Lambda Legal urges LA to cut ties with Learning for Life

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

No, it isn't good enough, OGE. I've stated in this forum before that it's ridiculous that, say, L4L offers to teach atheist students ethics while being part of an organization that treats atheists unethically, and which has deliberately defrauded the public to have public schools and HUD grants involved in the operation of their "no atheists allowed" private club. Free association cuts both ways, and if LA can't associate with L4L because of the BSA's policies, that's less money for the BSA, which is fine by me.

[evmori 11]

No lawsuit yet, but the threat of one looms. Like I said, the only ones who suffer are the kids.

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

But Ed, the lawsuit would be just for LA to follow its own laws. I don't see how cities obeying their own laws would discourage the development of youth programs.

 

PS: By the way Ed, I found this statement of yours from a few years back:

"BSA policy should be followed whether it is a good or bad policy. If an individual feels it is a bad policy, then that individual should do everything in his/her power to try and change that policy. Until that is accomplished, the policy should be followed."

Shouldn't cities similarly follow their own city codes?(This message has been edited by Merlyn_LeRoy)

[Oak Tree 15]

Does BSA actually officially discriminate against gays and atheists in its hiring practice? I know they do so for their volunteers, but that's not the same thing. And Merlyn stated that they may not discriminate in employment.

 

I'd be just as happy to see LFL spun off as an entirely separate organization. I'm not sure why BSA wants to keep it in house other than for numerical reasons.

[scoutingagain 20]

Ah, I missed the City Code thing. My question would be, do they actually "contract" with the City? Does the city "pay" anything for services received? The City simply sponsors a club anyone can join. You'd have to see the exact wording of the code. Does it prohibit all agreements with organizations that may or may not discriminate or is the City just not allowed to purchase goods or services from such entities?(which I suspect was the original intent of the law)

 

I can buy into no public funds or special treatment for a private organization that does not serve the entire public. But this threat really does sound a bit petty and I see no purpose other than to directly punish the youth involved and take an around about slap at the BSA.

 

SA

 

 

 

 

[Gold Winger 9]

I suppose that they contract with LFL because they probably fill out a form and pay a registration fee for every Post.

 

I'm wondering about the status of LFL with regards to BSA. It's often referred to as a subsidiary. Can you have a non-profit subsidiary? Non-profits aren't owned by anyone in the way that a stock corporation is. So is it owned by BSA like Philmont is or is it a seperate entity with ties to BSA.

[CalicoPenn 729]

Question: Who will take the place of LFL in running these programs? Answer: The City of LA. If we stop and think about what LFL programs the City of LA sponsors, we'll realize they are Police and Fire Explorer posts. Who actually runs these Explorer Posts? City of LA Police and Fire Stations. Who are the advisers? City of LA Police Officers and Fire Fighters. Now let's think about this for a second (and it's something I've wondered about in the past). Exactly what value does Police and Fire Department Cadet programs get by also being part of LFL, by being an Explorer Post?? Is there anything that these cadet programs will actually lose by being brought in house, without belonging to LFL? I wondered about this back when Exploring was part of the BSA and the only benefit Police and Fire Posts got from their association with the BSA, as far as I could tell, was recruitment and insurance coverage. I don't see LFL being a big boon to recruitment, and insurance coverage costs may not be that big of an expense for the City of LA. If they need these folks to be associated with a non-profit in some way, then there is always the Police and Fire Department Unions that could step up to the plate.

 

Question: Does the LA Council actively discriminate in their employment practices? As the LA Council is bound by BSA National Policies, the answer is Yes. The BSA does discriminate in their employment policies, and has even fired well-regarded professionals when it has been learned, or even intimated, that the professional is gay. While they may or may not be allowed to discriminate in employment for clerical or administrative staff, they are allowed to discriminate in employment for DE, SE, and Program staff. There is no argument to be made that because they don't discriminate in clerical and administrative staff, that they should get a pass - as long as they discriminate in employment of any one or more class of employee, they discriminate. Further, there no one can seriously argue that because SCOTUS allows them to discriminate, that this means its ok in all cases. Just because the BSA can discriminate in hiring, doesn't mean that cities, states, or organizations that clearly state they will not do business with anyone that discriminates are required to ignore their own rules to accomodate an organization that can legally discriminate otherwise.

 

Question: Is LFL affiliation a "Contract" with the City of LA? Possibly - while most of us think of a contract as "Entity A" gives "Entity B" a certain sum to perform "Service C", exchanging of funds is not always neccessary to form a contract. In addition, "Entity A" doesn't neccessarily need to be the persons exchanging funds. They could be the catalyst for allowing "Entity B" to collect money from "Entity C", especially if "Entity C" is only giving money to "Entity B" because of "Entity C's" affiliation with "Entity A". Translation - LFL collects dues money from an Explorer Post Police Cadet which they wouldn't have gotten unless the Cadet becomes a member of the Post. In addition, it can be argued that LFL gets a benefit by being able to link their name and program with the City of LA.

 

Question: Gays and Lesbians want a "license to do whatever they choose, even at the expense of the majority". Seriously, I'm questioning what this statement means? What is it that you think gays and lesbians want that will come at the expense of the majority? Special Gay and Lesbian only drive lanes on highways? Police Officers that only answer 911 calls from Gays and Lesbians? 2 for 1 coffee days at the local Starbucks for Gays and Lesbians only? Gays and Lesbians can build 200 foot cell phone towers in anyplace they choose regardless of zoning laws, even in the parkway on your street? And please don't tell me "Marriage". If that's your answer, I want to know, beyond "But it's against Tradition" exactly how gays and lesbians marrying will hurt your marriage or your ability to get married.

 

Question: Can Non-profits have Subsidiaries. Answer: Yes. Is LFL a subsidiary of the BSA? Yes. LFL was created and is owned by the BSA. It operates it's local offices out of local BSA Council offices.

 

Question: Isn't it enough that an organization serves all people, must it also be free of discrimination in employment? Answer: In a word, YES. We should all be fighting to ensure that no American is discriminated against for anything, and part of that fight is never accepting the rationale of "well, they're only discriminating a little and that's ok because they're doing so much good". Sorry, any good they may be doing is tainted by their discriminatory practices. The BSA should be leading the way in fighting discrimination, in ensuring that EVERYONE is treated equally and fairly, at all times - not entrenching in untenable positions. To continue to fight for so-called "traditional values" while the world has passed you by, is the essence of Don Quixoteism. Society grows when they challenge traditional values - had we never challenged traditional values, we might all still believe that the Earth revolves around the sun, and might still believe that slavery is ok, and that women should never work outside the home.

 

Calico

 

Edited to add a missing "Is" - and we all know how important Is is.(This message has been edited by CalicoPenn)

[GernBlansten 10]

WOW, what Calico said, give that man a harumph!

 

Actually, when Merlyn originally posted this, I thought, what? LL has no basis. But now I see the errors of my ways.

[skeptic 1014]

"Gays and Lesbians want a "license to do whatever they choose, even at the expense of the majority". Seriously, I'm questioning what this statement means?"

 

It means they want to force society as a whole to adhere to their beliefs and dictate to the government of "all the people" what the government should be allowed to do or not do, or with whom they should interact for the overall benefit of the community. It does not matter that the choice by government entities to use certain organizations for some types of activities makes total sense due to the resources or overall capability of the organization. If they have even the remotest connection to ideas that they feel are discriminatory, even if those ideas do not effect the actual function for which they were chosen, then they should not be allowed. How does this harm them in the first place; and secondly, why should they their beliefs or rights be greater than those of the others? With this rationale, a government entity could hire a contractor to build a fence. The contractor is the best choice, but then they find out a couple of his workers believe Gays are not someone with whom they can work directly because it is against their religious precepts. There are no Gays involved in the project, but the city should still fire the contractor given this rationalization.

 

O.G.E.; Even if National were to make the rational decision to put the choices into the CO's hands, it would not stop the attacks. That would obviously not be good enough, just as a separate, associated LFL is not acceptable. You know that as well as I do. Surely that is the route to which National needs to evolve; and I suspect it eventually will happen. But, there will still be that little thing about a higher power and traditional values as espoused by the Oath and Law which somehow makes BSA a paria. Only total capitulation will satisfy them.

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

skeptic writes:

It means they want to force society as a whole to adhere to their beliefs and dictate to the government of "all the people" what the government should be allowed to do or not do, or with whom they should interact for the overall benefit of the community. It does not matter that the choice by government entities to use certain organizations for some types of activities makes total sense due to the resources or overall capability of the organization. If they have even the remotest connection to ideas that they feel are discriminatory, even if those ideas do not effect the actual function for which they were chosen, then they should not be allowed. How does this harm them in the first place; and secondly, why should they their beliefs or rights be greater than those of the others?

 

Are you describing gays today or blacks in the 1950s? I can't tell.

 

With this rationale, a government entity could hire a contractor to build a fence. The contractor is the best choice, but then they find out a couple of his workers believe Gays are not someone with whom they can work directly because it is against their religious precepts. There are no Gays involved in the project, but the city should still fire the contractor given this rationalization.

 

Only if the workers refuse to do the work for which they were hired and the contractor does not replace them. If the contractor replaces them with people who WILL do the work for which they are hired, then the work gets done.

 

Notice the city code talks about the employer not discriminating -- if employees are discriminating, that's the employer's problem, and if their employees refuse to do the work that is contracted, the employer either replaces them or the employer can't fulfill their contract.

 

O.G.E.; Even if National were to make the rational decision to put the choices into the CO's hands, it would not stop the attacks.

 

If the BSA had done this before the Dale decision, I think it probably would have. Dale would have been kicked out of just troop 73 by the Matawan First United Methodist Church (if they decided to kick him out), and he could have just joined a different troop. Public school packs & troops would admit gays and atheists, LDS unit could exclude gays, atheists, women, non-LDS as leaders if they wanted.

 

 

(typo fix)(This message has been edited by Merlyn_LeRoy)

[Oak Tree 15]

Calico, I trust your statement that national policy is to discriminate in employment on the basis of sexual orientation, but I was curious if you know if that is documented anywhere?

 

I think the legal decision will turn on the question of whether or not a subsidiary is in fact a separate entity.

[evmori 11]

LA should follow it's codes, Merlyn.

 

It seems there are a lot of unanswered questions regarding the relationship between LA & LFL. And I'm wondering how Lambada is hurt by this relationship. Are gays & lesbians unable to participate in the programs LFL has?

 

Ed Mori

1 Peter 4:10

[fgoodwin 23]

skeptic writes:Only total capitulation will satisfy themGive that man a prize.

 

As I've written many times before, this is all about ACLU forcing BSA to bend to its will. As soon as BSA changes its membership policies re: gays & atheists, these lawsuits will magically go away.

 

Of course, that won't stop a yet another group from finding something else it doesn't like about BSA and suing it into submission again (repeat ad nauseam). Like the Brits learned in WWII, appeasement doesn't work. BSA must stand for what it believes in.

 

Why those who don't like it won't simply form their own organization (as AHG did rather than try to change GSUSA), I'll never know.

[CalicoPenn 729]

Court Case in Chicago - Man files complaint with Human Rights Commission because Chicago Council does not hire him based solely on his sexual orientation. BSA admits this is the case. National BSA states that it is the policy of BSA not to hire gays and lesbians for the job person applied for. Human Rights Commission rules that BSA violates non-discrimination law. BSA appeals on the grounds it is a private religious group and is therefore exempt, under the religious exemption clause. States again that it is policy of the BSA not to hire gays and lesbians. Illinois Court of Appeals rules in favor of the BSA.

 

As the BSA has stated this is policy in a Court of Law, we must accept that this is the policy of the BSA. If not, the BSA committed perjury if they stated it was policy when it is not.

 

Now - before those who are ready to celebrate the BSA's victory start to celebrate, the victory turned into a pyhhric victory at best. Shortly after the Illinois Appellate Court ruling, Illinois ACLU sent the City of Chicago a letter pointing out that since the BSA is considered a religious organization, it would be unconstitutional for city agencies, including the schools, to sponsor BSA units. It didn't take long for the City to agree. In fact, the City didn't even bother to put up a token fight. (I suppose it doesn't help when the BSA's spokesman is asked on the stand if the BSA would find a person who was a Grand Marshall of a Pride Parade, and supported gay rights at every turn to be an unfit role model and the BSA spokesman says that this person would not be someone the BSA would consider to be a fit role model for Scouts - without knowing that the person in question was the Mayor of Chicago. Ooops.)

 

As for "where is the harm" to gays and lesbians (or to athiests) if government does indirectly discriminate against them because many more people will benefit, I'm reminded of a saying (paraphrased): When they came for the Jews, it didn't affect me so I didn't speak up, when they came for the Gypsies, it didn't affect me so I didn't speak up, when they came for the blacks, it didn't affect me so I didn't speak up, when they came for me, there was no one left to speak up in my defense, and there was nothing I could do but be sent away to die. When government, either directly or indirectly discriminates against any class of people, it discriminates against all. How horrid it must be for some people to learn that some people take "Government for all the people" to mean "Government for ALL the people" and that "ALL" includes everyone, even gays, lesbians and athiests. How unfair it must seem to you that people actually fight to make sure that government really is for ALL the people. Where's the harm? The harm is that by allowing discrimination, even if for the "good reason" that many people will benefit, government becomes reduced to a government for some of the people, and not for all of the people as it should be.

 

Calico

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

Fred, I'd still like to know what you think the ACLU ought to have done regarding public schools chartering cub scout packs, as your own was, and as you told me, would not allow atheists to join. In that case, you were violating the civil rights of atheist students by barring them from a public school group.

 

Oh, and by the way, I haven't seen any lawsuits post-Dale that have attempted to change the BSA's membership policies; they have all been due to the consequences of the BSA's policies. In this particular case, Lambda Legal is just trying to get LA to stop contracting with the BSA, because the BSA discriminates. That's part of leaving the BSA alone -- leaving their customer base.(This message has been edited by Merlyn_LeRoy)