supreme court allows Connecticut to bar BSA from charity campaign

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

Ed, the state of Connecticut has done nothing to limit the BSA's first amendment rights. You, for example, have every right to whine about the decision.

[Marty_Doyle 10]

Whatever funds were expended by BSA on this case would have been better spent "making a case" why people should directly donation to BSA rather than through an intermediary, to insure that the full value of one's intended donation makes it to the organization one wants to donate to, as saltheart ponted out.

I don't see how BSA lost any first amendment rights - they could still solicit people for donations, just not through the United Way.

 

The answer may just be to build up the internal fundraising arm of the BSA, beyond FOS, to a real "Development" area, and avoid delaing wwith organizations like the United Way.

[Marty_Doyle 10]

Whatever funds were expended by BSA on this case would have been better spent "making a case" why people should directly donation to BSA rather than through an intermediary, to insure that the full value of one's intended donation makes it to the organization one wants to donate to, as saltheart ponted out.

I don't see how BSA lost any first amendment rights - they could still solicit people for donations, just not through the United Way.

 

The answer may just be to build up the internal fundraising arm of the BSA, beyond FOS, to a real "Development" area, and avoid delaing wwith organizations like the United Way.

[evmori 11]

Merlyn,

I never whine! Just pointing out that discriminating against a group that does discriminate doesn't make the discriminating right. It's still discrimination.

 

Ed Mori

1 Peter 4:10

[OldGreyEagle 5]

All well and good all, but what does Socrates have to say ?

[scoutingagain 20]

 

This was a waste of BSA $$$ and effort. The BSA has every right to set it's own membership criteria, however shouldn't be suprised that other organizations have similar rights and don't share BSA's point of view. The best thing is to donate directly to those organizations you want your money to go to for the reasons pointed out by Saltheart.

 

On a brighter note I noticed on the BSA Legal Issues site, the Federal Government has filed a brief in support of the BSA's position on the issue of the City Park Lease and that case seems like it has more merit.

 

SA

[Proud Eagle 13]

I personally was hoping this case would go before the Court. It would have been far more intresting either way they could have ruled. Unfortunately, what we have now is sort of like a 4th of July celebration where they forgot to order the fireworks.

 

I am really not concerned about this one particular case of a partially publicly sponsored fundraiser. I am concerned about the greater dangers that such viewpoint based punitive actions could have.

 

It could soon be possible for very widespread state sponsored viewpoint discrimination to take place against the BSA and many other organizations. Any group that holds any public views or that has any set of values is a potential target. Government could set up programs for free use of public facilities tailored to keep out the youth groups of certain churches, the BSA, the Freemasons, or whoever they want. At this point, there is nothing to keep the state from carefully tailoring its standards to exclude almost any group. A more conservative state could decide that promoting the sanctity of human life is a state issue. Then any group that favors the "right to choose" could easily be banned for going against the new state values.

 

I certainly hope that SCOTUS would step in if this sort of thing becomes widespread. However, the danger is that such standards will be set up so slowly that the Court never even notices that anything changed. By the time it receives notice, there could be an entirely new generation of judges on the court that are educated thinking such things are the norm.

 

There is grave danger anytime the state starts endorsing or withholdings its endorsement from groups based on their values or views. This could be used as a form of both political and religious discrimination by the government. However, we shouldn't be surprised the court didn't act, it has grown more tolerant of government impositions on free speech in the last few years. (Anyone remember certain sections of a certain federal law being upheld that limited the content of political messages within a 60 days of general and 30 days of a primary election?)

 

Next thing we know they are going to be banning the Catholic youth for having allegiance to a foreign power. Then some other state will ban the lesbian/gay club for making religious people feel unwelcome. Yes, both the proverbial box and can of worms have been opened up by allowing this to stand. WEE! Sliding down the slippery slope is so much fun!

[WHEELER 10]

Sounds like the Romans have surrounded the city. They will starve you into submission, into making more concessions. Or you will cease to exist.

 

Tolerance and diversity are only hurled at conservatives to make them compromise and give up. They have no compunction in not obeying their own political correctness.

 

You will be assimilated. Resistence is futile. You will comply.

[Marty_Doyle 10]

BORG. I knew it.

[packsaddle 753]

Marty, You're right, a lot of things make sense now.

 

Laurie, I fought that battle a long time ago. What I learned (unless things have changed) is that earmarking your contribution to the UW for certain groups merely causes them to readjust the proportions of other uncommitted contributions, thereby rendering your effort neutral. To get the most bang for your buck (not sure that's a good euphemism here) I think you must give directly to the charity...outside of any UW involvement. If anyone knows if this is still the case I'd like to know.

[WHEELER 10]

You cannot parley peace with the Devil with half a loave.

[nldscout 18]

As much as it may pain me to agree with some of the posters, I looked at the web site on this. This is not a state organization, but a charitable organization set nup by the state for funneling of donations. The funds are managed by the United way of Conneticut. if you look at the agencies the Girl scouts and all other youth groups are not listed. But if you look under the the 10 agenices listed the Boy Scouts and Girl scouts and a whole lot of others are listed also as members of a specific UW. So can the Boy Scouts have it both ways? No I think that would be wrong.