Merlyn_LeRoy

The city doesn't provide free berthing to non-profit organizations per se; it offers free berths to organizations that meet several criteria, one of which is being a non-profit organization. Another criterion is meeting the city's nondiscrimination policy (and every organization must meet this standard; the Sea Scouts are being treated the same as everyone else). Another criterion is offering some sort of public service in exchange for the free berths, and that this service not substancially duplicate the services of a group that is already getting free berths. That's part of why the organization must follow the city's nondiscrimination policy - all members of the public are effectively subsidizing the free berths, so the services offered must be available to the general public. Since gays and atheists can't join the Sea Scouts, they can't benefit from the public service the Sea Scouts are supposed to be offering to the general public, and these public services are why the city offers free berths in the first place - because the public is supposed to get a benefit in return. Following the BSA's argument to its logical conclusion, any and every organization (even organizations of just one person) must be given free berths simply for the asking, because any organization could restrict their membership to be just their own members (under their first amendment right of association), and the general public would never get any benefits from such an organization because they can't join.

GernBlansten writes: I have sailed out of the Berzerkly Marina from the Berkley Yacht Club. I will tell you, the yacht club does not get free berthing. I think they get free berths for this community program: http://www.berkeleyyc.org/BYCservice.html

Clearly Johnson does not understand the legalities of the issue. He's a lawyer from the Pacific Legal Foundation representing the Sea Scouts. I agree with your statement, however. if a non-profit group supported violent discrimination against Blacks (The KKK Youth Auxillary let's say), would they agree that that group should be allowed free berthing? They argued precisely that, when asked in court if their position would require Berkeley to give free berths to the KKK: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2006/01/10/state/n132049S46.DTL ... The case challenges the legality of removing or withholding public subsidies from groups whose ideals run counter to the government's. During an hour of oral arguments Tuesday, Justice Marvin Baxter asked who else could get free subsidies at the marina if the scouts were correct. "What you're saying is the youth KKK group ... is under equal footing?" Baxter asked Sea Scouts attorney Jonathan Gordon while referring to the Ku Klux Klan. "Yes. That's correct," Gordon responded. ...

The CA supreme court decision is here: http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S112621.PDF The decision doesn't seem to list any organizations that get free berths, but some newspaper articles have listed the Cal Sailing Club, the Berkeley Yacht Club and the Nautilus Institute: http://www.smdailyjournal.com/article_preview.php?type=lnews&id=61276

The crooks & liars site link won't work unless it's from their page, to prevent bandwidth stealing, so you have to start from here: http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/06/01.html#a8537 I wonder how long the Hiawatha council will have O'Reilly on their front page: http://www.cnyscouts.org

Ed writes: And the football team is also a school program. But they legally discriminate based of talent! I would hope so, Ed. Now, do you think the school's football team could legally exclude atheists? And the band legally discriminates based on musical ability! Possibly. Do you think the school band could legally exclude Jews? And the BSA legally discriminates against atheists. And public school programs can't discriminate against atheists. Just put the parts together, Ed.

SaintCad writes: I was reading the back and forth between Merlyn and Ed and I have yet to see the real issue. Not everything in this country is discrimination. Someone can exclude you for eye color, height, age (under 40), and yes - sexual orientation. That's discrimination. You seem to think "discrimination" only means "illegal discrimination". Public schools discriminate quite legally on the basis of age, for example. It is all about being in a protected class such as race, religion, sex (I know I'm missing a few) and NOT EVERY CHARACTERISTIC IS PROTECTED. Quite correct. The other issue is, does the public school use funds to support the organization. If the public school simply gives the pack a place to meet than there is (probably) no problem with it. Not true at all. If the public school is the chartering organization, it's a school program, just like any other extracurricular school program, and like every other school program, students can't be excluded for being atheists.

Ed writes, replying to me: Completely wrong. Public schools aren't private organizations. And this violates what? Ed, the BSA can exclude atheists because it's a private organization; public schools aren't private organizations, and they can't run youth groups that exclude atheists. And I'll ask again, what rights of yours are being violated, Merlyn? Since I currently don't attend a public school that charters a BSA unit, I would only have standing as a taxpayer funding a public school that violates the law, which would not fall under a rights violation. However, any atheist student of a public school that charters a BSA unit and that rejects that student based on their religious views has had his or her first amendment rights violated. And why won't you stand 100% behind the membership numbers of the groups you belong to? Who says I don't? The Firesign Theatre has four members - I stand behind the fact that they DO have four members. I don't know how many members Scouting For All has, and last I heard the ACLU had a total membership in the neighborhood of 400,000.

Ed writes: Atheists have the same civil right as Catholics, Jews, Methodists, dentists & Nazis! Yep. And let's not forget the SCOTUS ruled the BSA was well within it's Constitutional rights for kicking atheists out. Yep, because they ruled that the BSA was a private organization. And a public school chartering a BSA unit is not a violation of anything except your opinion, Merlyn. Completely wrong. Public schools aren't private organizations.

BrentAllen writes: No, I simply believe in the legal concept of having standing in order to sue. If a Pack chartered by your school refused to let you join because you are an atheist, then fine, sue. No one in our area has complained that their rights were violated or denied, so why should we have to move our Pack? Because the BSA doesn't want thousands of unwinnable lawsuits. It's really, really dumb to break laws as long as you can 'get away' with it, not to mention unethical. When the father out in California tried to sue the school because the Pledge stated "under God" he was denied because he did not have standing. Newdow is now representing a number of atheists families where standing is no longer the question. I believe that same concept should apply to each school - they are the CO, not the School District or State Board or Education or US Dept. of Ed. So you'd prefer public schools to spend money on unwinnable lawsuits? Why?

stlscouter writes: Merlyn You still have not answered- You have been listed as regional director for Scouting for All by your own addmission. Yes, I am. You have given research documents to the ACLU by your own admission. Pretty much, though I don't know if data mined from the internet counts as "research documents". Do you stand 100% behind their membership numbers? Do these organizations have 100% transparent money dealings? Prove to me that there are no (proved or alleged) criminals in either of these 2 groups. Prove to me that there has never been a wrong doing by any member of these groups nor has there ever been a "cover-up" to those activities. Why should I? You're the one bringing up red herring arguments.

BrentAllen writes: Hey, Merlyn - I bet you drive in the left lane, doing the speed limit exactly, to make sure no one is speeding. Lane monitor? I can see you crawling under the beds at hotels, checking for the tags on the mattresses as well. What cracks me up is you and the ACLU are out there looking for problems that don't exist. No one is complaining about schools chartering Cub Scout Packs, except for you. That practice has been going on for 75 years! How sad you have to waste your life chasing ghosts. I bet you were a heck of a hall monitor in grade school! Apparently atheists have no civil rights in your view; public schools chartering Packs are the same as if a public school's baseball team said "no Jews allowed". Public schools can't violate the civil rights of atheist students. stlscouter writes: But you ignore the point-Will you stand 100% behind the membership numbers, transparent money dealings and lack of criminal behavior (proven or alleged) of those groups to which you belong and support? What are you talking about? What "membership numbers" does a comedy team have? The four of them?

stlscouter writes: So by posting a disclaimer at the end of a post in small print absolves you of checking facts? No; I've never represented my list as being 100% accurate. Ed is trying to say I've claimed that, but I haven't. I generated my list to show that the BSA dishonestly charters thousands of BSA units to government agencies. I've also generated a new list, past the date when the BSA said there would be no more government-sponsored units, and there are still over 3,000. The BSA appears to have thrown the problem to the individual councils, and only about 2/3rds of government charters have been re-chartered. Some councils, like the Sam Houston area council, appear to have done nothing. Every government chartered unit is a potential lawsuit against the government sponsor, the council, and the national BSA. Any moves to file a lawsuit, of course, would make sure that the chartering organization really IS a government entity prior to any legal action. And you will therefore stand 100% behind your membership and attendance figures for ALL of the organizations you do support (ACLU, Scouting for ALL, Fireside Theatre, et al), and you will vouch for the truthfulness of the criminal background checks those groups do? What are you babbling about? Firesign Theatre doing criminal background checks!? BWAHAHAHAHA! They're a COMEDY TEAM.

Ed writes: It's your list Merlyn. You only point in not editing it was you wanted to inflate the numbers in your favor. I pointed out, as did others, there were errors but you refuse to do the leg work to correct it. Stop lying, Ed. I've always said it isn't a perfect list, and you lied when you claimed that I "led folks to believe the list was accurate" when there's a disclaimer that the list is NOT 100% accurate on the very page. And you source was questioned on the membership numbers & you never listed it. Stop lying, Ed, I gave the link to www.bsa-discrimination.org in my very first post on the subject.

Yep, obviously it's not legal for a judge to force minors to join a group that requires them to hold religious beliefs; I've seen some councils move similar juvenile programs into Learning for Life, but some are still under Scouts, and are lawsuits waiting to happen.

Ed writes: What tactics have I employed that are the same as Kmiec's? Let's take a look at your public school list. Not all schools on that list are public schools but you led folks to believe the list was accurate even though you know it isn't. No Ed, now YOU'RE lying. It has always had this: NOTE: these lists were generated by computer and corrected by hand, so a few of the charters listed may actually be private schools or groups. Please send us any corrections, additions, or deletions. Plus, I've actually asked you for corrections, which you never bothered to give. Misleading information posted as fact! Nope, stop lying Ed. And let us not forget those membership numbers you posted but had absolutely no proof were accurate yet you posted them as though their were accurate. No, you're lying again Ed. I showed people exactly where I got the numbers (bsa-discrimination.org), plus I was the first to post here a link to what the BSA's official numbers finally were.

Ed writes: How many posters on this forum have you called liars, Merlyn? A few, if in my opinion they are lying. And your original post stated I can only conclude that he's deliberately lying. Yes, because in my opinion, Kmiec is lying by saying Scouts have been "denied access". So Ed, how does any of this relate to your first message in this thread, or your assertion that I'm employing the same tactics Kmiec is employing? What tactics have I employed that are the same as Kmiec's?

Ed writes: Slash & slander! So Ed, tell me where I've slandered someone (and, for that matter, where Kmiec slanders someone) if you say both of us use this "tactic".

Ed writes: No Merlyn, I'm not accusing you of lying. I would never stoop that low. My point, which you missed, is you don't like it when someone employs the same tactics you employ! What "tactics" are you referring to?

Well Ed, if you're accusing me of lying, quote something I've said that's a lie. And, by the way, do you dispute what I wrote about the inaccuracies in this article?

This article doesn't contain much Scout content, and what it does contain is false: The Scouts have paid dearly for asserting their 1st Amendment right not to be forced to accept gay scoutmasters. In retaliation, the Scouts have been denied access to public parks and boat slips, charitable donation campaigns and other government benefits. Considering that this article is written by Douglas W. Kmiec, professor of constitutional law at Pepperdine, I can only conclude that he's deliberately lying. First, the BSA, even if they lose the Balboa Park lease, will still have the same access as any other member of the public; the only difference will be that the PUBLIC will also have the same access as the BSA, instead of the BSA reserving "their" part of a public park for their members. Second, they clearly haven't been "denied access" to Berkeley's marina - they still rent a slip at the same rate as any other member of the public. They don't qualify for 3 free slips, because they don't meet the requirements. The same is true of their not qualifying for the Connecticut charity campaign - the BSA just doesn't meet the criteria. ___ Of course, this entire article is based on faulty logic. The government has recognized civil divorce for decades, and has yet to "retaliate" against e.g. Catholic churches that refuse to marry a divorced person based on the church's position that the divorced person is still married.

BrentAllen writes: 9 Councils proposed the change, and you think that is a large number? 9 Councils?? Out of more than 300? That is 3%! Sorry, no I do not think that is a large number! Compare the populations - and you can't assume that the remainder of councils all agree with the status quo. Come on, Merlyn - you can do better than that. Why not ask me if it was a white, men's nation? Don't waste your time - I have better things to do than argue with someone who is only interested in tearing down the BSA. I figured you'd refuse to answer my question. People who say this is a "Christian" nation say it for the same reasons other people say this is a "white" nation.

BrentAllen writes: Do y'all think there is a large group inside the BSA who wants this policy to change? Like in 2001 at the BSA national meeting in Boston, when council leaders from New York City, Los Angeles, Chicago, West Los Angeles, Orange County, Calif., San Francisco, Philadelphia, Minneapolis, and Boston proposed that the Scouts allow chartering organizations to decide for themselves whether to have gay scout members and leaders? Or is that not "large"? By the way, you never answered my question if this country was also formed as a "white" nation. You seem to think this is a "Christian"-founded nation based on majoritarianism, so I assume race is similar with you.

Eamonn writes: Sorry I wasn't very clear. This center is run by an organization that has a contract from the state. Any juvenile detention center run via a contract from the state cannot practice religious discrimination either. They are acting as agents of the state in such an arrangement. A couple of years back the FD we had at the time sweet talked a School District into signing up 400 kids as Venturers (Yes Merlyn_LeRoy I know!!). That's $4,000 that to my way of thinking could have been better spent. Especially since it could easily buy your council a civil rights lawsuit.

Eamonn writes: I spoke to the Director of a juvenile detention center which has on paper a Crew, which the DE is to be taking care of. He said that they were unhappy with the program as the DE never showed up.Every kid in that facility is a real kid, on a real charter, but I question if they are "Real Venturers?" Of course, juvenile detention centers (as they are government entities) can't use a program that excludes atheists. I've seen some of these change over to Learning for Life, but there are still a few left that need to switch (barring a change in BSA policy that would allow atheists into Crews).