San Diego and 9th Circuit

[Gunny2862 11]

ScoutMomSD,

a sexist comment?

 

Please!

[scoutingagain 20]

"No one has ever suggested that others have to associate with the BSA."

 

Well, this is actually the crux of the argument. The plaintiffs claim that to use the facilities they would have to deal with members of the local council. They claim they can't even bring themselves to try and use the facilities because the presence of the BSA hurts, offends, or annoys them so much. Kind of like a Jewish family that would have to deal with a Nazi organization to use a facility or a black family that would have to deal with the KKK to use a facility. I know it's a stretch but that seems to me what they're claiming.

 

If members of the BSA are so offended by the decision I suggest they find a facility run by a gay/athiest organization and sue them because they can't bring themselves to use the facility because the operators are so offensive to them. There must be a gay beach area, club, pool, or whatever.

 

I don't really mean that but it illustrates how rediculous the situation is.

 

I tend to agree with the dissenting opinion here, but so far the only thing that's been decided is that the court agreed that the plaintiffs have been "injured" to the extent they have a right to bring their beef in front of a court and it seems they have expanded the context of what an "injured party" is.

 

SA

 

SA

 

 

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

scoutingagain writes:

If members of the BSA are so offended by the decision I suggest they find a facility run by a gay/athiest organization and sue them because they can't bring themselves to use the facility because the operators are so offensive to them. There must be a gay beach area, club, pool, or whatever.

 

It would have to be a beach area, club, pool, or whatever that is public property, and reserving this public property has to be done through the gay/atheist organization, and they have to give their own members preferential use of this public property, and they have to exclude non-gays/atheists/BSA members. I doubt such a situation exists, but if it does, yes, you should file suit, because private, discriminatory clubs shouldn't get favored access to public property.

[ScoutMomSD 10]

I have heard racist, sexist, anti gay, anti liberal, anti women, anti californian, etc comments on this board and I WAS OUT OF LINE???????????

 

Are the Yes on Prop 8 folks being paid to RUN the board too?

 

Its about THE KIDS folks - all else is immaterial. There are folks on this board who seriously, scare me. And who I would NEVER leave my kids with. But thats from a California liberal born in SF.

 

 

[OldGreyEagle 5]

Oddly enough it wasn't all that long ago I got a rather lengthy PM dressing me down for being such a Liberal and the main reason Western Civilization was doomed to failure.

 

Now I stand accused of being too whatever I was acussed of, but I sure know it wasn't too Liberal.

 

I think I understand the definition of an Activist Judge now, its a Judge whom you disagree with, the merits of the situation have no bearing

[Mr. Boyce 13]

It's events and situations like this that show the long and slow death of the idea of political correctness.

 

At this late date, it is whomever shouts the LOUDEST and with the most CONFIDENCE that wins.

 

This is fine. The idea of political correctness wasn't clearly thought out to begin with. We will end up returning to the concept that feelings and sentiments should not be actionable in court.

[scoutingagain 20]

"because private, discriminatory clubs shouldn't get favored access to public property. "

 

Well with that I agree and I think there are plenty of sound constitutional arguments as to why the BSA should not have favored access to public facilities, but because some privates citizens are offended by BSA policies shouldn't be one of them. It just opens the door for many more frivolous lawsuits, not just effecting the BSA, but many more issues.

 

SA

 

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

Mere offense is not the basis of their standing, nor the basis of their lawsuit.

[evmori 11]

Mere offense is not the basis of their standing, nor the basis of their lawsuit.

 

Bull stuff! If that's not the basis of their standing, they have no standing!

[SSScout 1615]

Haven't had this much fun since high school debate team...

Evmori: exactly so.

MlR: I find much to agree with you: Private discriminatory clubs should not be given exceptional exclusive use of public facilities. However, I don't see where anyone has proven that the BSA has denied anyone reasonable physical access or use of the facilities that (so far) have been legally leased to them.

 

Can you, therfore, please quote us the part of the decision that defines the plantif's right to legal standing (ie, the legal basis for their right to sue the defendants) so as to show how they claim to have been injured? How the court sees (and agrees) their belief that they have indeed been injured? And therefore have a right to prove their injury before the court and claim recompense?

 

How bad could chitlin making be, anyway?

 

 

 

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

"Just as African-Americans could ride on Montgomery's buses, but not

in the front, the Scouts permit plaintiffs to make use of Camp Balboa

and the Mission Bay Park Youth Aquatic Center, but do not allow them

to be members of their organization and participate in the activities

conducted at the camps for members," Berzon wrote. "In either case,

use of a valuable public facility is made contingent on acceptance of

imposed second-class status within a controlling organization's social

hierarchy."

 

also

 

The Council also controls Camp Balboa's reservations. It pencils in reservations as far in advance as it wishes and then advertises the pre-reserved times to its members. The Council can declare the camp "closed," determine how many people are going to attend the camps, and then open up only the unreserved facilities to the public.

 

For example, the Desert Pacific Council advertised camping dates for all of 2002 in its Winter 2001 newsletter. In October 2002, it had already reserved the campsites for its 2003 summer camp. The 2001 reservation books show that the camp was closed during the Desert Pacific Council's spring and summer camps.

[evmori 11]

That's all well & good, Merlyn, but it really makes no difference since both plaintiffs never attempted to use the park. Their whole basis for this suit is they are offended by the BSA. Sorta makes ya wonder if the ACLU just didn't dig these people up to file a lawsuit????? Hmmm!

[SSScout 1615]

"the Scouts permit plaintiffs to make use of Camp Balboa

and the Mission Bay Park Youth Aquatic Center"

 

Yep. makes sense to me. If you want your son to participate in the CSDC at the park BSA leases for $4000. a week, your son must join the Cub Scouts. Otherwise, you (and your son) may use the rest of the park or come back when the camp is devoid of scouts.

 

"but do not allow them to be members of their organization and participate in the activities

conducted at the camps for members," Berzon wrote.

 

I've known more than a couple of folks that know (for one reason or another) that they wouldn't fit in Scouting. Self selecting. This sounds like the same thing. The plantifs KNOW they wouldn't fit and are making damn sure everyone else knows it too.

 

Nope. Gotta meet the membership requirements. Believe in God/higherpower/something and not make sexually overt comments to our youth members. Your sexual orientation is not of interest. If you don't mention it, it won't come up in conversation. Sexually promiscuous and inappropriately behaving adults are not welcome, be they homo, hetero, bi or any other persuasion.

 

So it still sounds like " Since BSA controls parts of the park due to their up til now perfectly legal lease arrangement I can't use the park because I find the BSA offensive and therefore I can't come near the park to use it so it's the BSA's fault that I can't use it even tho no one has said I can't use it because I haen't asked to use it and they haven't responded to my non-existant request to use it."

 

Now, if the REAL issue is that the BSA reserves too much of the park to warrant such a small lease fee, perhaps the "fair market " value would be a more appropriate debating topic.

A balancing act. Social benefit versus market value versus public access versus private organization versus...

Maybe the BSA could sublease it to the LDS or Catholic Charities or Boys Club or...ummm.

 

That about right?