San Diego and 9th Circuit

[SSScout]

Friend Leroy:

I believe you have made my point.

Ms Parks was seeking equal use of a public utility, tho it might 've been privately owned, still ostensively a public utility.

 

The leasing of a service or property, be it privately or publicly owned allows the leasee (contract definitions allowing) particular use of that property or service. Restaurants are closed to the public when rented for private parties. Chartered buses are not a "public conveyance". When the BSA rents a piece of the park, the general public cannot use that part of the park. We apologize , but the Korean Baptist Church cannot just show up and expect to be able to set up a volley ball net where we already have an archery range. Mr. and Missus Smith may feel put out when they arrive and the pavillion they hoped would be available for their kids birthday party is full of Cub Scouts tying knots, but hey, we paid our fee and made the reservation months before. So the Rockville Russian Society comes and uses the boat house for their polka party, the Cubs loved the loud music. We use what we rented. Folks can still walk by and thru to other park areas.

If the Washington Ethical Society calls and reserves the daytime park for a week and pays the $4,000. fee, we won't feel left out. Just our fault for not getting there first, us Scout folks will just have to pick a different week or park. WES: Have fun, play fair and don't eat too many chilli dogs.

 

I still don't see where the decision is about lack of access to the park. It APPEARS to be about taking offense at who is using the park, not about lack of access. So, if this ruling is allowed to stand, and if I took umbrage at the ideas promulgated by the Washington Ethical Society (local athiest group. Nice people, by the way), and if the WES leased out a piece of the park, and if I decided the WES was so ubnoxious that I could not even walk by that part of the park wherein the WES held sway, and I was so inclined, I could SUE the WES for limiting my use of the park? And seek monetary compensation? Damages? Even when there was no other physical limitation of use?

 

Have I got that all correct?

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

The court opinions don't prove your point; this is not a case where an organization has rented out part of a public park for their own use. It's a 25-years-long $1/year lease where the BSA gives their members preferential access to the campgrounds and aquatic center, which are described in the court opinions as "public facilities." Why not read the actual opinions?

[evmori]

Right on the money SSScout.

 

This is not about the plaintiff's inability to use the park. It has been stated that neither plaintiff attempted to use the park. They were merely offended by who was using it. Too bad. So sad! Move along. Nothing to see here!

 

Wonder how many times either plaintiff has been to the park since this poor ruling?

[SSScout]

Geewillikers, MLR, if they leased it for abuck ayear or (in our case) $4000 a week, it is leased. If the Guvmnt later thinks a mistake was made, then let the lawyers duke it out and correct it. But if it is LEASED and use of the property CONTRACTED, then my last post stands as written. The Leasee has use of the property, as described in the appropriate documents (I did not see them attached). Therefore, ipso facto, in re proviso and ergo sum, the public needs to consider their limitations and access. Not whether they are offended merely by the organization's professed membership requirements.

 

If the leasing agreement is written too broadly or too limiting, let someone decide that and fairly decide what, in a democratic society, is fair to the reasonable person.

 

If the "public facilities" are legally leased for a "private leasee" then the problem should hinge on what is truly "public" and what is "private" as a result. If Mr. & Mrs. Hernandez "rent" a pavillion for their daughter's quinceanos, then you can't expect Ms Slovikosky to insist on sunbathing next to it. For the duration of the contract, it is NOT "public facilities", despite Ms Slovikosky's pronounced offense at all the hispanic brouhaha... Ha?(This message has been edited by SSScout)

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

ssscout writes:

If the Guvmnt later thinks a mistake was made, then let the lawyers duke it out and correct it.

 

That's what's happening now.

 

But if it is LEASED and use of the property CONTRACTED, then my last post stands as written.

 

Not if the lease violates the law. That's what the courts have said so far.

 

If the "public facilities" are legally leased for a "private leasee" then the problem should hinge on what is truly "public" and what is "private" as a result.

 

The courts have described the campgrounds and aquatic center as public facilities. So they're truly "public."

[SSScout]

Certainly the CG and AqC start out as "public". But if those areas are "leased", then what are the conditions of the lease?

 

If the campground and aquatic center is "public" then they are not leased as a "private" area. Where is the problem? Does the path to the Campground or aquatic center pass THRU the BSA leased area (as they do in our mentioned park)?

 

The legal decision as I read it does not hinge on what is PUBLIC versus PRIVATE, but on what the plaintifs view as being too distasteful to approach, ie Boy Scouts. The plaintifs self limit their approach because proximity to Boy Scouts is, to them, distasteful. It's as if a chitlin packing plant leased the campground and moved it's packing operations there in temporary tents and I decide the (ahem) aroma is too distasteful for me to approach in my daily jog. Do I reroute or do I sue the b*st*rds for limiting my activities? Can the guvmnt legally lease the campground, or did it?

 

If the chitlin plant is a bad choice for leasing to, then those county commissioners ain't gonna get re-elected. But if the fed court rules that mere opinion is sufficient to show unreasonable limitation of use, well...

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

ssscout writes:

If the campground and aquatic center is "public" then they are not leased as a "private" area. Where is the problem?

 

The problem is that BSA members get preferential access to these public facilities. Just like blacks could use Montogmery busses, but they got lesser access.

[vol_scouter]

Merlyn,

 

SSSCout is right. If the land is leased, the group leasing it have the access. Your last post does not address that. The correct analogy would be for the bus to be leased by a private group and for someone to be offended by that without ever asking to ride the bus. If the bus is leased for a private event, then the public has no right to access at that time.

 

This is a clear case of discrimination - those who do not like the BSA membership criteria are discriminating based only upon that issue including the judiciary as noted by some of their opinion. To compare this case to bus service for blacks in some sections of the country in the past is incorrect. The purpose of the analogy is to try in the public's mind to equate a legitimate relationship with a true wrong.

 

The BSA is being singled out because of its' values. By the arguments that I read in the court documents, then any group leasing any land for any purpose who offended someone would be illegal. Clearly, this is not what the court has in mind. Rather the court wishes to single out the ones that are not PC.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Well, I'll stick with actual court opinions that say these are still public facilities, and that the lease isn't lawful. As none of you seem to have read any of the agreement and are just making up what you think the leasing arrangement is using your imagination, I'll prefer judges who have read it and know the law.

[evmori]

When SCOTUS overturns this bad decision we will all be happy!

[skeptic]

Well Merlyn, that is an interesting comment. Having read "all" the available documents, and having actually used Balboa and visited the area numerous times, I am fairly cognizant of what they say, how the area is used, and so on. I also have read numerous "legal" statements and opinions by qualified lawyers and judges who disagree with the judicial decisions made by the judges who ruled up to this point. The fact that the initial ruling was made by a single judge who refused to even consider any others' thoughts or submissions reflects the reality; that this is a PC decision that refuses to seriously consider any views from other legal minds that might reflect that there is error in the decision. So, here we are. The judicial machine moves glacially forward, with many cogs unwilling to get involved due to politics (most likely), and the youth and the public as a whole are left to bear the penalty. But, "IT IS YOUR RIGHT!!". You are correct on that.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

So far, the only ones "bearing the penalty" are gays and atheists; funny how they never count in your world.

[evmori]

So far, the only ones "bearing the penalty" are gays and atheists; funny how they never count in your world.

 

And how, exactly, is this happening?

[skeptic]

Ed; their feelings are hurt.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

And they get inferior access to public facilities, like blacks having to sit in the back of the bus. But they can't complain, both ends get to the destination at the same time, right?