Cradle of Liberty Council loses land deal with Philadelphia

[evmori]

"Do you think there are other prohibited marbles still in the container?"

 

Yes there are and if left in the container long enough they will contaminate the entire container.

[NJCubScouter]

Packsaddle, I fear that your post has caused this thread to lose its marbles.

[packsaddle]

Ed, they've been there all along. They always will be. You just haven't noticed before.

Also, in case anyone else is concerned about this, the sky really is not falling. Don't worry, be happy.

 

NJ, uuuuhhhh, have you been talking to my wife? She claims I lost them a long time ago. And after decades of marriage I know she's always right.

[MarkNoel]

 

CubsRgr8 writes:

 

> This will link you to the City of Philadelphia's Fair Practices ordinance:

> http://municipalcodes.lexisnexis.com/codes/philadelphia/

> If you can figure out how the COL deal violates it, well, you've got a better legal mind than I.

 

Here are the relevant sections:

 

 

Chapter 9-1105 Unlawful Public Accommodations Practice.

 

(A) It shall be an unlawful public accommodations practice:

 

(1) For any person being the owner, lessee, proprietor, manager,

superintendent, agent or employee of any place of public accommodation,

resort or amusement to:

 

(a) Refuse, withhold from, or deny to any person because of his

race, color, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, religion,

national origin, ancestry, physical handicap or marital status, either

directly or indirectly, any of the accommodations, advantages,

facilities or privileges of such place of public accommodation, resort

or amusement.

 

(b) Publish, circulate, issue, display, post or mail, either

directly or indirectly, any written or printed communication, notice or

advertisement to the effect that any of the accommodations, advantages,

facilities, and privileges of any such place shall be refused, withheld

or denied to any person on account of race, color, sex, sexual

orientation, gender identity, religion, national origin, ancestry,

physical handicap or marital status, or that the patronage of any person

of any particular race, color, sex, religious creed, ancestry, national

origin, physical handicap or marital status is unwelcome, objectionable

or not acceptable, desired or solicited.

 

 

Chapter 9-1102 Definitions:

 

(u) Public Accommodation, Resort or Amusement. Any accommodation,

resort or amusement which is open to, accepts or solicits the patronage

of the general public, including but not limited to inns, taverns, roadhouses,

hotels, . . . , terminals and airports, financial institutions and all City facilities

and services but not any accommodations which are in their nature

distinctly private. No entity covered by this definition shall invoke

its private character for the purpose of excluding or discriminating

against any member of a group protected under this Chapter.

 

 

So according to these, "public accomodations" are prohibited from actively discriminating on the basis of religion and sexual orientation when providing services, and are also prohibited from advertising discriminitory policies or otherwise making it clear that certain classes of people are unwelcome there.

 

While the Supreme Court ruled that BSA by itself is not a "public accomodation" under these sorts of laws, the definition in this statute of "public accomodation" includes "all City facilities and services." Since the land and the building currently used by the Cradle of Liberty Council are owned by Philadelpia, this is a "City facility" under the ordinance. Furthermore, the grant of free use of city land to COL can be construed as a "city service."

 

Thus, Philadelphia facilities and services are being provided to the BSA which both actively discriminates against protected classes (section 9-1105(A)(1)(a) ) and also openly advertises that members of these protected classes are unwelcome in the organization (section 9-1105(A)(1)(b) ).

 

Finally, in case there was any doubt that these restrictions should be binding on the city of Philadelphia in the case where it is supporting a private organization which is doing all the heavy lifting with respect to discrimination, 9-1102(u) concludes with:

 

"No entity covered by this definition shall invoke

its private character for the purpose of excluding or discriminating

against any member of a group protected under this Chapter. "

 

 

Seems to me that the City Solicitor made the right call here.

 

YiS,

-Mark

 

[Rooster7]

Mark,

 

If what you say is true, in order for the city of Philadelphia to remain consistent in its enforcement of such a statute, then they must also do the following:

 

Prohibit church softball leagues from playing on their public fields.

Prohibit the Black Student Union from meeting in public schools.

Prohibit womens clubs from meeting in the public library.

Prohibit Gay groups from meeting in the public park.

 

I doubt if they are stopping any of the above. If so, they are practicing selective enforcement of a statute for political reasons. They are not acting on the behalf of the interest of Philadelphians, but special interests groupsprobably the same ones that line the pockets of the city politicians who are seeking re-election.

 

[MarkNoel]

Rooster7:

 

All the examples you cite are of a "public forum" -- public property used by a multitude of DIFFERENT organizations, each of whom has equal access to the forum. If the public schools tried to prevent the Black Student Union or the Gay-Straight Alliance from meeting in public schools, it would be engaging in viewpoint discrimination (and a violation of the Federal Equal Access act) unless it prohibited ALL groups.

 

If Philadelphia only allowed Catholics to use its softball fields, then there would be a problem. Likewise if say, San Diego gave the BSA exclusive use of city property in Balboa Park.

 

But until the Philadelphia Freethinkers and the Pennsylvania Coalition for Inclusive Scouting can get free land and office space at the COL's city-owned headquarters on the same basis as the BSA, your examples fail.

 

YiS,

-Mark

 

 

[CubsRgr8]

MarkNoel,

 

BSA, and by extension COL, is a not a public accomodation. Therefore, it cannot violate the Fair Practices Ordinance. Rather, this case is remarkably similar to San Diego and the Balboa Park lease. Those arguing in favor of evicting COL on the basis of FPO must believe that the CITY is guilty of violating its own ordinance by providing free use of city land to a private organization which legally (by virtue of its private nature) observes one or more of the discriminatory practices banned by said ordinance.

 

Furthermore, as I read the definitions section, it is those City facilities and services which function as public accomodations (such as swimming pools, libraries, trash collection) that are subject to this ordinance. The property in question is NOT a City facility or service which functions as a public accomodation. Therefore, the crux of the matter must be that the City Solicitor agrees with your idea that "the grant of free use of city land to COL can be construed as a "city service" (my italics).

 

I don't know if you and the City Solicitor are correct. Common sense tells me that there must be other relationships which tread in these uncertain water. Are there no other "sweetheart" deals with private organizations which legally observe one or more of the discriminatory practices banned by FPO? I think there must be. For the City to single out COL and ignore other such situations raises the issue of equal access.

 

Finally (LOL!), it's hard for me to reconcile the word "perpetuity" and a one year unilateral cancellation clause, both of which allegedly occur in the 1928 ordinance - they seem too contradictory. That's why I would like to read the text of that ordinance. Frankly, the best resolution is for COL and the City to come to terms whereby COL purchases the property for its fair market value, while receiving credit for the costs it incurred in constructing, maintaining and renovating the property over the past 75 years.

[kasane]

""Do you think there are other prohibited marbles still in the container?"

 

Yes there are and if left in the container long enough they will contaminate the entire container. "

 

Wow! What a statement. I wonder if this was the same argument used before the schools and armed forces were integrated?

[NJCubScouter]

Kasane says:

 

Wow! What a statement. I wonder if this was the same argument used before the schools and armed forces were integrated?

 

It sure was, among other things. Of course, the supporters of anti-gay policy really, really hate this analogy. (They hate it because it fits the situation so well, which of course they have to deny.)

 

[evmori]

You can't compare race discrimination with gay discrimination. People of different races have no choice what race they are born to. Gay people do have a choice. It fits about as well as a glove fits on a foot!

 

Rooster7,

Excellent points!

 

Ed Mori

Scoutmaster

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[MarkNoel]

Ed Mori writes:

 

> You can't compare race discrimination with gay discrimination. People of different

> races have no choice what race they are born to. Gay people do have a choice. It > fits about as well as a glove fits on a foot!

 

LOL. Leaving aside the fact that most gay folks do NOT have a choice with respect to their orientation (no matter how stridently you want to climb on a soapbox and proclaim otherwise), this "choice" argument still doesn't work.

 

You can "choose" your religious faith. So if we were to kick out all the Protestant Christians (unless they pretended to be something else or otherwise refused to "avow" their faith), this would be okay?

 

YiS,

-Mark

 

[evmori]

MarkNoel,

Where in my previous post did I mention religion. I refered to race.

 

Once again twist till it fits!

 

Ed Mori

Scoutmaster

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[berkshirescouter]

Looks like somthing has been worked out. See:

http://www.newsgleaner.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=10287924&BRD=2340&PAG=461&dept_id=488595&rfi=6

[MarkNoel]

evmore writes:

 

> MarkNoel,

> Where in my previous post did I mention religion. I refered to race.

>

> Once again twist till it fits!

 

No twisting here -- at least, not on my part. I didn't say that you mentioned religion -- I acknowledged that you only mentioned race.

 

My entire point was that you seemed to be arguing that discrimination against gays is justified because it was different from race -- that people "choose" their sexual orientation (untrue, but beside the point in this case), and that people do not choose their race.

 

_I_ brought up religion, since it seems pretty obvious that people can "choose" their religion to at least the same degree as what you argue to be true for gays.

 

If that's your argument, then could you please explain why it's not okay to discriminate against people on the basis of their religion, or if you believe that religious discrimination is okay?

 

YiS,

-Mark

 

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Its Trail Day writes:

Looks like somthing has been worked out. See:

http://www.newsgleaner.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=10287924&BRD=2340&PAG=461&dept_id=488595&rfi=6

 

This isn't an agreement, it only has statements from the BSA side. They're essentially saying they want to continue to practice discrimination while getting city property for free; even if the city agrees with this (which I doubt), it's sure to bring a lawsuit.