Scouts' $1/year Balboa Park lease ruled unconstitutional

[Fat Old Guy 11]

Hey Merlyn, let's get rid of the Pledge altogether. It smacks of a loyalty oath which is un-American. First we have loyalty oaths and next thing you know, we'll have a House Un-American Activities Committee followed by a Department of Homeland Security to monitor our email and phone calls.

[littlebillie 10]

Hey, all.

 

You know, all Merlyn is doing is trying to make sure that everybody plays by the rules of the game - i.e., the Constitution. And even some of his loudest detractors have, over time, gudgingly granted that he is on firm legal ground - even though they resent it, and question his real motives.

 

Some of those same folk also say the pink and atheist sympathizers should go out and form their own Scouts since they can't play by the Scouts' rules.

 

I'm just curious - has ANYone ever considered trying to promote a Constitutional amendment? One that would change the big set of Rules?

 

I'd think that it would need to be something that would either some how entitle Public Service Groups OR Federally Enchartered Organizations.

 

Anyway, the parallels just struck me after reading that LAST bit of silliness about the pledge, and I got to wondering, so this isn't really thought out - just a thought gone looking for a home...

[captainron14 11]

Typical Anti-BSA garbage. It amazes me at the destruction that the Pro-Gay/Anti-BSA groups will do to get their way. Just think of the money that could be saved (on both sides) that could go for the Program (Boys)and other good causes. Yet they cannot accept the Suprem Courts ruling so they try every "dirty trick in the book" to destroy what they disagree with. How "tolerent" is that?

[slontwovvy 10]

The question I've always asked myself (and I know someone will likely take this the wrong way, so in advance don't) is "Would our nation be worse off without the Scouts or without the gay/atheist activists?" I've gone with the first answer, and followed my heart with it.

[evmori 11]

littlebillie,

Where in the Constitution does it say anything about what this thread is about?

 

Ed Mori

Scoutmaster

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

ed mori writes:

Where in the Constitution does it say anything about what this thread is about?

 

It's that part about "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof".

 

The 14th amendment applies this restriction to the states, so it no longer only applies to the federal government, but also the state governments.

 

Many supreme court rulings, such as Torcaso v. Watkins, have found that the first amendment prohibits the government from discriminating against atheists by favoring theism.

 

The judge found that the city did not offer the property to the general public, but arranged to lease it to an organization that excludes on the basis of religion. That's a violation of the above.

[evmori 11]

And the lease of the park to the Scouts violates this how?

 

Ed

[OldGreyEagle 5]

Not sure if this should be claimed a victory by the ACLU. As I understand it, the property is open to be used by anyone. The Boy Scouts have pledged to spend over a million dollars improving the property and that is beyond what they have done so far. So they pay the city a dollar a year in a lease, and the community, any member of the community, whether theist, atheist, homosexual or heterosexual gets to use the property.

 

Merlyn, I dont understand, if the property was being restricted by the Boy Scouts to only religious sects, or whites only, or something like that I could see the issue, here I dont.

 

OK,the ruling has been made, lets say the Boy Scouts vacate the premise, now the San Diego taxpayers must keep up this property that it used to spend only a dollar a year on, are the increased taxes on the Atheists and gay population worth all this? Again, use of the land was not restricted.

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

ed mori writes:

And the lease of the park to the Scouts violates this how?

 

It's a special deal for a religiously discriminatory organization; it would be just as legal for the city to exclusively lease parkland for $1/year to an organization that excludes Jews.

 

OGE writes:

Not sure if this should be claimed a victory by the ACLU. As I understand it, the property is open to be used by anyone.

 

According to this article from Feb 2002, the BSA uses the land about 80% of the time, and they have it booked solid in the summer, so only BSA members get to use this public parkland in the summer. The property is "open to be used by anyone", but only when the BSA isn't using it; they always get first choice:

 

http://www.sandiegomag.com/issues/february02/politics20202.shtml

 

Imagine if a city decided to lease public property to an organization that used it 80% of the time, and it excluded people from membership who believe in "too many" gods (polytheists are excluded, only monotheists and atheists can join). This is analgous to the Balboa Park situation; only the number of gods required for membership in the leasing organization is =1.

 

Now, since it's a private organization, suppose a Jehovah's Witness is the new head of the organization, and he decides that all Christians who believe in the holy trinity qualify as "polytheists", so now most of the population of the city is prevented from using their own parkland in the summer, because this private organization leases it for a dollar a year and book it solid with their own members.

 

You think some people might have a problem with this arrangement? It's the same arrangement as now except a different set of people are being discriminated against due to their religious views.

 

OGE writes:

OK,the ruling has been made, lets say the Boy Scouts vacate the premise, now the San Diego taxpayers must keep up this property that it used to spend only a dollar a year on, are the increased taxes on the Atheists and gay population worth all this?

 

The BSA wants to spend money building their own facilities (that's why they wanted the lease extended before it was up), the land itself doesn't need $1.7 million in improvements.

 

Besides that, unconstitutional religious discrimination is still unlawful even if the government could save money violating the civil rights of atheists.

[Fat Old Guy 11]

"According to this article from Feb 2002, the BSA uses the land about 80% of the time, and they have it booked solid in the summer, so only BSA members get to use this public parkland in the summer. The property is "open to be used by anyone", but only when the BSA isn't using it; they always get first choice:"

 

That's no different from the local public pool blocking out time for the summer swim league. The swim league gets first pick of times, the rest of us are forced to use the pool at other times.

 

 

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

And if the swim league excluded Jews, I bet you'd get a court fight.

 

Besides, 100% of summer use is beyond reasonable. Can I lease public land for $1/year and use it all the time for my own use?

[Fat Old Guy 11]

Hey Merlyn, be consistent. In one place you say 80% and another you say 100%.

 

"Can I lease public land for $1/year and use it all the time for my own use?"

 

If you are a cattle rancher.

 

 

[evmori 11]

The BSA doesn't discriminate based on religion. Atheisism isn't a religion!

 

And aren't we violating the 1st Ammendment by doing this?

 

Ed Mori

Scoutmaster

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[Marty_Doyle 10]

What Merlyn said was 80% of the time, but essentially 100% of summer.

 

What littlebillie says is right, much as we may not like to admit it. The BSA should only expect equal, not preferential, treatment.

 

And a $1 a year lease (let's not quibble over the other thousand dollars for administrative overhead)is below market, and therefore preferential. Any "correction" of past preferential treatment always appears to be unfair to the entity being "un-preferred".

 

That is the only card the San Diego Scouts have to play "People donated time and money to improve this land under the perception (right or wrong) that the property was in essence the Scout's (since they only paid a nominal amount and it was always renewed). It is not fair that this donation be given to someone other than the giftee(?)and taken away from the boys".

 

And most people (aside from twocubdad) will not understand that, even on a $1 a year evergreen lease, leasehold improvements revert to the leasor. Most people wouldn't recognize the term "leasehold improvements".

 

Let's not talk about the ACLU, which has changed the name of the organizatuion to "discriminatory BSA" in all of their writings. Even if the BSA agreed to accept homosexuals and atheists, the ACLU would still consider the BSA discriminatory since it does not accept girls in all aspects of the program. Sometimes, you just can't win.

[evmori 11]

merlyn,

Why is 100% of summer beyond reasonable? What would be reasonable? Who makes that decision?

 

Ed Mori

Scoutmaster

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10