Merlyn_LeRoy

It wasn't based on "offensiveness," read the order on standing: http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/114925D626D65938882574660071FEE8/$file/0455732p.pdf?openelement

Ed, did you even read it? This part was just over standing, if it had been dismissed on standing, all the plaintiffs would need to do is apply to use the facilities during the summer (because the BSA admits they book it 100% with their members over the summer) and they'd have standing anyway. Here's a link http://www.bsalegal.org/downloads/2008-12-31-%20Ninth-Circuit-Decision.pdf There was no explanation from the court for the four recusals, but at least two of those were active in the BSA http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1202427146693&rss=newswire (the link for the decision in the above article is wrong)

Newton was an alchemist, but it wasn't crackpot science at that point. The periodic table wasn't invented for another 300 years. Lots of early astronomers were also astrologers, like Kepler.

Rooster7 writes: My point is (and was) - just about anything can be seen in nature, and thus anything can be labeled as natural. Eyeglasses aren't. Consequently, if you ignore the customary connotation of the word (i.e. normal and acceptable), its use as a decriptive term is useless. Uh, it's certainly useless if people use a word like "natural" to mean something entirely different, like "normal and acceptable," yes. Which is why I object to using terms like '"unnatural" to describe traits that clearly exist in nature. "Acceptable" is clearly a value judgement, while "natural" does not appear to be a value judgement (but it is if you use it to mean "acceptable"). "Normal" likewise can refer to whatever is most common, like righthandedness or heterosexuality, and misusing a term like "natural" doesn't add to any discussion. Would you call lefthandedness "unnatural"?

Rooster7 writes: "If the definition of natural is a propensity to commit an act - then any act could be labeled natural." Well, if the definition of 'natural' is a red bowling ball, then very few things can be described as 'natural.' But I don't think either definition makes any sense. A much more common definition of 'natural' is that which occurs in nature. And I certainly don't use 'natural' to defend homosexuality, but I also don't use unnatural to argue against it. Wearing glasses is unnatural.

Well, Rooster7, does this mean you will no longer describe homosexuality/homosexual desires as 'unnatural,' as you have in the past? Occuring in nature is a clear refutation of 'unnatural.' Of course, that something is natural says nothing about whether such behavior is good, bad, or indifferent. But it ought to stop the red herring of 'unnatural' being thrown around. But it never seems to.

Ed writes: Let's see. Humans can think things through. Other animal rely on instinct without thought. Lots of animals can think to greater or lesser degrees. Monkeys can understand and use money, and can communicate with sign language, leading to both prostitution and lying. Monkeys and elephants can recognize themselves in a mirror.

Or anything animals don't do as a reason to forbid human behavior.

I don't think Beavah is from Minnesota, I've never seen him use the term 'uff-da.'

This is also why the BSA forbids obese men from being scoutmasters, as they are poor role models for a healthy lifestyle. And why there are no fat Eagle scouts, as they could never pass the 'physically fit' requirement. Caution: sarcasm

packsaddle, I think it's when two straw men marry.

Beavah, freedom of expressive association, for public accommodations, can be limited by laws. That's why public accommodations can be subject to laws, like not discriminating on the basis of race or religion, that private groups are immune to. As for public schools, atheists have equal rights. Public schools can't own & operate "no atheists" private clubs, period. You're right that it's polarizing when one group tries to violate the rights of others, though. Some people fight for civil rights.

Beavah, the Dale case decided whether the BSA was a public accommodation or not. If it had been ruled a public accommodation, they could not legally exclude Dale for being gay under NJ law. And no, the BSA did NOT just furnish materials for cub scout packs; the BSA required that public schools discriminate on the basis of religion, which is unlawful.

The BSA's status wasn't clear until Dale; New Jersey said the BSA was a public accommodation, which would make it subject to nondiscrimination laws. Plus, as I have pointed out before, when you have thousands of public schools running your clubs, you aren't private. Calling their policies "discriminatory" is not being inflammatory, it's being accurate. The BSA says it's a religious organization. Argue with them.

Here's a thread from five and a half years ago when the C of L council backtracked on their nondiscrimination policy and kicked out Gregory Lattera, and the second comment is from Ed: http://www.scouter.com/forums/viewThread.asp?threadID=31006 See Ed? You really can't learn things. You can't even be convinced that something took 6 years when you commented on that very issue 5.5 years ago.

Ed, I went through this just a few messages back when I said those of us who were paying attention knew this became an issue after the Dale case. I guess you weren't paying attention. The C of L council first said they wouldn't discriminate, then the BSA made them take it back, then the C of L council came out with a fake nondiscrimination policy, then the city asked for clarification on what they meant by "illegal discrimination", and the C of L never answered. That's what took years.

Here's the resolution ending the agreement; I've never found a copy of the 1928 ordinance itself, but this cites it and the reason for ending it: http://webapps.phila.gov/council/attachments/3811.pdf

"Be careful what you wish for" should have been applied to the BSA some years back, particularly when public schools were their largest chartering partner and their numerous governmental perks were apparently forgotten in their rush to become a private, discriminatory, religious organization.

Ed, the city did nothing wrong or illegal, either. Ending the lease doesn't REQUIRE that the BSA did something wrong, illegal, or recently, or anything. You keep bringing up points that are totally irrelevant.

No Ed, the city waited until it was definitely established that the C of L council would continue to discriminate. THAT is the issue. Before Dale, it wasn't known if the BSA could discriminate or not. So the city council didn't do anything. After Dale, the C of L council write a real nondiscrimination policy, so the city didn't end the lease then, either. The national BSA told the C of L council to rescind their real nondiscrimination policy, but they came up with a "fake" one that promised no "unlawful discrimination" -- the city solicitor asked the council for clarification on what they meant by that. After about a year and a half of NO REPLY from the C of L council what they meant by their "fake" nondiscrimination policy that promised no "unlawful discrimination," the city council voted to end the lease and gave them one year's notice to either vacate or pay market rates after the year was up. And stopping government support of discrimination isn't what I would call 'pandering', but I suppose to panhandlers like yourself, having to pay your own way and pull your own weight must seem unfair somehow. As RememberSchiff says, maybe a nondiscriminatory youth group will get the building for $1/year and serve ALL kids instead of rejecting some because they aren't 'morally straight' or 'clean' or 'the best kinds of citizens.'

Ed, those of us who paid attention knew this became an issue when the BSA won the Dale case and was, officially, a private organization that could discriminate. If Dale had gone the other way, the BSA would be a public accommodation that could not discriminate. At first, the C of L council tried to defy the national BSA and have a real nondiscrimination policy, but the BSA made them rescind it. If either the Dale case had gone the other way, or the BSA had allowed the C of L council to have a real, enforced nondiscrimination policy, the lease almost certainly wouldn't have been ended. But the national BSA won't allow the C of L council NOT to discriminate against gays and atheists, so the city cut off their subsidized rent. You are free to rent the building at $200,000 per year and sublet it to the BSA for $1/year if you like. You keep saying that would be "a hoot," but it sounds more like sour grapes on your part.

It doesn't matter, Ed. The city (and the BSA) have always had the ability to end this agreement as soon as either side wanted to end it; all either side had to do was give a year's notice. It doesn't matter if the city gives notice because a law requires them to break off the relationship, or the BSA becomes such a social pariah that the general public no longer wants to give them a free ride, or if the city council decided by flipping a coin.

No Ed, but that doesn't matter. The city has always had the ability to end the lease by giving notice a year in advance, and that's how they ended the lease; by following the terms of the original agreement.

Ed, I've pointed out a large number of times that the agreement ALSO allowed either the city or the BSA to end the agreement unilaterally by giving one year's notice. The city gave them one year's notice. The city followed the agreement. You can't just follow SOME of the rules, right? If the agreement allows the city to end the agreement by giving one year's notice, they can DO that, right? narraticong, it's more threatened than used, but the Church at Pierce Creek was the first such instance when it lost its tax exempt status in 1995 for one example.

OK, I'll give you that one, but tax exemptions work against the Cradle of Liberty situation. Tax-exempt organizations have to meet certain requirements, and if they don't meet them (or if they act in violation of them), they can lose their tax exemption, as some churches that got too involved in politics have found out. Same with getting subsidized rent -- if you don't meet the requirements, you don't get the subsidy.