Merlyn_LeRoy

Beavah, you're assuming the ONLY solution involves governmental support of discrimination, and that such discrimination ought to be allowed at the slightest whim of pretty much anyone.

skeptic writes: First, I have "never" said any of these various groups were undesirable I didn't say you said that literally, but your attitude is clear. "Any group who gives x amount of service to improve the facilities, will get a discounted rate of"? Or some other similar stipulation. That would be fine, assuming it's open to all groups.

Well Beavah, what if the city discontinued allowing your group because the city decided to ONLY allow atheist groups to do it from now on? Would you say the city was acting within its legal powers?

Beavah, you're still dismissing the rights of those excluded, just like any number of past situations where Jews, or blacks, or Catholics, etc were excluded, but that didn't matter because the Protestant kids were happy. (the white Protestant kids, of course)(This message has been edited by Merlyn_LeRoy)

Skeptic, it doesn't matter how many public services works the BSA does; that cannot justify violating the civil rights of other people. Your entire argument is a red herring along the lines of "we're nice, they aren't, so shouldn't we (the good guys) get preferential treatment, even if it infringes on the rights of those undesirables over there?" The answer is no, you cannot do that.

Beavah, sounds like you'd agree with the ACLU, and insist that the government not finance programs that discriminate on the basis of religion. But somehow, your platitudes keep whitewashing the BSA's discrimination and you think it's unfair if the government refuses to fund their "private" discriminatory program. You just aren't consistent.

Ed, you agreed that the sinks are usable by anyone, not just Muslims, so it isn't an example. And you obviously didn't bother to read the article about renting the pool. It's pointless to argue with you when you keep yourself deliberately ignorant. PS: packsaddle, yes, that would be another (illegal) example.

Ed, I specifically asked for taxpayer-funded programs that excluded people on their religious views. JoeBob's examples are not examples of that.

why is there a need to move a black family into an all-white area, when there is no need to move a white family into an all-black area? forcing a minority opinion on a group isn't the right thing to do.... I'm not sure what you're getting at with that statement. I think people have what's called "freedom of movement" in the US, which means they can buy a house and move into it, even if their neighbors don't like their skin color. Maybe you could clarify what point you were making. and a lawsuit won't make it "right" either. The only lawsuit still active in the Cradle of Liberty situation that I know of is the BSA's lawsuit against the city, demanding that they get the building for $1/year. If you're against that lawsuit, I agree with you. PS: right, OGE.

Why do non-whites want to join all-white country clubs? Why do women want to join men-only Jaycees (when they were men-only)?

If Ed understood the concept, he wouldn't need to ask why the first two examples required being identified as an atheist. The VERY THING he was claiming, that floor sinks was an example of discrimination due to religious views, REQUIRES that the user's religious views be KNOWN in order to TEST whether particular religious views are required. But he couldn't even see that. And he stated himself that anyone can walk in and use the sinks without needing to identify their religious views. So HOW COULD IT POSSIBLY BE AN EXAMPLE OF SOMETHING RESTRICTED BY ONE'S RELIGIOUS VIEWS? Yet he claimed it was exactly THAT.

Well Ed, you and JoeBob seemed to think that his examples constituted taxpayer-supported programs that excluded people based solely on their religious views. If people of any religious views can use the floor sinks, it isn't an example of that, right? And if people of any religious views can rent the pool, that isn't an example either, right? In my examples, atheists (and anyone else) can use #1 and #2, but atheists are barred from #3. So #1 and #2 are not examples of people being excluded solely due to their religious views. Ed, it's really tedious having to explain the simplest concepts to you over and over. I suggest you think more.

Looks like you're arguing on my side, Stosh; the city is prepared to rent the building to the BSA for $200,000/year, the same rate as any other group. If the BSA vacates and, say, American Atheists wants to rent the building, they should get the same $200,000 rate quoted, right?

No, they wouldn't, Ed. Try these tests: 1) go to the Indianapolis airport and say "I'm an atheist, can I use the floor sinks in this restroom?" See if the answer is "no". 2) go to the Cary pool and say "I'm an atheist, can I rent the pool for a private function for atheists only?" See if the answer is "no". 3) go to the C of L HQ in their $1/year building and say "I'm an atheist, can I be a scout member?" See if the answer is "no".(This message has been edited by Merlyn_LeRoy)

JoeBob writes: Would taxpayer provided footbaths for Muslim cab drivers in public airports qualify? If, as I said, some people are excluded based solely on their religious views, yes. But since these appear to be sinks in public restrooms, they seem to be usable by anyone, regardless of their religious views. How about Muslim only hours at the public pool to accomodate women in burkas? A public pool that can be rented by anyone to include or exclude anyone for that rental period isn't a taxpayer-supported program that excludes people based on religion, either. Notice that last link mentions all-Muslim scout units in the USA. Can I form an all-atheist unit?

Less accurate than if you asked 100 judges.

Of course the amendments count as part of the US constitution, OGE, they amend the original.

OGE, I hope you also agree there's no "right to a fair trial" or "separation of powers" in the US constitution, because those exact phrases don't occur, either. But those concepts, including separation of church & state, ARE found in the US constitution.

Not in the way Philly supports the BSA. While I do think churches should be treated like any other non-profit, being tax-exempt is not the same as renting public property at subsidized rates. What's the difference? For one difference, Philly has a limited amount of property to lease, so they can't offer an arbitrary number of leases to all comers. But there's no limit to the number of non-profit organizations that can form.

You taxes support every church in the city, county & state you live in! Not in the way Philly supports the BSA. While I do think churches should be treated like any other non-profit, being tax-exempt is not the same as renting public property at subsidized rates. Ed, why not whine to Philadelphia? They're the ones who ended the lease, not me.

Ed, name a taxpayer-supported program that excludes people based on their religious views.

Publicly subsidizing an organization that discriminates against atheists, Ed. Atheist taxpayers are forced to support a program they are excluded from based solely on their religious views.

HICO_Eagle, the city council voted to end the lease, not the ACLU. You could at least whine about the right group. But all you want to do is complain about the ACLU, whether they had anything to do with this or not. To use your own bizarre criterion, how many civil rights organizations have YOU created, or is it easier to just attack the ACLU?

skeptic writes: The scouts built the building, and have maintained it for all these years. So? The scouts gave the building to the city back in 1928 when it was built, as part of the deal to allow them to build on public land. The city reneged on its contract. No it didn't. Since 1928, either the BSA or the city could unilaterally end the arrangement by giving one year's notice. The city gave them one year's notice as the contract required. Notice the BSA lawsuit doesn't claim that the city reneged on the contract: http://www.bsalegal.org/downloads/Cradle_of_Liberty_v_Philadelphia.pdf $200,000 will go a long way to drive program in "that" part of the city. And if the BSA or someone else pays $200,000 to rent the building, the city could run their own program, and NOT exclude gays, atheists, and girls. As far as service goes, we are not talking about service by maintaining the property; we are talking about actual man/boy hours rendered by 100's of scouts and scouters for all types of community entities such as parks, schools, and special events. Which has nothing to do with the CofL building. Add in the aid given to other charitable private groups, and it is huge. In our small council, the Eagle projects alone account for over 60,000 hours of service. And in your small council, do you manage to do that without a publicly subsidized building? Many do, and the CofL needs to start. What serves the common good more? Trying to force your opinions on others and suing if you disagree; or simply compromising and letting positive groups function as they see fit? Practice your discrimination without using tax money. I realize violating the rights of atheists means nothing to you.(This message has been edited by Merlyn_LeRoy)

HICO_Eagle writes: Reread them Merlyn. All the citations I provided you were about trying to deny BSA the use of public facilities. Here's what you cited: Okay, let's travel in the Way Back Machine to 1980 when the ACLU first sued the BSA for excluding a troop leader who took a male date to his prom. The Tim Curran lawsuit. That was not about denying the BSA "the use of public facilities" -- the BSA was sued for violating the Unruh act. Win or lose, that lawsuit was not about the use of public facilities, it was whether the BSA could discriminate and kick out Tim Curran. 0 for 1 Jump forward to 1999 and Winkler v. Chicago School Reform Board of Trustees when the ACLU sued to end government "support" of Scouting (this time claiming BSA was a religious organization and therefore in violation of the Establishment Clause). "Government support" of scouting is not "the use of public facilities" either. This was about government entities chartering BSA units that discriminated. 0 for 2 In fact, the Nov/Dec 99 article by Margaret Downey at http://www.thehumanist.org/humanist/Downey.html outlines the strategies the ACLU used for years to consciously attack BSA. And none of them are about denying the BSA "the use of public facilities." Here are some excerpts from the above link: The argument in this case is that, if the BSA is indeed a private religious club, as it claims, then publicly funded groups that aid or support Scouting are in violation of the church-state separation provision in the U.S. Constitution. When the suit was filed, ACLU attorney Roger Leishman declared, "Government agencies simply cannot spend tax dollars on programs that exclude people because of their religious beliefs." In saying this, he was following up on the ACLU's 1998 success with a suit against the city of Chicago over the BSA's discrimination against atheists and gays. The city had sponsored Scout troops but has since ended that affiliation. Again, government entities can't practice the BSA's discrimination; this is not denying the BSA "the use of public facilities" Taking a similar approach, the Minnesota Civil Liberties Union (MCLU) filed a lawsuit in May against the St. Paul School District. The suit is on behalf of David Perry, a second-grade teacher employed at Dayton's Bluff Elementary School in St. Paul. The suit alleges that school officials required Perry to yield classroom instructional time to allow BSA representatives to recruit new members from his class. Perry subsequently complained to the school district, explaining that the BSA is a religious group that discriminates against atheists, gays, and bisexuals. Getting no satisfaction, he turned to the MCLU. "This lawsuit has nothing to do with whether the Boy Scouts have the right to discriminate or whether they have a right to use school facilities like any other community group," says MCLU Executive Director Chuck Samuelson. "This case is about government sponsorship and promotion of a religious group that conditions membership on a religious oath. Public schools have no business putting their official stamp of approval on such a group." Meanwhile, an older case in Oregon may finally be moving forward. It began in 1996 when a Boy Scout recruiter, during class time, placed plastic wrist bracelets on public school boys. The bracelets, removable only by being cut off with scissors, read: "Come Join Cub Scout Pack 16! Round-Up for New Cub Scouts for Boys in Grades 1-5 ... Scott Elementary School." Nancy Powell, mother of one of the boys, who is an atheist, complained to school authorities because of BSA religious discrimination policies. When her effort failed, she turned to the ACLU of Oregon, which in 1998 represented her and her son in a complaint filed in the Multnomah County Circuit Court Now, if recruiting schoolchildren is some kind of "use of public facilities," anyone can do it. Churches can demand that they be allowed to recruit during school hours, and so will American Atheists, and about a hundred thousand other groups. But recruiting during school hours isn't "the use of public facilities" either. 0 for 3 Now back to more of your quotes... The ACLU themselves talk about their attacks at http://www.aclu.com/lgbt/discrim/11962prs19990804.html and http://www.aclu.com/lgbt/discrim/12263prs20000426.html . And neither of THOSE links are about denying the BSA "the use of public facilities"; the first is the Dale case when it reached the NJ supreme court and that court ruled for Dale. That was over whether the BSA's discrimination violated the NJ Law Against Discrimination. The end of that press release also mentions the Powell and Winkler lawsuits, already discussed above. The second link is just the ACLU discussing the Dale case going before the US supreme court. In fact, the remedy the ACLU sought from the city of Chicago in settlement was withdrawal of sponsorship of 28 scouting programs. Yep. Sorry, ending unlawful government sponsorship of 28 BSA units that discriminate on the basis of religion is not denying the BSA "the use of public facilities," it's preventing the government from violating the rights of atheists. 0 for 4 Your characterization of Jeff Archer's article is not about denying the BSA the "the use of public facilities" either. It's here: http://www.atheistcoalition.org/docs/foley-right.html His mention of meeting in police stations and public schools, in context, appears to be referring to BSA units that don't just meet there, but are chartered by them: There is no problem with private groups who discriminate if they remain private. The problems enter when the groups who discriminate also gain taxpayer subsidies for their organizations. The Boy Scouts of America reap the benefits of tens, if not hundreds, of millions of dollars of such subsidies. When a group meets at the local police station, or public school, taxpayer dollars are used to support it. In addition, the U.S. military sponsors many Boy Scout activities; again using taxpayer dollars. Such activity is nothing more than subsidized discrimination. In the past few years, some groups who once sponsored Boy Scout troops, such as police departments, have halted their support because of the discriminatory practices. Some still sponsor the Boy Scouts. However, I'll grant you this as a marginal example of a non-lawyer advocating that the BSA be denied the use of public facilities. Unfortunately, you claimed that "the ACLU and other groups .. tried to deny Scouts equal access to public facilities." Writing an article doesn't constitute trying to deny the BSA equal access to public facilities. Let me know if he files a lawsuit. 0 for 5 The ACLU of Oregon advocated withdrawal of "government sponsorship and financial support" for BSA in its Apr 22 2005 article, "Civil Liberties and the Boys Scouts: What Are the Issues?" Again, that's not denying the BSA "the use of public facilities" 0 for 6 The ACLU of Southern California says (http://www.aclu-sc.org/attach/g/Gov_Ties_BSA_QA_Guide.pdf) "... the Boy Scouts ... requires all participants to affirm a belief in God and excludes members who are non-religious. Government sponsorship of such a program also likely violates constitutional requirements of separation of church and state as well as requirements that the government not discriminate on the basis of religious views. As an openly discriminatory organization, the Boy Scouts of America has forfeited any entitlement to the special privileges and close relationships with local governments that it has enjoyed for many years. Having decided to discriminate, the BSA should not expect to continue receiving government sponsorship and other special privileges." Again, that's not denying the BSA "the use of public facilities" 0 for 7 The fact of the matter is that several extremist organizations especially the ACLU are attacking the BSA on an ideological basis. Yeah. So? Again, that's not denying the BSA "the use of public facilities" 0 for 8 Their current strategy includes trying to deprive BSA of access to public resources that are freely available to other similar organizations including ones gays or atheists could set up themselves if they wished. Nope, that's your unsupported assertion. Reviewing all your cites above shows that none of them are over "public resources that are freely available to other similar organizations"(This message has been edited by Merlyn_LeRoy)