hey, it’s the exact same price the ACLU asked for a year. What a coincidence?
He mentioned that ACLU was a four-letter word to him as he had been in scouting for 20+ years. He mentioned that in San Diego, the Boy Scouts have been banned from using a public park for their meetings, and that they have been kept from using a public launch for their canoe expeditions into the wilds of San Diego.
WTF is up with that? He said the ACLU was the group that kept the boy scouts from using the park.
Why would anybody want to keep the boy scouts from using the public parks? Next has got to be making Mom and apple pie illegal.
Dunno about those specific incidents but the Boy Scouts have had similar problems in a number of cities because their position on gays in scouting violates local anti-discrimination laws - if you run an organization and say “We don’t allow people from group X to join” then you may find that you are not allowed to use various facilities.
That’s the factual answer. What’s the Great Debate here?
Are anti-discrimination laws OK?
Are they being properly applied in the case of the Boy Scouts?
The ACLU position is that the Boy Scouts of America discriminates based on religion and sexual orientation, and their Balboa Park lease was an illegal public subsidy.
errrmmmm… care to clarify your OP?
Maybe I can help. From the ACLU’s Sand Diego office we have this
The question seems to be whether the Boy Scouts are truly a private organization and if it is legal for government agencies to subsidize private organizations.
Is that what you want to discuss?
My take would be that I don’t have a problem with the subsidies. Government agencies have the right offer subsidies to non profits such as the American Cancer Society, but offering those same subsidies to religous organizations would violate the seperation of Church and State. Though the BSA has a religous component, I believe it to be chiefly a civic minded secular organization which would qualify for the government subsidies.
Because I have a strong libertarian streak, the ACLU is one of my favorite organizations. However, I think they have needlessly backed the Boy Scouts into a legal corner here by trying to force the scarf wearing tykes to be either chiefly religous or wholly secular.
The argument is that if the Supreme Court ruled them a private institution (so they can discriminate against atheists and gay kids), then they shouldn’t have the benefit of being a public organization (like free use of public space). Sounds perfectly reasonable to me - can’t have both, IMHO.
Did you read the last of zoltar7’s links? It suggests that BSA leased the land. It did occupy it to the exclusion of others, and that they provided maintenance and upgrades to the property at no cost to the city. I agree that a private organization should not have free public benifits. At least not greater than any other private citizen (or group thererof) But this seems to be a little over the top. Did any of you find an example of something the boyscouts did or had access too that could be considered excessive?
I like the ACLU. But every now and then they go a little wacko.
Nope, San Diego already offers lease subsidies to private non-profit organizations, such as the San Diego Zoo. Shoot, for profit private organizations like NFL teams get subsidies in some cities.
The crux is San Diego’s “Human Dignity Ordnance”, a local ordnance that the ACLU has used to put undo pressure on the Boy Scouts. It’s reminiscent of the ACLU v Salvation Army thing. Though they may have the strict letter of the law (or ordinance in this case) on their side, I think that the ACLU is doing it’s core purpose a disservice.
They are trying to force service organizations with a minor religous component to either give up that minor religous component or declare themselves full blown religous organizations. Any idiot can tell the difference between the Boy Scouts and The Catholic Church. The ACLU is trying to force local governments to treat the two the same. It’s obvious when you read between the lines that this is not really about the use of public land. It is about the ACLU trying to end discrimination against homosexuals in a private organization. That is not their core mission.
About 10 years ago I was a NRA member. There were several occasions where the ACLU and the NRA were working together on specific federal lawsuit cases. I seems like they were cases related to ‘limits on government power’ and ‘rights of privacy.’ Sorry no cite, just memories. I remember reading this in the monthly newsletter.
Bullpuckey, Monkey! The ACLU isn’t forcing the BSA to do anything. They’re just demanding that the city of San Diego abide by its own nondiscrimination policy. By leasing the park to the BSA at a token rental in perpetuity, they’re showing favoritism toward an organization that violates the nondiscrimination ordinance. The BSA isn’t being forced to do anything but accept being treated like any other private, discriminatory organization.
The ACLU is wrong. So are the Boy Scouts. Unfortunately though, what ends up happening is that the Scouts are the only ones who suffer. The kids aren’t making policy, all they know is that they can’t canoe, camp, and meet in a public place because the ACLU wants to impose its’ will on the community.
It’s likely that just as many people feel as strongly about the BSA position as the ACLU one, and those people, ought to be able to coexist. But thanks to the ACLU, they cannot.
I am an Eagle Scout, and proudly so, although I do not back the Boy Scouts in their venture to keep out homosexuals and atheists, I don’t feel it necessary to take them to task on their position, because it is, finally, a private organization.
When I was a part of the BSA, I did not buy in to their version of God, and believe me, there were puh-lenty of gay scouts, they were just not ‘out’ as they are today. I managed to get by, because I liked the citizenship component, not to mention the brotherhood than came with being a part of the organization.
The BSA has taken some unfortunate steps, and the ACLU has demonized them for it. The losers though, like usual, are the kids.
That’s why I said they had the letter of the ordnance on their side. Just seems to me that with Ashcroft as the AG, the ACLU would have far better things to do. This isn’t really even about San Diego leasing ordinances. It is about the ACLU trying to pressure a private organization.
I think the Boy Scouts of america really dropped the ball on this one. Heaven forbid they teach gay kids how to grow up to be strong, adult leaders, too. It’s their right, I suppose, but they missed an opportunity for their organization to grow.
Scouting was one of the most rewarding experiences of my childhood, but I’m with the ACLU on this one. I don’t want my tax dollars going to subsidize a private organization that discriminates. I have no problem that the BSA is religious in a vague, non-denominational way, but when it starts holding up particular points of doctrine up and uses them to exclude members, then I have a problem. If they as a private organization want to discriminate, then then should accept the consequences and not whine about it, they can’t have it both ways. Vague appeals to the children (oh, won’t someone think about them!) don’t move me, they can camp somewhere else. My troop camped in a dozen or more different places, we wouldn’t have suffered from the loss of one or two.
Let me clarify my position regarding the ACLU in this. I think they have wandered away from their core purpose.
In 2000, the ACLU sued the boyscouts directly (over a scoutmaster dismissal in New Jersey) trying to get them to drop their discriminatory policies. In June of that year, the Supreme Court ruled that the Boy Scouts were a private entity and could do whatever the hell they wanted. The ACLU did not take the loss well, and published press releases like :SUPREME COURT SAYS HATE AND DISCRIMINATION ESSENTIAL TO BOY SCOUT MISSION. The wording seems a wee bit spiteful, no?
If it was only after this defeat that the ACLU filed the current suit. If anybody thinks that the present flap is really about leasing ordinances in San Diego, they are hopelessly naive. This is about the ACLU’s wrongheaded quest to impose its will on a private organization. They lost the first time, so now they’re just being spiteful.
This is not their core mission, and they should move on to far more important things.
Yes. The Catholic Church has a lot more respect for the dignity, equality and decency of its gay members. Which isn’t much, but it’s a lot more than the Scouts.
It’s hardly vague. The main reason for scouting, is the scouts, you cannot deny that. It’s hardly a matter of venue, but rather a matter of freedom. The freedom of one organization to choose who becomes a member and who does not, and why. Parents have a right to raise their children in any manner they see fit, and if that includes joining a club that allows being a bigot, or homophobe, as infuriating as it is, it is their right to do so. So the reply is; “well, the public shouldn’t subsidize it”
Bollocks. Public money subsidizes everything. Churches pay little to no taxes, this is money that could be in the public coffers, the fact that it isn’t, is a public subsidy. When was the last time an openly gay man was ordained as a Catholic Priest? Do i think it’s right? Nope. But it IS their church. If I don’t like it, choice is my choice.