Merlyn_LeRoy

No, you aren't "required" to value diversity; have you already forgotten that the BSA kicks out gays and atheists?

Ed writes: And you don't get to decide for me either, Merlyn even though you want to. Ed, stop lying about what I "want", as if you can read my mind. You can't, and I haven't tried to tell YOU what YOU find offensive. I was responding to your earlier statement that "You aren't a member of the BSA, Merlyn, so the BSA DRP has no effect on you."

Well, since the LA city code apparently addresses the employment practices of organizations that contract with the city, and not just how cheaply a contractor can get something done, the BSA's policies are relevant.

Ed, like I've just said to others, YOU don't get to decide what I find offensive; you get to decide what YOU find offensive. You don't get to do that for me.

The declaration of religious principle says "The Boy Scouts of America maintains that no member can grow into the best kind of citizen without recognizing an obligation to God," so atheists can't be the best kind of citizen. The BSA argued in court that, officially, gays aren't "morally straight" or "clean." But in any case, you don't get to decide for me what I find offensive. That's subjective in any case, so you can only say that YOU don't find it offensive.

skeptic writes: our actions do no actual harm to your "me" Uh, no. You do NOT get to determine that I am not actually harmed by having city contracts with an organization that officially denegrates atheists. You can say YOU are or are not harmed. I get to say the same for me.

Well, if correcting your errors is "bashing," here it comes. "Freedom of religion" does not mean the government has to finance your religion; in fact, the government can't finance religions. As the Everson case stated: The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever from they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. As to your contention that the ACLU is "trying to abolish anything to do with religion in this country by using the court system. That is in direct conflict with our freedom of religion," I'll have to ask you for specific examples. Your one example of the government refusing to fund a discriminatory religious organization like the BSA doesn't cut it. The BSA troops, packs, and crews have the same right to use school and city facilities as any other group does, including gay groups or atheist groups. Correct. By denying the Boy Scouts and Cub Scouts these facilities we begin a trend that could soon see no citizens using the facilities they have paid for through taxes. Where is this happening? Again, give specific examples. I don't know of any cases of the above, and the ACLU would almost certainly argue that everyone is entitled to use public facilities on the same terms, including the BSA. A new city council can now create new laws that cancel former contracts that were made "in perpetuity" The original contract has always had a one-year cancellation clause that either the city council or the BSA could exercise unilaterally to end the agreement after one year's notice. The city gave the BSA such notice several months ago, which is why the BSA can continue to occupy the building for another few months. The city council is following the original agreement as written. I was brought up to believe that a contact is always binding unless BOTH parties agree to cancel it. Or, as in this case, the contract has clauses on how one party can cancel the agreement.

skeptic, from my point of view, you are the one living in a world of "me". You want the BSA to be a private, discriminatory organization, yet you don't want any adverse consequences from that status. Lambda Legal did not pass a new law here; they are pointing out to the city of LA that city contracts for sevices from discriminatory organizations violate their own city codes. As an aside, some years back there was talk about L4L being completely spun off as an independent organization; maybe it's time to do that. Its close association with a discriminating organization (and in many cases, as in LA, the intermingling of funds) will almost certainly cause more problems in the future. (fix typo)(This message has been edited by Merlyn_LeRoy)

Ed, all Lambda Legal is doing is telling LA to follow its own laws. Yes, it IS the BSA's fault for painting themselves into a corner.

Fred, I'd still like to know what you think the ACLU ought to have done regarding public schools chartering cub scout packs, as your own was, and as you told me, would not allow atheists to join. In that case, you were violating the civil rights of atheist students by barring them from a public school group. Oh, and by the way, I haven't seen any lawsuits post-Dale that have attempted to change the BSA's membership policies; they have all been due to the consequences of the BSA's policies. In this particular case, Lambda Legal is just trying to get LA to stop contracting with the BSA, because the BSA discriminates. That's part of leaving the BSA alone -- leaving their customer base.(This message has been edited by Merlyn_LeRoy)

skeptic writes: It means they want to force society as a whole to adhere to their beliefs and dictate to the government of "all the people" what the government should be allowed to do or not do, or with whom they should interact for the overall benefit of the community. It does not matter that the choice by government entities to use certain organizations for some types of activities makes total sense due to the resources or overall capability of the organization. If they have even the remotest connection to ideas that they feel are discriminatory, even if those ideas do not effect the actual function for which they were chosen, then they should not be allowed. How does this harm them in the first place; and secondly, why should they their beliefs or rights be greater than those of the others? Are you describing gays today or blacks in the 1950s? I can't tell. With this rationale, a government entity could hire a contractor to build a fence. The contractor is the best choice, but then they find out a couple of his workers believe Gays are not someone with whom they can work directly because it is against their religious precepts. There are no Gays involved in the project, but the city should still fire the contractor given this rationalization. Only if the workers refuse to do the work for which they were hired and the contractor does not replace them. If the contractor replaces them with people who WILL do the work for which they are hired, then the work gets done. Notice the city code talks about the employer not discriminating -- if employees are discriminating, that's the employer's problem, and if their employees refuse to do the work that is contracted, the employer either replaces them or the employer can't fulfill their contract. O.G.E.; Even if National were to make the rational decision to put the choices into the CO's hands, it would not stop the attacks. If the BSA had done this before the Dale decision, I think it probably would have. Dale would have been kicked out of just troop 73 by the Matawan First United Methodist Church (if they decided to kick him out), and he could have just joined a different troop. Public school packs & troops would admit gays and atheists, LDS unit could exclude gays, atheists, women, non-LDS as leaders if they wanted. (typo fix)(This message has been edited by Merlyn_LeRoy)

But Ed, the lawsuit would be just for LA to follow its own laws. I don't see how cities obeying their own laws would discourage the development of youth programs. PS: By the way Ed, I found this statement of yours from a few years back: "BSA policy should be followed whether it is a good or bad policy. If an individual feels it is a bad policy, then that individual should do everything in his/her power to try and change that policy. Until that is accomplished, the policy should be followed." Shouldn't cities similarly follow their own city codes?(This message has been edited by Merlyn_LeRoy)

No, it isn't good enough, OGE. I've stated in this forum before that it's ridiculous that, say, L4L offers to teach atheist students ethics while being part of an organization that treats atheists unethically, and which has deliberately defrauded the public to have public schools and HUD grants involved in the operation of their "no atheists allowed" private club. Free association cuts both ways, and if LA can't associate with L4L because of the BSA's policies, that's less money for the BSA, which is fine by me.

Ed, there IS no lawsuit, and if there is one, it would be against the city of LA for not following their own laws, not L4L.

OGE, it makes no sense to wish LL also have a program ready to replace L4L; does L4L fight for civil rights for gays? No? Does the BSA? Ha!

It seems to me that the refrain "start your own group, leave the Boy Scouts alone" has been heard in this forum before; LA has the resources to do just that, and jettison the Boy Scouts, in order to disassociate the city from the BSA's discrimination. Be careful what you wish for.

Lambda Legal is likely to file suit to force the city to follow its own laws.

skeptic, the situation here is that LL is telling LA to obey its own city code. Got a problem with that? Your snide question on who else LL helps besides gays and lesbians I ignored, because those kinds of snide questions deserve to be ignored. But what kind of problem do you have with: 1) LA obeying their own city code 2) the city code requires nondiscrimination on the basis of religion, sexual orientation, etc in employment on the part of contractees with the city for services Both of the above are eminently reasonable in my opinion. You've offered no argument why either of these should be ignored in order to not inconvenience your discriminatory private club. Now, you can continue to badmouth LL without addressing their key argument, which is simply that LA needs to follow their own city codes, but that's no basis for a legal argument, nor much of an argument for this forum. You don't like Lambda Legal? Fine. What's wrong with their position here? Criticize THAT.

Skeptic, LL is just telling LA to obey their own city code. Yes, if cities refuse to follow the law, people can bring lawsuits, although it's laughable that you'd try to portray the city of Los Angeles as somehow the underdog and strapped for cash when up against Lambda Legal.

OGE, cities can, and many do, try to influence what they see as good and proper behavior by refusing to deal with organizations that discriminate on the basis of religion or sexual orientation. It's quite legal for cities to do this. This doesn't infringe on the BSA's rights; the city is simply (supposed) to refuse to take them up on any city contracts for services, EVEN IF those services don't discriminate. The organization discriminates, and the city does not want to support the organization. Would you object if LA refused to sign any contracts with the KKK due to the KKK's racial discrimination, even if the contract was for services that the KKK would supply in a nondiscriminatory way? Discrimination really isn't popular any more. Governments have a lot of ways they can discourage and distance themselves from discrimination, and refusing to take up the BSA on any programs they offer is one way to do that. If you don't meet the requirements, you're out. Sound at all familiar?

OGE, there can certainly be similar cases with Catholic Charities, there's a bill in Colorado that could cut them off from public money because of their discriminatory hiring practices. It's also notable that Catholic Charities officials are threatening that they will have to 'close its doors' if they can't discriminate and get public money at the same time -- so, it's apparently a "charity" only with public money, they aren't interested in running as an entirely private, real, charity. Now, the LA city code only covers LA, and it looks like the city can't contract with the BSA for services without violating that city code. I don't know if LA has any contracts with Catholic Charities, or if the city code has some exemptions, or if there are contracts between LA and CC that also violate the city code. But that doesn't affect whether the L4L contracts violate the city code or not.

OGE, LL is pointing out that the city code requires that all organizations that contract with the city must meet the city's nondiscrimination requirements, which includes sexual orientation and religion. Even if L4L does not discriminate, the city is contracting with the BSA, which does. The policy doesn't just cover the services rendered, but the organization. And a lot of cities have similar policies. scoutingagain, LL has a solid case. The city code apparently covers the employment practices of every organization that contracts with the city, and not just the service offered through that contract. The LA Area Boy Scouts council discriminates against gays and atheists in employment, so the city can't use their services.(This message has been edited by Merlyn_LeRoy)

http://gaynewsblog.net/2008/02/lambda-legal-urges-city-of-los-angeles.html (Los Angeles, February 26, 2008) --- Lambda Legal has sent a strongly-worded request to Los Angeles City Attorney Rocky Delgadillo that the city honor its own nondiscrimination policies and cut ties with a Boy Scouts of America affiliate that currently administers youth programs for the Los Angeles Police and Fire Departments. "Learning for Life" is a national program that provides career education for youth. While its mission statement says LFL does not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation or religion, it is essentially an arm of Boy Scouts of America, which clearly does. "Only a tissue-thin layer of corporate formality, if even that, separates Learning for Life from the Boy Scouts," said Brian Chase, Senior Staff Attorney for Lambda Legal. "The organizations share offices, intermingle finances, and share directors and personnel. This is an attempt by BSA to skirt anti-discrimination policies of Los Angeles and other cities by setting up a not-so-separate corporate entity." In 2000, BSA fought Lambda Legal all the way to the United States Supreme Court in Boy Scouts of America v. Dale, and as a private organization was allowed to continue its policies barring gays, lesbians, agnostics and atheists. But Los Angeles City Code reads that anyone contracting with the city must agree "not to discriminate in his employment practices... against any employee or applicant for employment" due to religion or sexual orientation, among other bases. The letter, delivered Tuesday, February 26, 2008, explains that any city affiliation with Learning for Life is illegal, and that the LAPD should sever all ties with the program, and to develop its cadet program in a way that rejects discrimination and is more consistent with city codes.

You finally came up with a debate I'd watch.

About the funniest thing I've read about idiots who call people "homo" was written by a gay man who noted how it's ironic to try and show how different you are from someone you detest by shouting the greek word for "same" at them.