Merlyn_LeRoy

scoutingagain writes: If members of the BSA are so offended by the decision I suggest they find a facility run by a gay/athiest organization and sue them because they can't bring themselves to use the facility because the operators are so offensive to them. There must be a gay beach area, club, pool, or whatever. It would have to be a beach area, club, pool, or whatever that is public property, and reserving this public property has to be done through the gay/atheist organization, and they have to give their own members preferential use of this public property, and they have to exclude non-gays/atheists/BSA members. I doubt such a situation exists, but if it does, yes, you should file suit, because private, discriminatory clubs shouldn't get favored access to public property.

Well, that must be why Barnes, Wallace & co are losing. Oh wait, they aren't.

By the way skeptic, what's so bad about complete isolation of the BSA? If the BSA doesn't want to associate with some people, why can't people refuse to associate with the BSA?

Montgomery busses were boycotted AND sued; people refused to use the service, and sued because they would not get equal treatment if they tried to use the bus system. The courts still ruled in their favor.

Exactly Ed, that's why the BSA gives its members preferred access. They reserve it for their own members before the general public can even apply.

And they get inferior access to public facilities, like blacks having to sit in the back of the bus. But they can't complain, both ends get to the destination at the same time, right?

So far, the only ones "bearing the penalty" are gays and atheists; funny how they never count in your world.

Well, I'll stick with actual court opinions that say these are still public facilities, and that the lease isn't lawful. As none of you seem to have read any of the agreement and are just making up what you think the leasing arrangement is using your imagination, I'll prefer judges who have read it and know the law.

ssscout writes: If the campground and aquatic center is "public" then they are not leased as a "private" area. Where is the problem? The problem is that BSA members get preferential access to these public facilities. Just like blacks could use Montogmery busses, but they got lesser access.

ssscout writes: If the Guvmnt later thinks a mistake was made, then let the lawyers duke it out and correct it. That's what's happening now. But if it is LEASED and use of the property CONTRACTED, then my last post stands as written. Not if the lease violates the law. That's what the courts have said so far. If the "public facilities" are legally leased for a "private leasee" then the problem should hinge on what is truly "public" and what is "private" as a result. The courts have described the campgrounds and aquatic center as public facilities. So they're truly "public."

The court opinions don't prove your point; this is not a case where an organization has rented out part of a public park for their own use. It's a 25-years-long $1/year lease where the BSA gives their members preferential access to the campgrounds and aquatic center, which are described in the court opinions as "public facilities." Why not read the actual opinions?

ssscout writes: Rosa Parks was not seeking to ride a privately chartered bus. She was seeking to use a publicly provided utility. Owned by a private bus company. Public transportation provided by a private company. Just as use of public parkland is being regulated by a private organization. Yes, my park is in Maryland, but the California court decision is a Federal Law Decision and will, therefor, provide precedent in all 50 states. Hence my query, duh. Well, your hypothetical had no resemblance to the San Diego situation. It's apparently the current policy in that park in your area already, so your bizarre question "so is this part of the decision" doesn't make sense. I doubt the people running that park have even heard of the Barnes-Wallace case. My reading of the provided sources indicates the court is allowing legal standing to the idea of injury thru non-injurious offense. I disagree. It's like the Montgomery bus situation -- everyone could ride, it's just some people were second-class. That was ruled to violate the 14th amendment for equal treatment. But if purely an idea or a quality of belonging (membership?) is found "offensive", then, by this ruling, in far less than extreme cases, the mere declaration of being "offended" can be grounds for seeking recompense (how much is an insult worth?). Since your assumption is wrong, your conclusion is wrong. So the court case is certainly not really about Park Use. Is it? Of course it is. Your example is backwards. Change it so American Atheists controls who can rent the park, and they refuse to allow any boy scouts to rent any park of public parkland during the summer. Sounds fair, right?

I only recall reading very slanted remarks written by BSA lawyers, who for some reason think that somehow makes their arrangement legal. And the GSUSA took an actual vote to change their policies (and they weren't being harassed); the BSA doesn't bother, they just announce whatever policies exist by fiat (or make a secret, internal memo, and announce it whenever they feel like it).

Skeptic, I don't know the details of the girl scout arrangement. Do you have any? Ed, your objection is with the court, they brought up the similarities. ssscout, no, a local park (presumably in Maryland) isn't part of a legal decision in California. Duh.

The same way blacks had their civil rights infringed by city busses in Montgomery, Ed. They could ride the busses, they just didn't get equal treatment. The court said it violated equal protection under the 14th amendment.

skeptic writes: I have no idea if you have ever actually seen either Mission Beach or Balboa Park; but if you have, you would know that the areas in question are only a very small part of the parks overall. So, if you are not able to use a particular area for a certain time frame, there are many other similar areas still accessible. So Montgomery should have been able to allow blacks to sit in the front in only most of their busses, and still permit a few busses to continue segregation, since only a few busses would be left, and many other busses would still be accessable? And we bemoan the state of the country, even as our supposedly unbiased and wise leaders and educators continue to bow to PC minorities and the "Me, Me" attitude. Rights are not license if you actually "read" the constitution with some sort of fairness to more than yourself. You might have overlooked the fact that the BSA is currently losing this lawsuit. I keep waiting for you to actually look beyond your blinders and admit that there are areas where you may have room for flexibility or compromise for the better good. In other words, you keep waiting for me to agree that atheists should be treated like second-class citizens if it involves some feel-good benefit, like making a lot of kids happy, as long as they aren't nasty atheist children.

Ed, gays and atheists (and girls, for that matter) have inferior access to public parkland, because the BSA controls access and prefers their own members.

ssscout writes: Let us assume (for discussion sake) that the company that is the prime contractor for making nuclear warheads rents out a public park pavillion for a corporate picnic. If I find the creation of nuclear warheads offensive, would I then be able to SUE in court to prevent the company from utilizing a public park? You could try, but you wouldn't succeed. But this hardly resembles the San Diego case, where access to public parkland has first-class access for some people, and second-class access for the rest. Even tho I have not been prevented from using the park or (in my turn) reserving or renting the same pavillion? Blacks could ride on Montgomery city buses, they just had to sit in the back, and give up their seats so whites wouldn't have to stand. They weren't prevented from using the city buses. Fair, eh? What is the limiting factor here? Equal treatment by the government. Why is that impossible for some people to understand? Can you see why blacks wouldn't like the Montgomery bus system, even though they could ride the bus? They just had to allow their superiors to sit in the front and get preferential access. Gays and atheists can use public parkland, they just have to allow their superiors preferential access to it. Like all summer.

Sorry, the civil rights of atheists and gays can't be dismissed by you as egocentric. No doubt all the money spent on civil rights litigation over the last few decades could've been spent instead on sending kids to camp, but I think the civil rights litigation then, as now, is more important. Whining about how unfair it is that people actually go to court over the BSA's discriminatory policies is just tiresome; until the BSA is willing to act like a fully private organization, meaning no government funds, no government sponsorship, and no government special deals, it's never going to end.

Skeptic, the plaintiffs have been winning the San Diego lawsuit so far, which means that when the courts looked at the deal, they determined that it was unlawful. You can't defend an unlawful lease by telling people to go get their own.

Ed writes: You can't use it because it is booked to capacity. Another BSA unit wanting to book the park would be turned away, too, because it is booked to capacity and they ARE members! But Ed, the BSA preferentially books THEIR members over members of the general public during the peak summer months. The BSA admitted in court that it's booked 100% with only their members in the summer. Skeptic, the city comptroller said that normally they get about 70 proposals from various groups in other, similar arrangements. They didn't for this because they ignored their own competitive bidding rules and just gave it to the BSA.

vol_scouter writes: Then I assume that you and other atheists would never consider booking a public space because it could offend everyone who believes in a deity. Wrong; offensiveness isn't the issue. However, I would be against a city giving atheists exclusive rights over some public parkland so only atheists could use this public parkland during the summer. As to the other groups discussed above, those who do not have enough money to contribute are left out. The point is being offended should not be sufficient to change public policies because someone is always offended by others actions. And as I've said, offensiveness is not the issue. Sitting at the back of the bus is an analogy that makes no sense in this setting. Argue with the court, they used the analogy in their ruling.

Ed writes: No one is being denied use of anything in the Balboa Park case. The BSA says they book the park solid with their own members during the peak-demand summer months. You can't use it if you aren't a member. skeptic writes: So Merlyn, you think everyone should get to choose when they are able to use a facility, even if it is in conflict with some other group or individual. When it comes to using public property, some people can't get lesser treatment simply because of their religious views. So, when the Zoological society at the San Diego Zoo has a special set of hours for members to attend and see new things, or simply enjoy as members, someone who is not a member should have the right to participate during that time too, even though they do not meet requirements? If it was a "whites only" zoological society, or a "no Jews" zoological society, and it's excluding people from public property so only members of their "totally private" club could use it, I'd say yes. But I don't know of any zoological society that does that. With that reasoning, then I should have sued 25 years ago when I tried to reserve a site at the Balboa camp for my troop during our spring break, but couldn't due to its meeting rooms, amphitheater, and the surrounding areas being booked by an outside group that did not want boys possibly interfering with their day program they had going on on the premises. If they excluded you due to your religious views, yes, you should have sued. But it doesn't sound like you were. That is what reasonable people do; find alternatives. Yes, if you are prohibited by law from sitting in the front of the bus, the back of the bus is an alternative. Reasonable people sit in the back of the bus, and don't complain. "The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man." -- George Bernard Shaw

Hey skeptic, how about this: A city decides to lease public parkland to a private organization; that organization reserves the park for its own members during the summer months -- if you aren't a member, you can't use that park during the summer months when demand is highest. Now, all you need is a private organization that only allows whites, and you have a whites-only public park. Same for a Catholics-only park. Or a no-Jews park. Or a no-atheists park.

Here's a quote from the original opinion on standing: "Just as African-Americans could ride on Montgomery's buses, but not in the front, the Scouts permit plaintiffs to make use of Camp Balboa and the Mission Bay Park Youth Aquatic Center, but do not allow them to be members of their organization and participate in the activities conducted at the camps for members," Berzon wrote. "In either case, use of a valuable public facility is made contingent on acceptance of imposed second-class status within a controlling organization's social hierarchy." nldscout, the supreme court didn't review Evans v. Berkeley or Boy Scouts of America v. Wyman, so I doubt they'd review this one.