Merlyn_LeRoy Posted January 29, 2003 Share Posted January 29, 2003 A couple of news stories on it; LA Times: http://tinyurl.com/526o Press-Enterprise: http://www.pe.com/localnews/sanbernardino/stories/PE_NEWS_nbscout29.f105.html And the ACLU press release: http://www.aclu-sc.org/news/releases/20030128bsafalseclaimsact.shtml From the LA Times: ... The lawsuit filed by Glenn Goodwin, a board member of the ACLU Southern California, challenges a $15,000 federal grant from San Bernardino County to the Old Baldy Council of Boy Scouts. "They lied about the use of this money," said Goodwin. "They use public monies that go on to discriminate against gays and lesbians, discriminate against religious nonbelievers." ... County officials defended giving the Scouts public money. The grants are monitored regularly and were approved by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, which provides the Community Development Block Grants, the source of the $15,000. The money is for Boy Scout recruiting at nine middle and elementary schools, mostly Montclair, where more than half the students qualify for federally-subsidized free or reduced-price lunches. ... When the grant was approved a couple of years ago, I actually contacted Susan Williamson, the Old Baldy council spokesperson, asking her how the Old Baldy council intended to follow the nondiscrimination requirements of a federal HUD grant; all she wanted to know was how I got her email address (which was on the Old Baldy council's web page, and still is); she never answered my question. Does anyone want to suggest that the Old Baldy council admits gays and atheists? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
acco40 Posted January 29, 2003 Share Posted January 29, 2003 I'm confused. I'm not 100% sure what the state and federal anti-discrimination laws dictate but I do know that the US military does receive taxpayer money (federal to be exact) and they discriminate on the basis of sex and sexual orientation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJCubScouter Posted January 29, 2003 Share Posted January 29, 2003 Does anyone want to suggest that the Old Baldy council admits gays and atheists? Sure. Not knowingly, though. I think this is a really interesting case. The BSA is probably going to say that it is in "compliance" with all anti-discrimination laws, because to the extent that its practices would otherwise violate those laws, the laws themselves are unconstitutional. This would be based on the "Dale" case. In other words, the argument would be that the aspects of anti-discrimination law that the BSA is "violating," do not atually exist as far as the BSA is concerned. In legal lingo, I think the BSA would say that to deny them public funding would "burden" their First Amendment right to expressive association. On the other hand, the Supreme Court has generally given Congress (and federal agencies) wide latitude to place conditions on the granting of federal funds, basically on the premise that the receipt of these funds is a "privilege" rather than a "right." But using the federal false swearing act makes it difficult. Until the courts decide whether the BSA has to comply with policies banning discrimination in public facilities and funding, it is tough to say that the BSA knowingly made a false statement. As far as they were concerned, they were not violating the law, so they did not swear falsely. If anyone is waiting for an actual opinion from me as to which legal argument is correct, you'll have to continue to wait. Merlyn, is there any specific case law on BSA use of public facilities or funding yet? There have been a number of stories about cases involving facilities, but I have not heard about any published opinions. (This message has been edited by NJCubScouter) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob White Posted January 29, 2003 Share Posted January 29, 2003 What is your point Merlyn? You haven't proven that the BSA did anything wgong. The courts haven't determined that hte BSA did anything wrong. All you have is 'Hey look! This guy says the BSA lied!' So he is welcome to his opinion, but filing a suit doesn't mean he is right. It means he thinks the BSA is wroong and wants the court to make a determination. Your acting as if the a judgment was passed. That's the thing with law suits. Anybody can sue anybody over anything, that doesn't mean they are right. By the way when last we chatted we were waiting for you to answer a question. As a non-member of the BSA what do you hope to accomplish by posting here? You have shown you have little to no knowledge of our mission, aims and methods and you have shown an alarming lack of knowledge on the volunteer and professional structure of the organization. You post lawsuits as if they were court decisions. What is your goal? I'm not saying you don't have a right to, I'm just curious as to why you choose to. Bob White PS as far as Baldy, I would not be surprised if the courts say that the law says you cannot illegally discriminate and that since the Supreme court of US has determined that the BSA membership rules are legal, they will dismiss the case. Let's wait and see what happens.(This message has been edited by Bob White) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merlyn_LeRoy Posted January 29, 2003 Author Share Posted January 29, 2003 What is your point Merlyn? You haven't proven that the BSA did anything wgong. The courts haven't determined that hte BSA did anything wrong. All you have is 'Hey look! This guy says the BSA lied!' Isn't it obvious that they did? Accepting the money required that they sign a nondiscrimination agreement, yet they discriminate. They don't admit atheists or gays. By the way when last we chatted we were waiting for you to answer a question. As a non-member of the BSA what do you hope to accomplish by posting here? I've stated before, I consider the BSA to be a dishonest organization that fraudulently uses public money to further their private discrimination. You have shown you have little to no knowledge of our mission, aims and methods and you have shown an alarming lack of knowledge on the volunteer and professional structure of the organization. Where? What, exactly, have I posted that shows this? You post lawsuits as if they were court decisions. Now this is just a lie; I say right in the subject line "ACLU sues Old Baldy council" and give extensive references to it as A LAWSUIT. Like I said, I consider the BSA to be a dishonest organization. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
acco40 Posted January 29, 2003 Share Posted January 29, 2003 Meryln, What are the federal and state non-discrimination laws? Last time I looked, you could discriminate on the basis of sex and sexual orientation in many states. (Not an endorsement, just what I believe to be fact.) P.S. Your first two links require registration to get access to the articles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
acco40 Posted January 29, 2003 Share Posted January 29, 2003 According to Federal Law - can't discriminate: against people with handicaps under Federally-assisted programs based on sex under programs receiving funds on the Clean water act based on race in housing based on sex in Federally assisted education programs based on race, color, religion, sex or national origin for jobs (maybe for professional scouters, a violation?) For this, does sex mean "gender" or ... (noun or verb?). I believe it means gender so the BSA should be okay on this one. According to the State of New York "Neither federal nor state law bans sexual orientation discrimination in employment, housing, public accommodations, credit or education. Nor have the state or federal courts interpreted existing law to protect lesbians and gay men against such discrimination. While some municipalities have passed anti-discrimination laws, they are limited and without the force and effect of state law." {That is why many groups are trying to add anti-discrimination law for sexual orientation.} Exactly what Federal law does the ACLU believe the BSA (Baldy Council) violated? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJCubScouter Posted January 29, 2003 Share Posted January 29, 2003 Acco says: What are the federal and state non-discrimination laws? Last time I looked, you could discriminate on the basis of sex and sexual orientation in many states. If by "sex" you mean gender, I was not aware of that. I thought that all states prohibited discrimination in employment, public accomodations, etc. on the basis of race, sex (gender), religion and national origin (and maybe others I'm not thinking of.) I know that New Jersey does, and the federal government does as well. (Note, every anti-discrimination law has some exceptions to it, so nobody needs to tell me that churches don't have to hire Muslim caretakers or that it's ok to limit draft registration to men, I already know that.) Acco, you are correct that some states do not prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. I believe that federal law also does not prohibit this, or at least, the main civil rights laws, i.e. Title VII, do not. However, according to the ACLU press release, this lawsuit is based not only on discrimination against gays, but also on discrimination against atheists. Under federal law, discrimination against atheists constitutes discrimination on the basis of "religion." I am not sure if this is true under the law of all states; my suspicion would be, yes in some, no in others. P.S. Your first two links require registration to get access to the articles. I noticed that too. I hate that. Most of the major newspaper sites do that now. I almost never register, because I figure I'll get more junk e-mail and I get enough now, thanks. One time I must have registered to read a legal article on a site sponsored by the Bar Association of Metropolitan St. Louis, which otherwise I have never heard of specifically, but ever since then I have been getting mail from bamsl.org about every seminar on Decedents Estates and Trusts Under Missouri Law and every meet-the-judges dinner in Greater St. Louis. I have never bothered to figure out how to get myself off the mailing list. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merlyn_LeRoy Posted January 30, 2003 Author Share Posted January 30, 2003 NJScouter: Under federal law, discrimination against atheists constitutes discrimination on the basis of "religion." I am not sure if this is true under the law of all states; my suspicion would be, yes in some, no in others. It's true under the law in all states, since the first admendment applies to state governments (via the XIV amendment), and the supreme court has ruled that discrimination against atheists is included. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob White Posted January 30, 2003 Share Posted January 30, 2003 merlyn The search feature on the board does not seem to be working, once it is I will be happy to post examples of your lack of knowledge of the BSA . Until then.. I've stated before, I consider the BSA to be a dishonest organization that fraudulently uses public money to further their private discrimination. I totally understand your opinion and motive. BUT, You keep avoiding the question. What is your goal here. "They lied about the use of this money," that is a personal opinion and not a legal fact. The courts have not ruled on this and since the question seems to be over whether or not the BSA practices "illegal discrimination" and the Supreme Court has has already ruled that the membership practices are not illegal then it is highly likely that Mr. Goodwin's personal opinion will remain just that and not a legal triumph. But I leave that determination in the hands of the court. I for one am willing to wait for the court to decide if the BSA was given the grant inappropriately and fully expect the BSA to follow the court's decision no matter which way it goes. I fully expect Mr. Goodwin and you to continue your crusade if the court finds in favor of the BSA. Filing a law suit does not mean you are right and defending yourself in a law suit does not make you wrong. I would think by now you understood that both parties enter the court on even ground and it is the Court that determines the rest. Why not just share when a decision is made not just when someday shouts foul. And yes you presented this as 'look what horrible people you are' when in fact it is just an opinion with no verified evidence and no ruling. If you are so confident that the BSA is guilty then you should be willing to wait for the justice system to support you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
acco40 Posted January 30, 2003 Share Posted January 30, 2003 Heck, with a name like "Old Baldy" I say that they discriminate (or at least make fun of) 33% of all Scouters that I know (including me). I'm a gettin' to work on MY lawsuit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merlyn_LeRoy Posted January 30, 2003 Author Share Posted January 30, 2003 "They lied about the use of this money," that is a personal opinion and not a legal fact. The courts have not ruled on this and since the question seems to be over whether or not the BSA practices "illegal discrimination" and the Supreme Court has has already ruled that the membership practices are not illegal then it is highly likely that Mr. Goodwin's personal opinion will remain just that and not a legal triumph. Very unlikely; the KKK legally discriminates, yet it would be just as legal for them to use a HUD grant to solicit membership in THEIR club. This isn't about the BSA as a private, discriminatory organization; it's about using public tax money in the form of a HUD grant, which comes with very stringent nondiscrimination strings attached for the USE of that money, and violating the terms of using that money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dan Posted January 30, 2003 Share Posted January 30, 2003 acco40 Does this mean that you use to be a bald eagle, a good old bald eagle too? But now you have finished balding you are going to work you lawsuit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
evmori Posted January 30, 2003 Share Posted January 30, 2003 "Very unlikely; the KKK legally discriminates, yet it would be just as legal for them to use a HUD grant to solicit membership in THEIR club. This isn't about the BSA as a private, discriminatory organization; it's about using public tax money in the form of a HUD grant, which comes with very stringent nondiscrimination strings attached for the USE of that money, and violating the terms of using that money." And the KKK isn't a discriminatory organizations yet it would be legal for them to do the same thing? Now the legaleze has really confused me! Ed Mori Scoutmaster Troop 1 1 Peter 4:10 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
littlebillie Posted January 30, 2003 Share Posted January 30, 2003 ya know, once faith based initiatives get rolling (assuming federal monies are ever approved for suc), it'll be interesting to see what happens to the Scouts. AND if such money becomes available and the BSA can start reconsidering its relationships to its religious cash cows, it'll be even more interesting to see what happens from there... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now