San Diego and 9th Circuit

[OldGreyEagle 5]

nad here I thought it was bcause the O'Brian Bar Mitzvah couldn't have the Pavillon they wanted the second week of July because of Cub Scout Day Camp

[evmori 11]

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?

 

Horse stuff! If the National Atheist & Gay Alliance reserved the place, the Scouts wouldn't be able to use it!

 

Flawed ruling from the get go!

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

Exactly Ed, that's why the BSA gives its members preferred access. They reserve it for their own members before the general public can even apply.

[skeptic 997]

Let me see. I will lease this land and pay for all the upkeep, any improvements I need for our intended use as a headquarters, swimming pool area, indoor and outdoor meeting area, and campsite. When it is not in use for our specific purposes, it will be open for use by outside groups as well, as long as they meet certain liability requirements.

 

So, a facility for youth primarily is booked up by the group who actually runs and maintains it during the time when youth are most likely to use it. But, if it is not, others still can use it. Oh, but I want to use it when it is used by the group that runs and maintains it, but they are a heinous group that disagrees with my personal beliefs and life style, so I cannot be anywhere near them or their facility. So, I am harmed and should be allowed to use the facility under "my" terms. Oh, but I do not intend on maintaining it or allowing anyone connected with this awful group to be near me during my use. Oh, I also do not want to use any other part of this very large public area, as it is not maintained as well, or the persons who hold the leases want too much money.

 

Makes total sense to me.

[OldGreyEagle 5]

I am not sure any group has said they would not pay a "usage" fee for the facilties, they just want an equal crack at using the facilities. Now, if the Atheist and Gay Alliance would want to have the Pavillion and not pay for it, that would be a separate issue, but as I understand it, uncompensated use of the facilities is not at stake here

[SSScout 1616]

Perhaps I am not fully cognizent of the conditions that led to this case and it's decision.

Were the plantifs DENIED access to the "public facilities", either by gvmnt authorities or by agents of the BSA? Or did the plantifs decide PERSONALLY that they could not bear to utilize the "facilities" because of the taint of BSA leasing?

Therein lies the inappropriateness of the Parks/bus analogy.

My understanding is that the plantifs CHOSE not to even try to use the facilities. Ms Parks was DENIED use of the bus by the guvmnt and the bus authority.

 

If the KKK owned and operated the bus system and Ms Parks and her family and friends were allowed full use of the bus system, we might not be having this conversation. If, however, Ms Parks refused to even attempt to board the KKK bus line, because she was offended by the KKK's avowed value system, then we still might not be having this conversation because the courts would have politely laughed at her attempt to sue the KKK bus system when she chose not to ride it.

But she DID choose to ride it,and she WAS denied full access to it's service, and it did not matter WHO owned the bus system.

 

So why does it matter WHO leased the facilities? How were the Plantifs denied access and use?

 

((image: driving a bus with a bed sheet over your head...))

 

 

 

 

[evmori 11]

SSScout,

 

From everything I have read, neither plaintiff ever tried to use the area. Wonder if they have since?

[skeptic 997]

OGE;

 

No, the documents do not indicate they refused to pay; only that they did not even actually attempt to use it, due to their inability to even think about dealing with the BSA. The comment regarding cost in other parts relates to the huge discrepancy the GS charge to non GS users. By the way, they also give precedence to GS for use, as do the other lease holders from what I understand. Of course, as the lease holder, that makes perfect sense. Whatever; nothing but the complete isolation of BSA will satisfy these people anyway.

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

Montgomery busses were boycotted AND sued; people refused to use the service, and sued because they would not get equal treatment if they tried to use the bus system. The courts still ruled in their favor.

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

By the way skeptic, what's so bad about complete isolation of the BSA? If the BSA doesn't want to associate with some people, why can't people refuse to associate with the BSA?

[skeptic 997]

Merlyn:

 

No one has ever suggested that others have to associate with the BSA. But, for some reason, they want to try to force the BSA to associate with them. Why?

[Gunny2862 11]

YES, EXACTLY!

The Afican American community DID try to use the Publicly OWNED AND OPERATED bus service and were denied equal access. Thus provoking the boycott which makes it an inappropriate or unequal comparison - becuase in the case at hand the complainants are merely supposing that they would feel put upon by the attitudes and Scouting displays of the lessees having never ACTUALLY attempted to use the service.

 

In the case at hand, BSA or the council in question does NOT own but does operate and maintain the venue in question. The venue is open to the public - but not at will, the lessees interests understandably come first as they are maintaining the property. If, as I am certain Merlin will reply - the city still owns the property and it is public property and open for use to all comers at any time. Then why did city make the lease in the first place if it wasn't in their interest to do so? If the lease is invalid - then why hasn't the lease been vacated and the city started maintaining and operating it?

 

Until they go there and are treated unfairly this is, again, simply ridiculous.

There is no legal injury here as judged by other than this case.

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

Well, that must be why Barnes, Wallace & co are losing. Oh wait, they aren't.

[ScoutMomSD 10]

(OGE here, maybe I am just a prude, but the comment I deleted was over the line, well, I thought so )

 

(This message has been edited by a staff member.)

[Gunny2862 11]

Yes, and of the four out of five Judges who agree with this judgment.... oh wait, no they are mostly recusing themselves rather than offering an opinion.