned. Their sole tangible activity to date seems to be litigating with the BSA over their use of "Youthscouts," and the real issue in the case seems to whether the BSA has exclusive (actually co-exclusive with the GSUSA) right to use the word "Scout," standing alone, in connection with a youth organization.

Bob, my last post was directed toward the original version of your last post, the one-line version. Now that you have edited it to add more substance, it doesn't really apply, but I can't edit my posts. Once again, I did not say you omitted any text. I said "unless." If you cannot tell the difference between different types of statements, that is not my problem. Actually I did not think you had omitted anything. My point was (and is), assuming the text was complete, it doesn't make complete sense given the heading. The heading says "ownership" but the text does not deal with "ownership." How do you explain that? As for "render an opinion" or "making a decision," I have not done either on the subject of who owns the funds and equipment. I am just commenting on your answers, both those you give yourself and those you quote from publications. The answers are not consistent, and in the case of the Cub Scout Leader Book, not clear.

Bob, if you want to admit you were wrong (about an ever-increasing number of things in this thread), you can just come out and do it, you don't need to hide behind smirky remarks.

Well, Rooster, it's nice to see you back on this issue and expressing only love, and not hatred, for your fellow man. You of course deny any hateful feelings, but when you call people "sick" simply because they don't share your opinions and use words like perversity and depravity and accuse people of "telling the blind to walk off a cliff," that's what I perceive. It may not be what you intend, but it is what you are expressing. I, for one, don't feel the love. As for your second paragraph, I'll take that as a sincere expression of concern for those of us who do not share your beliefs. Just keep in mind that for people who do not believe the Bible is the word of God, or who do believe it is the word of God but do not interpret certain passages the way you do, what you say is irrelevant. In fact, it is worse than irrelevant, it may be contrary to our own beliefs. I have my own beliefs about how God wants me to regard and treat other people, if indeed God has an opinion. But in the end, the real issue is not what I believe or what you believe, it is that people who believe as you do have turned the BSA into their own religious pulpit, and that is not what Scouting is supposed to be about.

BobWhite says: NJ are you honestly a lawyer? If you read my post you had to have noticed that I did not "imply" anything. I simply quoted a passage from a BSA resource that pertained to the topic. How do get that I implied anything from that? Bob, I might ask whether you can read, but that would be almost as un-Scoutlike as your question to me about whether I am "honestly a lawyer." I do not wish to stoop to that level. So I will simply say that anyone who can read would know that I did not say you were implying anything, I merely asked whether you were implying something. The Scoutlike answer would be no, you were not. I will leave it to the rest of readers to determine whether you were implying anything, since the last sentence of your post states exactly what I wondered whether you were implying. Don't you think it is odd, by the way, that the text of what you quoted does not use the word "ownership" or any synonym for ownership, while the heading does mention "ownership"? (Unless, of course, you omitted some of the text.) Well, actually, you probably don't think it's odd. Since it is in a BSA publication, you probably think that automatically makes it clear, unambiguous and well-written. By th way does the CO and the council "basically" co-own everything? Yes. That's interesting, because I count three times in this thread alone where you said the CO owns everything. Now you are saying the CO and the council "basically" co-own everything. Which of your statements are correct, and which are incorrect? And don't try to say it's the same thing, because it isn't. And, again, which BSA publication supports what you are saying? The one you quoted does not.

Well, FOG, life is not easy sometimes.

By the way, FOG, although I know you were just giving one example: If little Johnny wants Grampa to see the pictures, and Grampa has Internet access, wouldn't it be better to just e-mail the pictures to Grampa anyway, rather than directing him to a web site? That is of course assuming that the grandparents have decided to join the late 20th century (to say nothing of the 21st.) My parents have not, so my son has to bring or mail (37 c.) them the actual photos. Quaint, isn't it?

That must be a fairly new document. The last time I checked, BSA-national's web guidelines pertained only to council web sites, and guidelines for unit web sites were left to the councils. I am happy to see that national has decided to issue at least a few basic guidelines, that can still be supplemented by the councils. I am pretty sure that at one time, I saw guidelines for unit web sites on my council's web site, but now I cannot find that document -- which doesn't mean it isn't there, just that documents on the council web site seem to play hide-and-seek on a regular basis. As for photos of Scouts on a unit web site, when I read the sentence in question I have to wonder why it is worded the way it is: "Names, images, and especially contact information pertaining to youth members should never be gathered or published over the Internet." It states pretty clearly that names and images should "never" be published over the Internet, but then why do they use the word "especially" in front of "contact information"? Maybe since this is "guidance" as opposed to a policy, and they use the phrase "should never" instead of "may never" or "must never," maybe what they are saying is that while use of names and images is "discouraged" (that's my word), use of contact information is really, really discouraged. But I personally would take "should never" to mean "don't do it." So, why prohibit (or discourage) use of pictures of Scouts on the Internet? Better safe than sorry, I guess. As for the distinction between the Internet and official BSA magazines, I suspect that they are looking at the "degree" of risk presented by publication in each of these ways. Boys' Life and Scouting are sent only to registered BSA members and some other subscribers, whose names obviously are in the possession of the BSA's publications division, and also to libraries. The Internet is available to a very large number of people in their homes, at the push of a button, and more-or-less anonymously (though not as anonymously as some people think.) I guess the BSA figures that the amount of effort required on the part of someone who wants to use a printed magazine to gather information to use for illegal activity is somewhat of a deterrent, while the lesser amount of effort required to access a web site is not a deterrent. Of course, nothing is foolproof, but a small barrier is better than no barrier at all.

Bob, I noticed something about your quotation from the Cub Scout Leader Book. The section may be headed "Ownership of Assets," and yet the text you quoted says who is the custodian of the funds, and who supervises the custodian and who advises the custodian, but says nothing at all about ownership. Are you implying that supervision of the custodian equals ownership of the assets? If that were the case, the passage would mean that the CO and the council co-own everything. That doesn't seem correct. So what does it all really mean?

Eisely, although you are our unofficial (nearly official) "news monitor" in this section, it does seem to me that I have heard of a rally or two supporting the BSA policy in question. Or, maybe I am confusing it with some of the web sites and articles I have seen, that support that policy. I recall at one point (and this probably goes back 2 years or more) a statement by the BSA distancing itself from one or more of the "support the BSA groups" and some of the more strident statements made by those groups. What I find most interesting about your post is that I believe it is the first actual example I have seen of a Boy Scout (a youth member) being "forced out" of a troop for being openly gay. It would be interesting to know what sequence of events led to that occurrence.

Paradoxically, in this thread I will disagree with someone who, so far, I have always agreed with (Shell), and I will agree with one post by someone who I frequently disagree with (Bob White.) Those who are afraid of the Earth spinning out of its orbit due to disturbances such as the latter may wish to skip to another thread. First of all, Shell, since this is the first time I am disagreeing with you about anything in this forum, and this tends to be a hot-button issue that sets tempers flaring, I want to say that I admire your attitude about Scouting and, so far as is indicated by your posts, about life in general. You have been nothing but positive in your dealings with other forum members and your reactions to various issues. In fact, so far your posts have been almost exclusively in the "non-controversial" parts of this forum. A search indicates that your first post in this thread was your first post ever in "Issues and Politics," which is admirable enough in itself. Your only "Issues and Politics" post outside this thread has been a non-controversial post listing your governor as a "famous Boy Scout." (By the way, it may interest you to know that Governor Locke has publicly criticized the BSA's anti-gay policy. See http://www.scoutingforall.org/aaic/2003102102.shtml) So in other words, Shell, nothing personal. I think your heart is in the right place -- something I can't say about everybody in this forum. So here are the facts as I understand them. Someone posted an offer of some personal equipment, and you tried to accept that offer on behalf of your sons, who are in Scouting. However, when the person learned that the equipment would be used in Scouting, he declined on the basis that "the Boy Scouts" "discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation and religious beliefs." You then wrote back and said, among other thing, "Scouting is not that way." (I'll get to the rest of what you said in a minute.) Shell, with all respect, Scouting is "that way." Meaning, when this gentleman said that the BSA "discriminate(s) on the basis of sexual orientation and religious beliefs," he was correct (at least as far as sexual orientation.) I believe he is also correct as far as religious beliefs, but I will leave for others to debate the philosophical issue of whether exclusion of atheists falls into that category, and as I have said in the past, given the choice between maintaining that policy and crossing out portions of the Scout Oath and Law, I have to go with the Scout Oath and Law. That issue aside, the BSA clearly does discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation. (Or more specifically, avowed sexual orientation.) Even some people who support the policy will tell you that, though others tend to shy away from the word "discriminate." Prospective leaders who have declared, even outside the context of the Scouting program, that they are gay, will be denied membership, and if they are already in, they are kicked out. (The process for youth members, according to what it says (or once said) on the BSA web site, is not quite as clear or simple, but it appears that the ultimate result would be the same.) Shell, your examples of a female leader wearing inappropriate clothing and flirting with boys, while certainly examples of behavior that would (and should) get you booted out, are really not comparable to the anti-gay policy. Nobody, regardless of orientation, should be discussing or displaying their sexuality with Scouts. But that is not what the anti-gay policy is "about." Under that policy a person will be removed regardless of what he has or hasn't said within the unit, and even regardless of whether any of the boys or adults in the unit are aware of his orientation. The example there is the often-discussed James Dale, whose case is the one that was decided by the U.S. Supreme Court. The facts of that case tell us only that the council executive became aware of Mr. Dale's participation in a conference about issues facing gay youth, and his identification as president of a college gay rights organization, in a newspaper. The next thing that happened was that Dale was terminated. So in other words, a gay person could follow all the same standards of propriety in dealing with the boys and leaders that you (and I) follow, and still be booted out because they have acknowledged an orientation different from ours. You may agree with that result, or you may disagree with it. A number of people within Scouting who I consider to be "people of good will," including my father, agree with the policy. But the one thing I can't let go by is an apparent misunderstanding of what the policy is -- it is one of discrimination based on sexual orientation. Oh, I did say I was going to agree with BobWhite about something, so here it is: Like him (and Laurie), my response to the backpack-offeror would have been "OK, Thank you", or words to that effect. Shell, you also mention people who raise this issue with boys. I think almost everybody, regardless of "side," agrees that that is inappropriate. The policy in question was made by adults, it is an "adult subject," and it should be discussed by, and with, adults. As ProudEagle suggests, that does not mean that youths do not sometimes discuss it among themselves. But to go up to a boy, especially one you don't know, and start arguing with him about this, is just wrong for any number of reasons.

BobWhite says: My point NJ was that the member of any religion may join scouting, and that is what the BSA's statement on being non-sectarian refers to. You misrepresent it to be in reference to its charter process. Let me deal with the second sentence first. That it not what I said, nor is it what I meant. When I speak of the BSA violating its own rule about being "non-sectarian," I have always been referring to the membership policy, not to who units are chartered to. (Though, I suppose if there was a new rule that units could only be chartered to Episcopal churches, for example, it would be difficult to maintain the claim of being non-sectarian.) OK, as to the main point, here is what we are talking about: "The Boy Scouts of America maintains that no member can grow into the best kind of citizen without recognizing an obligation to God and, therefore, recognizes the religious element in the training of the member, but is absolutely nonsectarian in its attitude toward that religious training." And Bob says that what that means is that "the member of any religion may join scouting." I think it means more than that, as I have explained numerous times in the past.

ProudEagle, I don't think the UUA's acceptance of atheists as members would be cited by the BSA as a reason for their exclusion from the ranks of CO-hood. (Actually I don't know what reasons the BSA has cited because the only direct reference I have ever seen to that decision by the BSA is in the posts of BobWhite, but I think I am making a good guess.) My local elementary school's parent-teacher organization would have to accept an "avowed atheist" as well as an "avowed homosexual" as a member, but they are not precluded from being a CO (and in fact they are a CO.) The "ban" is on individual people. Members of the PTO can be leaders of the PTO's unit unless they are avowed atheists or gays. How would the UUA be any different? Because some of its congregations call themselves "churches" and yet admit people who don't believe in God? I don't see why that would make a difference, when a CO does not have to be a religious organization at all.

While I do not have time to get into all the implications of the passages from the BSA Rules and Regulations that Scoutldr has posted, they certainly indicate that the idea that "the CO owns everything" -- promoted by BobWhite and others -- is incorrect. In legal terms, they may have legal ownership, but as to all or part of the funds they may not have "beneficial ownership," which means that while they may be entitled to have it, they aren't necessarily entitled to keep it. Hopefully, the Scout accounts would fall into the latter category. Dan did point out one thing that I might have overlooked in my on-the-spot "legal analysis." If the boys who are "moving" to another CO with the unit are deemed to have "quit" the old unit, and if the policies governing Scout accounts in the old unit say that a boy who quits loses forfeits his account, then the old CO might have a good argument. At least, a good legal argument. But as far as what is "right and wrong," obviously the CO should release those funds to the new CO. Even apart from the Scout accounts, if the old CO is not going to "revive" the unit with new leaders and boys, the old CO should sit down with the DE and the unit leaders and arrive at a compromise on releasing at least a portion of the troop funds and equipment to the new CO for use by the "traveling" unit. That was one of the options mentioned by BobWhite, so it should make everybody happy.

Bob says: My point was the poster suggested that UUA, Wiccans and others could not be members. Since I was the one who had mentioned Wiccans, I have to assume that I am the "poster" referred to by Bob. Bob's statement is false. I never suggested that members of the UUA, Wiccans and others could not be members. I was speaking about being able to charter units, including the ability to charter a unit for the primary or sole purpose of bringing Scouting to members of the particular religion. What I said was this: "If the BSA would just decide to comply with that Declaration instead of ignoring the part about being "non-sectarian," it would permit organizations such as the UUA, Reform Jewish congregations, Wiccan churches, some Methodist congregations, some Episcopalian congregations, and some of a number of other denominations, to use the Scouting program to benefit youth in their organizations and communities consistent with their own moral beliefs that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is against God's will, just as it could continue to allow those of other religions and denominations to do the same consistent with their own belief that God has declared homosexuality to be immoral." So, contrary to Bob's false statement, there is nothing in what I said that "suggests" that individual UUA members or Wiccans cannot be Scouts or Scouters. I am aware that they can be -- though not in a unit chartered to their own religious organization. And it is worth noting that if UUA members or Wiccans (or members of congregations of other religions that have decided not to charter units over this issue) are members, they may be confronted with the fact that the BSA insists that its units follow a particular religious teaching (the immorality of homosexuality) that is contrary to the religious teaching of their own religion. That is just the kind of conflict that the Declaration of Religious Principles is designed to avoid... but I guess Bob and others think that it is ok to ignore basic the principles of the BSA if it advances their political/religious agenda. One wonders why they don't just go off and form their own organization where they can discriminate against whoever they want.

Bob, can you cite some BSA document for your position on "Scout accounts?" Because (and I'll go out on a limb here) it seems to me that as a matter of basic contract law, you are incorrect. Let's assume the "Scout accounts" are not kept in individual bank accounts. You are probably correct that that would be rare, if not unheard of. I certainly have never heard of it. Because of the small amounts in many of the accounts, the fees charged by the bank would eat up the accounts, unless the bank gave some special arrangements. So let's assume that it is done the way it is done in my son's troop: All the money is kept in the troop's checking account. The name and amount of each individual boy's account is evidenced by a line in the troop's monthly financial records, or as you termed it Bob, a "budget." However it is done, the troop has some record on some piece of paper or some computer file of who earned how much money. Do you know the basic difference between these records and the records kept by your bank of how much money is in your real-life, official, bank account? I'll tell you: There really is no difference. The bank does not keep your money in a separate pile. Your "bank account" is not really money. It is a record of how much the bank has to pay you upon demand, out of the big pile of money they have assembled from everybody's little pile, and of course their big pile is really mostly just on paper also. What your bank account really is is a debt the bank owes you. "Account" is just a specialized term for a particular type of debt. I think the same is true with the "Scout account." It is really a debt that the unit owes to the Scout. The fact that there is a lower level of formality in the record-keeping than exists with a bank account is irrelevant. Now, if it should come to pass that the CO takes physical custody of the funds of the unit, they take it subject to the debts owed by the unit. That includes the money in each Scout's account, or in other words, the money owed to each Scout. In thinking about this, I realized something else. Why is this money owed to the Scout? Is it a gift? No, not usually. The unit adopts a policy saying that if a Scout sells X amount of whatever, they will "earn" Y percent of the profit for their "Scout account." Often the policy will say that the money can only be used for certain purposes. The policy may or may not be in writing, but that does not change the fundamental nature of what happens when the Scout goes out and sells Whatever and hands the proper amount back in to the troop treasurer. And what is it that happens? Glad you asked. A contract is created. The Scout was told, do this and you will get this amount of money. The Scout did it. He is entitled to the money, maybe for a particular purpose, maybe not, depending on the policy. The Scout is owed a contractually created debt. If the CO decides to take over the funds from which that contractually created debt is to be paid, it is now the CO that owes the money. If I were one of the parents of Scouts whose funds were being held by the CO, with all demands for payment refused, I would seriously consider hauling the CO into small claims court, or whatever the equivalent is in the relevant state. Maybe there is a lawyer among the parents. Actually, what I would do first would be to call the CR and tell him/her that my next phone call will be to the local newspaper, and if that didn't work, then to the court. Depending on what the CO is, I suspect that first phone call to the CR might free up those funds real fast. Can you prove I am wrong, Bob? Because if the normal principles of contract law apply here, I am pretty sure I am right.

ProudEagle says: Part of the basis for the Dale ruling was that BSA wasn't a place of public accommodation, as I understand it. Your understanding is not correct. The U.S. Supreme Court did not not decide whether the BSA is a "place of public accommodation." It did note in a footnote (footnote 3) that one federal court had found that it is not, under federal law, and that four state supreme courts had determined that it is not, under the laws of those states, and that one state supreme court had determined that it is, under the law of that state (that state being New Jersey, and the case being the New Jersey Supreme Court opinion in the Dale case.) But the U.S. Supreme Court did not rule on whether the N.J. Supreme Court was correct in that finding. Rather, it assumed that that finding was a correct statement of New Jersey law. The U.S. Supreme Court then started moving into what the real issue in the case was, with the following sentence: "As the definition of "public accommodation" has expanded from clearly commercial entities, such as restaurants, bars, and hotels, to membership organizations such as the Boy Scouts, the potential for conflict between state public accommodations laws and the First Amendment rights of organizations has increased." See http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&navby=case&vol=000&invol=99-699 I don't think that's going to come out as a link, but it can be put back together. See especially the paragraph of the majority opinion that includes footnotes 2 and 3, and those footnotes.