Lambda Legal urges LA to cut ties with Learning for Life

[packsaddle 753]

It doesn't matter what your viewpoint is regarding the 'me' thing. LA must follow the law. Period. LL is demanding that LA follow the law. To do anything else would be unscoutlike.

If BSA didn't discriminate, this wouldn't be an issue. BSA chose this path (the class V rapid) and must live with the consequences. Tough luck. Wetting one's pants over this won't change those facts.

[skeptic 1014]

OOPs; awfully think skin all of a sudden!!

 

BSA does not denegrate (sic) atheists, they simply say they are not individuals with whom they choose to associate within their own organization. Show me anywhere it says atheists or Gays are not to be allowed to live their lives as they choose, other than when their choice trespasses on the rights of others. I know of no scouters who would encourage scouts to mistreat or denigrate atheists or Gays, or for that matter even discuss it with the scouts unless absolutely forced. And then, they simply would indicate that those choices are not the choices of BSA.

 

Again, how does that do you ANY harm, except to your ego?

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

The declaration of religious principle says "The Boy Scouts of America maintains that no member can grow into the best kind of citizen without recognizing an obligation to God," so atheists can't be the best kind of citizen. The BSA argued in court that, officially, gays aren't "morally straight" or "clean."

 

But in any case, you don't get to decide for me what I find offensive. That's subjective in any case, so you can only say that YOU don't find it offensive.

[evmori 11]

Great points skeptic.

 

You aren't a member of the BSA, Merlyn, so the BSA DRP has no effect on you. Sorta like the laws that govern the city I live in don't effect you in your city. All this does is eliminate programs to youth who need them. I thank you for those youth.

 

Ed Mori

1 Peter 4:10

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

Ed, like I've just said to others, YOU don't get to decide what I find offensive; you get to decide what YOU find offensive. You don't get to do that for me.

[scoutingagain 20]

Ed,

 

The DRP requires a recognition of God and references the requirements of the Scout Oath and Law. It prevents atheists from being members of the BSA so it directly effects any theist that would want to be a member of the BSA. I don't know if that would include Merlyn or not.

 

Even if he didn't want to be a member, government support of a private organization effects all taxpayers. Even the ones that are atheists.

 

 

 

SA

[skeptic 1014]

But, since BSA "is" a private organization, someone who wants to join, but disagrees with BSA's rules, has no grounds to complain. They simply do not have to join. How hard is that to understand?

 

Allowing BSA or other private, possibly religious organizations, to run community based programs for the government, when they can do it the best and most economically, is not supporting them with tax money; rather it is using tax money in a responsible and rational way for the better good. If the majority could decide that government should not use their taxes to support anything with which they disagreed, and the courts agreed, then we would soon have very little left, as just about everyone sees things their tax money is used for with which they have reservations or completely disagree.

 

 

[packsaddle 753]

Ed, the idea that those programs are going to end is speculative because that outcome has not yet happened. You're predicting an outcome that doesn't have to happen.

As Merlyn has noted, LA has the means to continue the programs in different form, probably with little or no additional cost. For that matter, BSA could continue the L4L program with the stroke of a pen. No cost.

No one knows for sure what the effect will be.

 

But what is CERTAIN is that LA must cut the ties in obeyance of the law. And it seems certain that they will. It doesn't necessarily mean anyone will lose the program, only that BSA won't be contracting with LA. I don't understand why so many of us advocate breaking the law.

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

Well, since the LA city code apparently addresses the employment practices of organizations that contract with the city, and not just how cheaply a contractor can get something done, the BSA's policies are relevant.

[evmori 11]

And you don't get to decide for me either, Merlyn even though you want to.

 

You're correct pack. Those programs might not end. But considering how governments work, they won't pick it up due to cost & no other private organization will take it on because they don't want to end up in court because they offended someone who doesn't use the services.

 

Ed Mori

1 Peter 4:10

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

Ed writes:

And you don't get to decide for me either, Merlyn even though you want to.

 

Ed, stop lying about what I "want", as if you can read my mind. You can't, and I haven't tried to tell YOU what YOU find offensive. I was responding to your earlier statement that "You aren't a member of the BSA, Merlyn, so the BSA DRP has no effect on you."

[scoutingagain 20]

"But what is CERTAIN is that LA must cut the ties in obeyance of the law."

 

Without knowing the exact language of the City Code, and the specific language of the charter agreement between LFL and the City, I don't know if it is certain the City is in fact violating it's law. I think that might be subject to interpretation. This case is not the same as BSA units that discriminate being sponsored by a government entity. LFL Explorer units are open to all. There is no dicrimination in the service provided. While the BSA may have discriminatory employment practices, are folks who work for LFL subject to the same employment requirements? Are the BSA and LFL sufficiently separate as to be considered two different organizations even though they have offices in the same building in TX?

 

Is a LFL charter agreement a "contract"? What goods and/or services are exchanged? Does it even go through the City's procurement system? The article explains the City's "affiliation" with LFL is illegal. Is an "affiliation" a contract? I don't know the answers, but without the specific wording of both documents I don't know that anyone can answer them.

 

I'd be curious as to how this might play out in court.

 

SA

[ASM857 10]

Ok my two cents LFL is operating independently of the BSA they share a building and some administrative functions. My parent company a large military contractor is unable to sell to certain country's, being we are an independent division but sharing building and administrative we can. So we need to let LFL do thier mission and BSA thiers, this country was originally founded on what was best for all the people, were lately were making it for the few that squeak the loudest.

 

YIS

Doug

[evmori 11]

[Ed, please direct your comments to all of the 10,000 members of this forum. If you must direct comments specifically to Merlyn, do it by PM.] FScouter (This message has been edited by a staff member.)

[evmori 11]

Well, looks like I'm the only one getting edited! How about removing Merlyn's personal attack, too, FScouter. I know you will remove this!