Street Wrong To Evict Boy Scouts

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

Well, that's exactly why the BSA had to be forced to stop chartering their discriminatory BSA units to public schools. You apparently didn't care that your pack was breaking the law by having a public school unlawfully practice religious discrimination, or that you were exposing the school to civil rights lawsuits.

 

And if you don't see the point in stopping public schools from practicing religious discrimination, I'd say you lack principles.

[BrentAllen 10]

Wouldn't it be the school leaders that lacked principles, since they decided to own the charter? Wouldn't they be the ones violating civil rights? We are just a Cub Scout Pack, lawfully discriminating within our rights. How can we violate someone else's religious rights? The Supreme Court has already decided that issue. I think you need to get your information straight.

 

When are you going to turn your attention to the fact that NY City is violating all the citizens rights to own firearms, as protected by the 2nd Amendment? Winning that fight might gain you a little more fame and fortune. It won't change BSA policy any more than your current fight, but at least those you are supposedly helping would know and care about the issue.

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

BrentAllen writes:

Wouldn't it be the school leaders that lacked principles, since they decided to own the charter? Wouldn't they be the ones violating civil rights?

 

I'd have no problem with a lawsuit against you, the school, and the BSA in such a situation. In fact, the school could even countersue you for getting them into a lawsuit.

 

We are just a Cub Scout Pack, lawfully discriminating within our rights.

 

Not when you were chartered by a public school, no. The BSA can discriminate on the basis of religion because it's a private organization, but public schools aren't private organizations.

 

How can we violate someone else's religious rights?

 

When you were chartered by a public school, you were a public school's youth group, just like any other public school group like the school chess club. A public school's chess club couldn't exclude atheists.

 

The Supreme Court has already decided that issue. I think you need to get your information straight.

 

Uh, no. The BSA can discriminate on the basis of religion, but public schools can't. The supreme court certainly did not rule that public schools can charter BSA units.

 

And if you think they can, why do you think the BSA agreed to recharter all units chartered to government entities?

[BrentAllen 10]

Merlyn,

RE: Supereme Court, I was talking about the BSA decision, not schools.

Since the school requested and owned the charter, they would be the ones sued. We can run in circles forever if you wish, over a non-issue.

 

Your scare tactics are about as threatening as 30 lashes with a wet noodle.

[Hunt 11]

Hey, guys, I have good news! You're both right! As a technical legal matter, Merlyn is right--public schools can't charter an organization that discriminates on the basis of religion. But on the practical level, Brent is right--the vast majority of units will see absolutely no change in their day-to-day operation, because school and PTA CORs typically have almost nothing to do with the scouting unit--generally they provide no money or support, other than a place to meet--and the school would generally supply the place to meet anyway. A very few units may have to pay a nominal fee for the use of the school. A tiny number may have to move to a new COR, like a church--which will probably be better for them anyway, in my opinion. Merlyn, you may have slain a dragon, but it turned out to be an itty-bitty one--and what's more, you helped strengthen BSA's commitment to its religious requirement.

[fgoodwin 23]

Hunt, I've pointed out before that ACLU forcing Scout charters out of public schools was a pyrrhic victory at best.

 

If the goal of the ACLU is to open BSA to gays and atheists, forcing the charters into churches isn't exactly the best way to do that.

 

The ACLU hasn't thought through the long-term effects of their constant assaults on BSA; so while they may have won the battle, they will ultimately lose the war.

[DanKroh 11]

Fred writes: "If the goal of the ACLU is to open BSA to gays and atheists..."

 

Actually, I never thought the goal of the ACLU was to open the BSA to gays and atheists. I thought their goal was to fight violations of civil liberties.

 

So now that they've decided to fight for the freedom of speech of the Phelps clan, is the goal of the ACLU now to promote hatred of homosexuals?

 

Don't confuse the goals of the ACLU with the goals of the people/groups they represent.

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

It also appears that two of the biggest supporters of the BSA's discrimination against atheists in this forum were hypocritical enough to have public schools chartering their supposedly "private" clubs, and they still can't see anything wrong with allowing public schools to practice religious discrimination.

[Hunt 11]

"Actually, I never thought the goal of the ACLU was to open the BSA to gays and atheists. I thought their goal was to fight violations of civil liberties."

 

I generally agree with this (are they really representing Phelps?--ugh), but if ACLU really took that approach, it would have been on BSA's side in the Dale case, in which BSA's rights of association were threatened. That case had nothing to do with public schools, but involved an attempt to use a New Jersey law forbidding discrimination in places of public accomodation to force BSA--a private organization--to stop discriminating--this should have been anathema to a civil liberties group, but they took the opposite side.

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

I don't agree, Hunt, with public schools being one of the largest chartering partners back in the 1990s, the BSA was obviously acting like a public accommodation. The BSA is now, finally, being forced to act like a real private organization, which does not resemble their actions around the time of the Dale litigation. Real private organizations don't have public schools running their "private" clubs.

[fgoodwin 23]

Dan, of course the goal of the ACLU (and others of its ilk, like Scouting for All) is to force the agenda of those it represents onto BSA. When the ACLU lost in the courts after its direct attacks on BSA, it changed its tactics and launched collateral attacks on public entities that sponsored packs and troops.

 

If ACLU had won its direct attacks against BSA, it would never have launched those collateral attacks to begin with.

 

At least S-F-A admits on its webpage that it wants to change BSA policy -- ACLU supporters ought to have the courage of their beliefs and come clean also.

 

For those who attack BSA and its supporters, its always been about changing BSA policy. This isn't news.

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

Fred Goodwin writes:

If ACLU had won its direct attacks against BSA, it would never have launched those collateral attacks to begin with.

 

Fred, what do you think the ACLU should have done when confronted by your Pack chartered by a public school, which refuses membership on the basis of religion? Ignore blatant constitutional violations?

[DanKroh 11]

Hunt says "I generally agree with this (are they really representing Phelps?--ugh), but if ACLU really took that approach, it would have been on BSA's side in the Dale case, in which BSA's rights of association were threatened. That case had nothing to do with public schools, but involved an attempt to use a New Jersey law forbidding discrimination in places of public accomodation to force BSA--a private organization--to stop discriminating--this should have been anathema to a civil liberties group, but they took the opposite side."

 

Yep, the ACLU is representing the Phelps in their fight of the Missouri law that is trying to limit their right to picket. Now while I think that Phelps and his ilk are the vilest creatures to walk the earth, I can see that the law does infringe on their civil liberties. While I don't always agree with the groups/people that the ACLU represents, I'm not willing to demonize the ACLU for being willing to represent those that I personally find offensive. That's why I'm still a card-carrying supporter. I guess that makes me part of their "ilk", as Fred puts it.

 

Hunt, I think you are looking at the circumstance of the Dale case through a perspective colored by today's definition of the BSA. At the time of the Dale case, the BSA was acting as a public accomodation, not a private religious organization. How many other private religious organizations are chartered by Congress? And if any other public accomodation started practicing discrimination, I would want the someone to yell loudly and take them to court.

 

Now that the BSA has been ruled to officially be a private organization, yes, the ACLU works to hold them to the rules of what a private organization can and can't do. Again, I think the agenda to allow gays and atheists in the BSA belongs to the people being represented, not the ACLU itself.

 

It's the difference between saying "you must let in gays and atheists" and "you must let in gays and atheists OR stop being supported by public funding".

 

But those who are hard-core ACLU demonizers are not going to let their views be influenced by trying to look at the other side of the coin.

[BrentAllen 10]

Give it a rest, Merlyn. Public schools have only been chartering Packs and Troops for the past 75 years or so. In all that time, no one saw any "blatant constitutional violations."

 

And be honest - you aren't interested in seeing the schools stop violating anyone's civil rights - you just want to force the BSA to change its policy. If you were really interested in not "allowing public schools to practice religious discrimination" you would have gone after the schools, instead of going after the BSA. The name of your group is "Scouting For All", not "No Religious Discrimination at Public Schools."

 

Has the U.S. Supreme Court ever ruled that a public school chartering a Pack is a violation of the constitution? Or did the BSA just agree to stop accepting charters to call of the rabid ACLU dogs?

 

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

BrentAllen writes:

Give it a rest, Merlyn. Public schools have only been chartering Packs and Troops for the past 75 years or so. In all that time, no one saw any "blatant constitutional violations."

 

Both you and Fred Goodwin (in another thread) have stated that you would refuse membership to atheists in a pack chartered by a public school. Sorry, that IS a blatant constitutional violation.

 

And be honest - you aren't interested in seeing the schools stop violating anyone's civil rights - you just want to force the BSA to change its policy.

 

While I'd prefer that the BSA change its policy, I will not allow public schools to discriminate against atheists, period.

 

If you were really interested in not "allowing public schools to practice religious discrimination" you would have gone after the schools, instead of going after the BSA.

 

I've discussed this before - which looks easier:

 

1) individually contacting over 10,000 public schools that chartered BSA units prior to 2005,

 

or

 

2) contacting the BSA

 

Now, if it will make you feel better, I *do* intend to look for plaintiffs for any remaining BSA units chartered to government entities, and lawsuits would likely be filed against both the school and the BSA.

 

The name of your group is "Scouting For All", not "No Religious Discrimination at Public Schools."

 

I'm part of SFA, but I've been doing this on my own for years prior to that.

 

Has the U.S. Supreme Court ever ruled that a public school chartering a Pack is a violation of the constitution?

 

No; however, you might want to read the oral arguments in Dale.

 

Or did the BSA just agree to stop accepting charters to call of the rabid ACLU dogs?

 

Even the BSA's lawyers could see that public schools couldn't charter BSA units that excluded atheists.