Merlyn_LeRoy

The BSA got first dibs on using it, and booked it solid in the summer, when demand was highest. The public could only use it about 20% of the time, and only during the less-popular months.

Since leasing land to the Boy Scouts for $1/year is a "special group given preferential treatment", I supposed you're against the Balboa Park lease, right?

Yes, I would Ed; I don't want my own government creating "no blacks allowed" parks any more than "no atheists allowed" parks by renting parkland for $1/year to discriminatory organizations. And I think lawsuits against both should (and will) win.

So Ed, if a city decided to lease parkland for $1/year to the KKK, it somehow makes it OK if the city likes the arrangement? Would you criticize black citizens who sued to end the lease?

Here's what the US Dept. of Labor says: http://www.dol.gov/esa/regs/compliance/ofccp/aa.htm ... Taken together, these laws ban discrimination and require Federal contractors and subcontractors to take affirmative action to ensure that all individuals have an equal opportunity for employment, without regard to race, color, religion, sex, national origin, disability or status as a Vietnam era or special disabled veteran. ... If you want to look up recent supreme court decisions on affirmative action, you can find them here: http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/cases/topic.htm To be analgous to the Scouts lease case, the government would have to show some reason why it should give special preference for heterosexual theists, and why there is a compelling state interest to do so.

In this particular case, what's being fought for is equal treatment by the government, by not subsidizing a group that discriminates against gays and atheists.

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/breaking_news/8212006.htm A federal judge has denied the government's request to be heard on whether the Boy Scouts should lose their lease at a city park because they discriminate on the basis of religious non-belief and sexual orientation. The Department of Justice's Civil Rights Division submitted a friend-of-the-court brief earlier this month supporting the Scouts in a 4-year-old court fight over a lease on Fiesta Island, a public park where the Scouts run a youth aquatic center. The American Civil Liberties Union contends the Scouts should be evicted. "We are disappointed the government will not have the opportunity to be heard and participate in this matter," Civil Rights Division spokeswoman Casey Stavropolous said Wednesday. She declined further comment. U.S. District Judge Napoleon Jones rejected the Justice Department's argument that the outcome of the case would affect another involving Scouts in Illinois, where the government is a defendant. In a ruling issued Monday, Jones also said the Scouts were adequately represented and do not require the government's assistance. ...

I'm always amused by people who try to argue subtle syntactical differences in bible verses - in English.

Ed, the state of Connecticut has done nothing to limit the BSA's first amendment rights. You, for example, have every right to whine about the decision.

The state spends money conducting the campaign, and they have requirements for all agencies that want to be included. They turned down the BSA and about 40 other organizations for not meeting their membership requirements. The BSA tried to force their way back in, but failed. Any of this sound familiar?

Hey ed, I'm not the one who says the decision "makes no sense", that's you. Like I've said before, since you obviously choose to keep yourself ignorant of the legal issues involved, the verdicts WON'T make sense to you. That's your problem; it isn't my task to teach you. Laurie, no one has to contribute to the campaign (and your boss was lying to you; you can't be required to donate to the UW as a condition of employment). Here's the CT state employee campaign page: http://www.state.ct.us/csec/

In most if not all states, if someone shoots you (I assume you mean shoots you for some illegal reason), yes, you can shoot them. You can use deadly force to protect yourself from an attack that threatens your life. As for the Boy Scout issue, I've told you before that you don't understand what the issues are about, which is why you find the rulings so baffling. Deliberately keeping yourself ignorant is a good way to keep being unpleasantly surprised.

http://tinyurl.com/3683u Boy Scouts Lose Appeal Over Ban From State-Run Charity Campaign March 8 (Bloomberg) -- The Boy Scouts of America lost a U.S. Supreme Court appeal over its exclusion from sharing in the proceeds of a state-run charity campaign because it bans homosexuals. The court refused to hear the Scouts' argument that Connecticut trampled on free-speech rights in dropping the youth organization from a campaign in which state workers contribute to charities through payroll deductions. The state requires all charities that seek donations in the campaign to have a non- discriminatory membership policy. A lower court ruling in Connecticut's favor ``licenses state and local governments to punish the Boy Scouts for their views and threatens the First Amendment rights'' of groups including religious organizations, the Scouts' lawyers said in court papers filed in Washington. The Scouts say they have more than 2.5 million youth members and 1 million adult leaders. ...

I find it odd you would open with the pledge of allegiance, considering the author was a socialist.

The issue of the Boy Scouts' Balboa Park lease was first brought up (that I know of) back in 1992, when the BSA revoked the membership of Chuck Merino of the El Cajon Police Department Explorer Post when the BSA found out he was gay. http://www.bsa-discrimination.org/html/merino-newspapers.html

I keep telling you (and you keep refusing to learn) that they need PLAINTIFFS WITH STANDING to file lawsuits. Where are the PLAINTIFFS WITH STANDING to sue over other leases? Courts don't just let anyone file lawsuits, they'd be even more swamped than they are now. You need to have a PLAINTIFF who has proper STANDING to file a lawsuit. The ACLU can't sue unless it has a PLAINTIFF it can represent. Right now, they only have plaintiffs against the BSA lease.

Ed, just re-read what I wrote. The ACLU only has plaintiffs for a suit against the BSA lease. If you, or the ACLU, or anyone else wants to challenge other leases, you need to find plaintiffs. And the judge didn't rule that all leases to religious organizations are unlawful, he ruled that the manner in which the BSA's lease was renewed was unlawful. The judge even refrained from issuing a summary judgement on the Fiesta Island lease because there wasn't enough information on that lease for him to rule - which means it's still possible he could rule that the Fiesta Island lease is legal. He certainly hasn't ruled that the city can't lease property to religious organizations.

Like I said, Ed, if you think any of the other leases are illegal, you're free to file your own lawsuit. But remember, to file a lawsuit you need a plaintiff who has standing to sue; the ACLU has plaintiffs for their suit, and to sue any other leases, you need to find plaintiffs with standing for THOSE leases. The BSA's insistence on throwing out atheists and gays made it pretty easy to come up with plaintiffs for their particular lease. If the lease is voided, San Diego will likely lease it to a similar organization that doesn't have the BSA's discriminatory baggage, like 4H. From a taxpayer's point of view, no extra burden (and if the taxpayer is gay and/or an atheist, they will even be able to join, instead of the current situation, where they can't).

Ed, I know you don't understand these things, but the ACLU isn't a government agency, so it can't be a case of selective prosecution. The ACLU is a nongovernmental group that brought a lawsuit against the city for a specific contract that the ACLU claims is illegal; the ACLU isn't obligated to bring lawsuits against ALL such contracts. If you or anyone else think other leases are unlawful, you can file a lawsuit, too. Besides, so far the only decision in the case concerns how the lease was renewed - the city didn't open it to bidding by community groups, they simply awarded it to the BSA, and since the BSA is a religious organization, the city can't do that.

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/local/7885696.htm SAN DIEGO - The Boy Scouts sued the city of San Diego in federal court Thursday, seeking to stop the city from terminating a lease of 18 acres in a public park that it has held for nearly a half-century. The lawsuit names six members of the City Council who voted to approve a $1 million settlement of a lawsuit brought by the American Civil Liberties Union over land in two public parks the city leases to the Boy Scouts for free or a nominal charge. ...

I find it interesting that BSA officials are saying that someone who conducted illegal arms deals "refects Scouting values" and "exemplifies Scout Law".

Here's Texas v. Johnson, it's explained pretty well: http://www.uscaselaw.com/us/491/397.html

OGE writes: This may be picking nits, but I see a difference between a garment made to look like the flag, and wearing an actual flag. All the pictures merlyn has graciously supplied are garments or accessories, designed and manufactured for the purpose of wear. No, Barbara Bush wore an ordinary flag as a scarf (someone handed it to her during her inaugural walk, and she just wore it as a scarf). I'm pretty sure Abbie Hoffman's famous shirt was made from an actual flag, too. And many flag laws didn't distingush between "real" flags and things that resembled flags. And I don't know why Trail Pounder and his ilk hate free speech so much. So, are you going to go beat up Barbara Bush?

Who here thinks such a law would be enforced equally against these violators? http://www.newhousenews.com/archive/Rios061203.html http://bushlibrary.tamu.edu/photos/GWBush/P24323-04.html http://www.hourwolf.com/spr/images/abbiehoffman.jpg http://www.fresnostatenews.com/2002/sept.%2011%20flag%20shirt.jpg http://www.cyclerides.com/photos/ridephotos/patriotparade02/image14.htm

Bob White writes: "People said much the same thing about Jews; nothing personal, they just didn't like Jews." I find that sort of comparison cowardly, misleading and inaccurate. Hey, too bad for you, eh? I find your remarks about atheists similar to antisemite remarks about Jews. You dismiss an entire class of people based solely on their religious views. Irony cuts both ways; you're convinced an invisible superbeing exists, but you refuse to believe public schools charter units, even though there are BSA figures for public schools, the BSA website mentions "public schools" as among their chartering partners, and a number of other people seem to have no problem believing public schools charter BSA units.