Merlyn_LeRoy

No Ed, you've stated before that you don't understand the legal issues involved, and I agree. You don't.

No Ed, but you can't understand the issues involved.

First, the issue isn't the BSA's USE of public facilities, it's the BSA's special treatment. The BSA can USE public facilities as long as they are treated the same as any other similar situated group. Second, "leaving the issue of religion aside" makes the question pointless; the government can't support the BSA's religious discrimination. I'm an atheist and I'm not going to allow my own government to discriminate against atheists by subsidizing a group that excludes atheists.

The Boys & Girls Club of America handles a lot of the youth programs for military bases. 4H is part of the US Department of Agriculture.

The two cases ARE the same lawsuit; the Balboa Park lease could be decided in summary judgement (decided on the undisputed facts brought to the court), but the Fiesta Island lease could not be so decided and had to go to trial (by the same judge). That's also why the BSA couldn't appeal the Balboa Park decision until the Fiesta Island decision was settled, because it's really one lawsuit.

I'd prefer that the properties go to a youth organization that DOESN'T discriminate, like Camp Fire Boys & Girls or 4H. That way, more people will get to use it, especially during the high-demand summer months when the BSA kept the properties to itself (notice that the "year round" activities for the public are not available for July and August).

The Desert Pacific council has the decision on their web site: http://www.bsadpc.org/content/April%2012,%202004%20Order.pdf Here's a link that won't break http://tinyurl.com/2a2m5(This message has been edited by Merlyn_LeRoy)

The BSA is appealing, but without the city's help: http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/metro/20040414-9999-7m14scouts.html The Boy Scouts lease of a Fiesta Island aquatics center on city-owned land is just as unconstitutional as its lease of public land in Balboa Park, a federal judge ruled yesterday. U.S. District Judge Napoleon Jones Jr. said the lease of the half-acre aquatics center violates the constitutional separation of church and state because the Boy Scouts is a religious organization. The same judge ruled in August that the Boy Scouts lease of Camp Balboa, where it has its regional headquarters, was unconstitutional because the Scouts require members to profess a belief in God. ...

Because in many cases the government CAN discriminate on the basis of marital status. I notice you didn't comment on the actual point I was making. I guess you're just an intellectual coward.

FOG, just for another example, discriminating against someone who is single is discrimination on the basis of marital status.

Proud Eagle writes: Would you not agree that in many, if not most cases businesses are required to provide goods and services to the public, regardless of the beliefs or affiliations of any individual member of the public? No, businesses are generally "public accommodations" and can't discriminate on the basis of specific traits (religion, race, sex, national origin, etc.), but there are no laws against discriminating against "beliefs" or "affiliations" in general. And it doesn't look like freecycle.org has discriminated; it allowed Shell to contact the person giving away a backpack. That individual decided to not give the backpack to someone associated with scouting.

Shell writes: Pardon my ignorance but atheists have a religion? I thought to be an atheist, they don't believe in anything other than themselves. Atheists don't believe in GODS. Atheists can believe in anything else (ghosts, UFOs, whatever) while still being atheists by not believing in gods. Some atheists belong to religions (not all religions require god beliefs to be members); most atheists don't belong to a religion. However, excluding people because they are atheists is discrimination on the basis of religion. Specifically, it's discrimination based on whether or not you hold the creed that god(s) exist. When agreeing to be in scouting, you agree to pay reverence to your higher being, whatever that may be, whatever relious background you may have. And that's discrimination on the basis of religious beliefs, as the backpack person said. If you're an atheist, you cannot join. He refused to support such a discriminatory organization. One wouldn't join the Black Panthers (or some such organization)as a white person and expect the whole organization to change for it, would you? So why do people do that with Scouting? Well, it might be the thousands of BSA units chartered to government agencies that can't discriminate on the basis of religion, for one thing. For another, why did blacks want to join whites-only country clubs?

Shell writes: As far as religion, Scouting encompsses many beliefs and backgrounds. But doesn't allow atheists, which is discrimination on the basis of religious beliefs, so I don't see how your "correction" to him was correct. Some people consider such discrimination to be immoral and refuse to support it.

No, ed, by publishing stories by Asimov, a well-known atheist, the BSA is demonstrating hypocrisy. The BSA shows its intolerance of atheists by excluding them, by implying atheists can't be the best kinds of citizens, and by chartering their "no atheists" youth groups to government agencies which cannot lawfully exclude atheists.

As long as you're part of a state militia (New York still has one). I agree with most SC opinions on both the first and second amendments; you don't seem to. Too bad for you, I guess.

The same place the constitution says "separation of powers" and "right to a fair trial"; it doesn't use any of those phrases, but they describe what the constitution says.

Using the term "slander" was perfectly correct under its definition of "A false and malicious statement or report".

Did you also discuss with your attorney that neither slander nor libel are torts against a class of people, so my use of "slander against atheists" was obviously metaphorical? I guess not.

"Libel" and "slander" aren't as simple as written vs. spoken; it's more published vs. unpublished, and a forum like this would probably not be considered publication. In any case, I find the Boy Scouts to be a dishonest organization due to its chartering of discriminatory units to government agencies, as I've said in other threads.

And what does it mean when Boy's Life runs a story on Langston Hughes (around Jan 1999)? It presented him as a good role model, while at the same time arguing in the Dale case that gay men couldn't be good role models for the Boy Scouts. I guess they didn't know that Hughes was an out gay man. And yes, the BSA is intolerant towards atheists.

You're the one who slanders an entire group based on their religious views. Apparently, you wouldn't have trusted Thomas Edison because he was an atheist, or Isaac Asimov (even though he wrote articles for Boy's Life).

Like I said, I'm not holding my breath; this just illustrates how the BSA and many of its members promote intolerance towards atheists, and why the government has no business supporting such an organization.

And all blacks are lazy and all Jews are moneygrubbers, right? Can anyone here seriously argue that the Boy Scouts' discriminatory policies don't encourage bigoted attitudes exemplified by Fat Old Guy? You know, I won't hold my breath waiting for fellow Scouters to criticize him, because in my experience, most BSA members can't even see discrimination against atheists.

As usual, yes. For instance, the judge ruled that the lease was invalid on its face because the city simply renewed the lease with the BSA instead of going through its usual bidding process. Since the BSA is a religious organization, the city couldn't do that any more than it could decide to lease land to the Catholic church for $1/year if the city council wanted to support Catholicism.

The law already has to be neutral regarding atheism. See decisions like Torcaso v. Watkins, which unanimously decided that states couldn't require a belief in god for public office: "We repeat and again reaffirm that neither a State nor the Federal Government can constitutionally force a person "to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion." Neither can constitutionally pass laws or impose requirements which aid all religions as against non-believers, and neither can aid those religions based on a belief in the existence of God as against those religions founded on different beliefs." Can you name any laws that distinguish between US citizens based on whether they believe in a god or not?