US supreme court declines to hear Berkeley Sea Scouts case

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

 

(I disagree with the story stating that the Sea Scouts are being treated differently - they are being treated the same as all other non-profits):

 

http://www.montereyherald.com/mld/montereyherald/news/15772586.htm

 

WASHINGTON - A Boy Scouts sailing group that lost free use of a public

boat slip because of the Scouts' discriminatory policies failed to

persuade the Supreme Court to take its case.

 

The justices on Monday let stand a unanimous California Supreme Court

ruling that the city of Berkeley may treat the Berkeley Sea Scouts

differently from other nonprofits because the Scouts bar atheists and

gays.

 

The leader of the Sea Scouts argued that forcing the group to pay for

a berth at the marina violated the group's free speech and freedom of

association rights.

...

[evmori 11]

If it is a fact that all non-profits are treated the same way regarding berthing fees, then the BSA has no complaint. But if even one non-profit is getting a cut rate deal, then the BSA has a valid complaint.

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

No Ed, other non-profit groups get free berths, because they also meet the nondiscrimination requirements. The Sea Scouts no longer qualify for free berths, because they discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation and religion.

[scoutldr 726]

I'm not surprised with the SCOTUS decision to let the lower court decision stand. In fact, I agree with the decision. No one said that standing up for what we believe in would be painless. Freedom isn't "free", as we are learning in Iraq.

[evmori 11]

Well, since other non-profits get free berthing, it's OK for the city to discriminate illegally against the BSA since the BSA discriminates legally. Yeah that's fair!

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

Nothing illegal about it, Ed. Any organization that wants a free berth has to meet several criteria; the Sea Scouts don't meet all of them.

 

Now, if they'd only switch from being a Sea Scout Ship to an Explorer Post, they probably *can* meet all the criteria, including the nondiscrimination requirements.

[evmori 11]

Nope. Not the same. The BSA is a non-profit. What other non-profits get free berthing? Name need names!

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

The Berkeley Yacht Club, the Cal Sailing Club, and the Nautilus Institute.

 

www.bsalegal.org/bsa-legal-blawg-200.asp?i=5

[evmori 11]

So the City of Berkley can discriminate but the BSA can't? Well, tie score BSA 1, ACLU 1.

 

 

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

Ed, I know you can't learn things, but the BSA is still discriminating. They don't have free berths, but they can still discriminate. They can't both discriminate AND get free berths.

[Beavah 205]

SCOTUS decision is no surprise, eh? Same as they did in CT.

 

Too bad, because there are some serious latent issues here.

 

Let's say da great State of Minnesota owns most of the right-of-way access to the lakes and streams of the state for boatin'. It charges $1000 per boat for anyone to have access. Commercial companies like loggers pay that; they can afford to. But the fee applies even to canoes. However, if you're a non-commercial private citizen or group, and yeh sign a public statement agreeing with the political persuasion in power at the time, yeh get a discount down to $10.

 

If yeh don't agree, you can either pay the full fee, or go drive to Wisconsin.

 

The SCOTUS decision is the right one only when government is small, so that the economic impact on groups which are excluded is small. The larger the fraction of the land owned by the government, the larger the percentage of government jobs in employment, etc., the greater the impact of such "differential fees" on liberty.

 

 

[evmori 11]

Ya know Merlyn, that "you can't learn" line is really getting old! Considering your affiliation with a comedy troupe, I would expect more originality! But considering your tunnel vision I guess expecting more is unrealistic.

 

The City of Berkley is discriminating against the BSA by not giving them the same perks as other non-profits. They want the BSA to stop legally discriminating but they can illegally discriminate against the BSA. Not a level playing field. Either all non-profits get free berthing or none do. That's a level playing field.

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

Ed, the BSA is being treated the SAME as all other non-profits. ALL organizations that get free berths have to meet Berkeley's non-discrimination requirements. You really CAN'T learn things.

[Hunt 11]

This case doesn't bother me too much, because the Sea Scouts aren't being denied access--they're just being made to pay for it. Beavah makes a good point though, that at some point the cost of access for the unfavored might be so excessive that the case would come out differently.

I also wonder what kinds of restrictions a city would be allowed to put on non-profit groups. It's one thing to say that only groups that don't discriminate against certain groups can get free berths, but what if they required agreement with a particular viewpoint? I don't think that would be constitutional, and it's hard to draw the line.

To make this a bit easier to think about, imagine that a city had the following three requirements for a non-profit group to get a free berth:

1. The group must have $1,000,000 in liability insurance.

2. The group must not discriminate on the basis of race, sex, religion, or sexual orientation.

3. The group must sign a statement agreeing that the death penalty is immoral and should be outlawed.

All of these requirements would "discriminate" against certain non-profit groups, but clearly they aren't the same. The insurance requirement discriminates against groups that can't afford it, but I don't think anybody would say that it's improper. The third requirement is clearly improper, because it discriminates on the basis of viewpoint. The discrimination one, though, is in the middle. In one sense it is viewpoint-neutral, because it governs behavior without being concerned about viewpoint. (Thus, for example, it would presumably exclude Girl Scouts because they discriminate on the basis of sex.) On the other hand, it excludes groups like the Boy Scouts which discriminate as a matter of principle.

I wish the Supremes had taken the case...maybe they'll take a similar one later.

[John-in-KC 311]

Gotta love the ad hominem attacks here today.

 

Here is a good piece of wisdom from my Mom: Don't cry over spilt milk. This case is now spilt milk. The case was not sufficiently convincing to get four fairly conservative Justices to say "let's hear it."

 

My two cents. Take it for what two cents will buy ... 1/3 of the sales tax on a dollar purchase in my neck of the woods.