supreme court allows Connecticut to bar BSA from charity campaign

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

 

http://tinyurl.com/3683u

 

Boy Scouts Lose Appeal Over Ban From State-Run Charity Campaign

 

March 8 (Bloomberg) -- The Boy Scouts of America lost a U.S. Supreme Court appeal over its exclusion from sharing in the proceeds of a state-run charity campaign because it bans homosexuals.

 

The court refused to hear the Scouts' argument that Connecticut trampled on free-speech rights in dropping the youth organization from a campaign in which state workers contribute to charities through payroll deductions. The state requires all charities that seek donations in the campaign to have a non- discriminatory membership policy.

 

A lower court ruling in Connecticut's favor ``licenses state and local governments to punish the Boy Scouts for their views and threatens the First Amendment rights'' of groups including religious organizations, the Scouts' lawyers said in court papers filed in Washington. The Scouts say they have more than 2.5 million youth members and 1 million adult leaders.

...

 

[evmori]

So the Boy Scouts are being discriminated against because they discriminate. OK. So if someone shoots me I can shoot them?

 

This makes no sense.

 

Ed Mori

1 Peter 4:10

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

 

In most if not all states, if someone shoots you (I assume you mean shoots you for some illegal reason), yes, you can shoot them. You can use deadly force to protect yourself from an attack that threatens your life.

 

As for the Boy Scout issue, I've told you before that you don't understand what the issues are about, which is why you find the rulings so baffling. Deliberately keeping yourself ignorant is a good way to keep being unpleasantly surprised.

[berkshirescouter]

Though I disagree with the decision, I would not, if I were a CT state worker, not give to their program. I would give directly to BSA, which I do. I would not cry and go to court about how mean everyone is I would just deal with it. What I do not like is the zero sum game going on. This is a battle between civil liberties and civil rights. The common word is Civil which is not common in todays discourse. When will both sides be respectful of everyones point of view. I see Scouts being respectful but not the other groups.

[evmori]

I understand the issues. Merlyn. I just don't agree with you! Your refusal to explain the issues is because you can't!

 

I hope you are a better at your day job than this!

 

Ed Mori

1 Peter 4:10

[Laurie]

"Though I disagree with the decision, I would not, if I were a CT state worker, not give to their program. I would give directly to BSA, which I do."

 

So, would you give to both? Or am I reading this wrong? It would seem as though giving to the program would mean that no funds would make it to the BSA via the program.

 

I did something similar. When I looked into United Way years ago, when my boss was saying that I had to take part, I called the organizations I usually give to. They provided me with the numbers I needed to designate the funds. For reasons I do not understand, it really ticked off the boss. In any case, do the employees have a say in where their money goes? What if they don't want to support the organizations supported in this program? I'm not trying to pick an argument; I simply know that many people are choosy about how they give their money.

[WHEELER]

The liberals are now going to punish the Boy Scouts for their stand.

 

With inflation growing every year and constantly, every body looks to the government for an handout. Since liberals control the government, they get to control who gets it.

 

Cuios Regio, Euius Religo.

[NJCubScouter]

So Wheeler, it's ok for you to criticize the BSA, but it's not ok for anyone else to do so?

 

I happen to disagree with the BSA's current position on one issue, and have obviously posted about it on a number of occassions, but I'd guess that you have you have expended more words critical of the BSA, and in "stronger" terms overall, in the last 3 weeks or so, than I have in the past 2 years.

 

I've asked you before to explain the different standard you are apparently using to measure the actions of others as opposed to those of yourself, but you never answered. And I do realize that I will probably regret asking you a question, but I am asking anyway.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

 

Hey ed, I'm not the one who says the decision "makes no sense", that's you. Like I've said before, since you obviously choose to keep yourself ignorant of the legal issues involved, the verdicts WON'T make sense to you. That's your problem; it isn't my task to teach you.

 

Laurie, no one has to contribute to the campaign (and your boss was lying to you; you can't be required to donate to the UW as a condition of employment). Here's the CT state employee campaign page:

http://www.state.ct.us/csec/

[saltheart]

My personal practice is and always has been to give directly to those I direct my charitable giving. That includes the BSA. My personal opinion is that everyone should do likewise to be certain that their dollars are going where they think they are. Simple concerns like how much of every dollar I give actually makes it to the charity drive my decisions. I would assume others share simlar concerns. Giving is such fashion avoids these petty grievances raised by those who would see the likes of the BSA give into their will. Give directly and thumb your nose a the ACLU.

 

Beyond that, I would question whether or not federal, state, or local agencies, whose salaries we are paying with public money, should be banned from allowing the likes of the United Way and other forms of mass charitable collection, especially if agency or state sponsored, to have access to the employees. I'd be for banning that altogether. That would end much of this discussion.

[berkshirescouter]

Laurie

You read it right. My understanding of their program is that you can give or not give to whomever on the list you want. Thats why I don't understand the states position. It is not their money. If there is a group on that list I like I will give if not I would not. It is the givers call no one elses. To remove the Boy Scouts from the list appears to be against Diversity. But at this point I would just give to who I choose to directly.

[NJCubScouter]

I believe I read this decision when it came out, and it made sense to me. The state set up a program that benefits only certain charities, and it has criteria based on state public policy, and the BSA does not meet the criteria. It is different from the Dale case, in which the state statute was interpreted to mean that the BSA could not enforce their membership standards at all, and the Supreme Court decided that that was unconstitutional. In this case the BSA is not being prohibited from enforcing their membership standards. They are being denied a benefit because they don't qualify for the benefit.

 

The council(s) involved will just have to raise the money elsewhere, and I hope they can. What I really hope, of course, is that the BSA stops putting its councils (and more importantly, its units and their members) in the middle of a political and religious "culture war" that the BSA has no business being in the middle of.

 

I do need to point out, in the interests of technical legal correctness, that the word "lost" in the first paragraph of the news article is somewhat misleading. When the Supreme Court denies an application for writ of certiorari, as it appears to have done here, it does not "decide" the case, it simply makes a decision not to hear the case. If the same issue comes up somewhere else, the Supreme Court could still decide to hear that case, and decide the issue differently than the Second Circuit decided it -- or the same way. The lawyer for the government in that hypothetical future case could not cite this "decision" as a precedent for why the Supreme Court shouldn't hear the future case; legally, it is a non-event as far as future cases are concerned.

 

Or to put it another way, they did not "lose" a "U.S. Supreme Court appeal" because technically, there was no appeal to lose. It is interesting nevertheless.

[evmori]

Merlyn,

You should be really angry with this decision! The state can now discriminate against the Boy Scouts therefore denying them their 1st Amendment rights! I thought you were against any type discrimination? Or is it only the type of discrimination you don't like. Remember, two wrongs don't make a right!

 

Ed Mori

1 Peter 4:10

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

 

The state spends money conducting the campaign, and they have requirements for all agencies that want to be included. They turned down the BSA and about 40 other organizations for not meeting their membership requirements. The BSA tried to force their way back in, but failed.

 

Any of this sound familiar?

[Laurie]

Merlyn, thank you for that link. Yes, I do know that what my employer did was wrong, but thanks for pointing it out. Had someone not done so when the pressure was first put on me, I'd not have known any better. I did tell him that he could not force me to do this, and it was an interesting time though not one I care to repeat.

 

Its Trail Day: Thanks for clarifying.