San Diego and 9th Circuit

[vol_scouter 365]

Merlyn,

 

Then I assume that you and other atheists would never consider booking a public space because it could offend everyone who believes in a deity. As to the other groups discussed above, those who do not have enough money to contribute are left out. The point is being offended should not be sufficient to change public policies because someone is always offended by others actions.

 

Sitting at the back of the bus is an analogy that makes no sense in this setting.

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

vol_scouter writes:

Then I assume that you and other atheists would never consider booking a public space because it could offend everyone who believes in a deity.

 

Wrong; offensiveness isn't the issue.

 

However, I would be against a city giving atheists exclusive rights over some public parkland so only atheists could use this public parkland during the summer.

 

As to the other groups discussed above, those who do not have enough money to contribute are left out. The point is being offended should not be sufficient to change public policies because someone is always offended by others actions.

 

And as I've said, offensiveness is not the issue.

 

Sitting at the back of the bus is an analogy that makes no sense in this setting.

 

Argue with the court, they used the analogy in their ruling.

 

[evmori 11]

The BSA says they book the park solid with their own members during the peak-demand summer months. You can't use it if you aren't a member.

 

You can't use it because it is booked to capacity. Another BSA unit wanting to book the park would be turned away, too, because it is booked to capacity and they ARE members!

 

The ruling was flawed from the get go & will be over turned. There is nothing in the Constitution that about being offended by anything. Grow a set & move on!

[vol_scouter 365]

Merlyn,

 

There is something in your post where we might agree though for slightly different reasons. I did not understand when I read the original articles on this subject why the city ever gave any organization control over part of a public park. Perhaps, when it was first done the property was considered far away, undesirable, or both. If the city wished to say that a public park should not have exclusive use for large periods of time by any organization, then I would absolutely support the decision (assuming a reasonable and equitable relocation plan in this case since they have been there a long time and made improvements). It may be appropriate to lease some land to private groups by a city but not land set up as a park.

 

[skeptic 997]

Okay, here is a possible resolution to this whole affair. Since in Mission Park on the beach, and in Balboa Park next to the zoo and so on, there are many acres of untended land, the city can give similar leases to a group who wishes to offer a similar program on the beach, and similar facilities in Balboa. They then can set their own requirements which would be inclusive of anyone and everyone (except for BSA groups, since they already have "their" space), no matter what their beliefs. Then they can put their own money into the development of the areas, and the regular upkeep so that they are safe and utile. Certainly in Balboa, this would be a great boon, as their are many areas of the park that are terribly overgrown and unsafe, since the city does not have the funds or ability to take proper care.

 

Of course, we all know that if the areas in the suits were not already developed and useful, they would have no interest to the litigants, even if they actually applied to use them. And, if they were run down and not useful, the city would not have renewed the leases in the first place.

 

So, Merlyn, take up the campaign. Maybe the ACLU can put some of their own money into the plan, along with the many wealthy, mistreated members of the Gay, atheist, and agnostic communities.

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

Ed writes:

You can't use it because it is booked to capacity. Another BSA unit wanting to book the park would be turned away, too, because it is booked to capacity and they ARE members!

 

But Ed, the BSA preferentially books THEIR members over members of the general public during the peak summer months. The BSA admitted in court that it's booked 100% with only their members in the summer.

 

Skeptic, the city comptroller said that normally they get about 70 proposals from various groups in other, similar arrangements. They didn't for this because they ignored their own competitive bidding rules and just gave it to the BSA.

[skeptic 997]

Merlyn;

 

Why shouldn't they, since the scouts have been there and developed everything. If someone else wants a similar deal, put it on unused land. There is plenty there that could benefit from it. But, then that would require someone to come up with the money to develop it. Based on the development there in Balboa and on the beach, that would be hundreds of millions of dollars. The scouts put the money into it; why should they not continue to have the use? If others want to do something similar, then let them develop it on separate locations, rather than whine that they were not offered the same site at the same deal. If they want the deal on the same sites, then they should reimburse the scouts for all money spent, adjusted to today's dollar value, since scouts have been in Balboa since the 20's.

 

The real question is why these litigious individuals don't simply use their resources to develop programs for use that fit their needs, rather than waste them on attacking groups with whom they disagree. Because they really do not care about others, only their own egocentric desires??

 

Try and give a rational and inclusive answer if you can. (Pulling chain hard!!!)(This message has been edited by skeptic)(This message has been edited by skeptic)

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

Skeptic, the plaintiffs have been winning the San Diego lawsuit so far, which means that when the courts looked at the deal, they determined that it was unlawful. You can't defend an unlawful lease by telling people to go get their own.

[skeptic 997]

Actually, the plaintiffs have gotten a favorable ruling from one judge whose logic defies the word. And, if somehow, this finally goes in the favor of the plaintiffs when it reaches the high court, then many other similar arrangements will have to go by the wayside at even further detriment to the public good. But, the PC will have won their egocentric "right".

 

Meanwhile, you still cannot give me an answer to my question as to why all this effort and money cannot be used for the benefit of others, rather than to attack those that actually do.

 

I really do not expect an answer, as I am sure you have none; only an excuse or egocentric response.

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

Sorry, the civil rights of atheists and gays can't be dismissed by you as egocentric. No doubt all the money spent on civil rights litigation over the last few decades could've been spent instead on sending kids to camp, but I think the civil rights litigation then, as now, is more important. Whining about how unfair it is that people actually go to court over the BSA's discriminatory policies is just tiresome; until the BSA is willing to act like a fully private organization, meaning no government funds, no government sponsorship, and no government special deals, it's never going to end.

[SSScout 1616]

Bizarre.

 

Let us assume (for discussion sake) that the company that is the prime contractor for making nuclear warheads rents out a public park pavillion for a corporate picnic. If I find the creation of nuclear warheads offensive, would I then be able to SUE in court to prevent the company from utilizing a public park? Even tho I have not been prevented from using the park or (in my turn) reserving or renting the same pavillion?

 

What is the limiting factor here?

[skeptic 997]

ssscout: The limiting factor for some is the BSA; they are a terrible and malicious organization that should be ostracized and have any privileges offered to others by the government, directly or indirectly, taken from them or not offered to begin. Merlyn has already admitted that the rights of his PC crusade (dare I use that word in relation to him?) take precedence to any logical or balanced decision.

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

ssscout writes:

Let us assume (for discussion sake) that the company that is the prime contractor for making nuclear warheads rents out a public park pavillion for a corporate picnic. If I find the creation of nuclear warheads offensive, would I then be able to SUE in court to prevent the company from utilizing a public park?

 

You could try, but you wouldn't succeed. But this hardly resembles the San Diego case, where access to public parkland has first-class access for some people, and second-class access for the rest.

 

Even tho I have not been prevented from using the park or (in my turn) reserving or renting the same pavillion?

 

Blacks could ride on Montgomery city buses, they just had to sit in the back, and give up their seats so whites wouldn't have to stand. They weren't prevented from using the city buses. Fair, eh?

 

What is the limiting factor here?

 

Equal treatment by the government. Why is that impossible for some people to understand?

 

Can you see why blacks wouldn't like the Montgomery bus system, even though they could ride the bus? They just had to allow their superiors to sit in the front and get preferential access.

 

Gays and atheists can use public parkland, they just have to allow their superiors preferential access to it. Like all summer.

[evmori 11]

Sorry, the civil rights of atheists and gays can't be dismissed by you as egocentric.

 

Are atheists & gays civil rights different from everyone else? Because if they aren't I don't see how their civil rights were violated. Sure their feelings were hurt. So what?

 

The initial ruling was flawed & in the end, the BSA will win out!

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

Ed, gays and atheists (and girls, for that matter) have inferior access to public parkland, because the BSA controls access and prefers their own members.