Judge rules US justice dept. can't weigh in on Scout lease case

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

 

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/breaking_news/8212006.htm

 

A federal judge has denied the government's request to be heard on

whether the Boy Scouts should lose their lease at a city park because

they discriminate on the basis of religious non-belief and sexual

orientation.

 

The Department of Justice's Civil Rights Division submitted a

friend-of-the-court brief earlier this month supporting the Scouts in a

4-year-old court fight over a lease on Fiesta Island, a public park

where the Scouts run a youth aquatic center. The American Civil

Liberties Union contends the Scouts should be evicted.

 

"We are disappointed the government will not have the

opportunity to be heard and participate in this matter," Civil

Rights Division spokeswoman Casey Stavropolous said Wednesday. She

declined further comment.

 

U.S. District Judge Napoleon Jones rejected the Justice Department's

argument that the outcome of the case would affect another involving

Scouts in Illinois, where the government is a defendant. In a ruling

issued Monday, Jones also said the Scouts were adequately represented

and do not require the government's assistance.

...

 

[evmori]

It is encouraging the DOJ feels the BSA is worth standing up for!

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[LovetoCamp]

80% of the Catholic priests who sexually assaulted children were homosexual. Why would anyone fight for homos to be scout leaders? Wouldn't that be like putting a cougar in the hen house? An even more target rich environment than they had with their parish youth? This CAN'T ever happen. Period.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

In this particular case, what's being fought for is equal treatment by the government, by not subsidizing a group that discriminates against gays and atheists.

[OldGreyEagle]

I have to thank Merlyn for getting this section out of its moribund status.

 

Merlyn, you last post gave me pause to think. And as I have quite often demonstrated I often think things are one way when in reality they are something completely different, so if I am wrong, I know you will correct me but I have no malice in asking.

 

Now, you said the following:

"In this particular case, what's being fought for is equal treatment by the government, by not subsidizing a group that discriminates against gays and atheists."

 

Now, unless I am wrong, and I admit I might be, but didn't/doesnt the goverment actively encourage discrimination through its Affirmative Action legislation? When minority and female owned businesses get breaks on bidding for government contracts, isnt that state sponsored discrimination? WHen a city gets a federal grant and has to contract with a set percentage of minority or female owned businesses to keep the grant, isnt that state sponsored discrimination? Its discrimination based on race and sex which I thought was unlawful.

 

What is the justification for not declaring such minority clauses in governmental contracts illegal?

 

 

 

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

 

Here's what the US Dept. of Labor says:

http://www.dol.gov/esa/regs/compliance/ofccp/aa.htm

...

Taken together, these laws ban discrimination and require Federal contractors and subcontractors to take affirmative action to ensure that all individuals have an equal opportunity for employment, without regard to race, color, religion, sex, national origin, disability or status as a Vietnam era or special disabled veteran.

...

 

If you want to look up recent supreme court decisions on affirmative action, you can find them here:

http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/cases/topic.htm

 

To be analgous to the Scouts lease case, the government would have to show some reason why it should give special preference for heterosexual theists, and why there is a compelling state interest to do so.

[OldGreyEagle]

Thank you merlyn, I dont have time to read the refrences right now, I will later tonight. But my first response is there is a compelling state interest to discriminate against white male business owners? if this is answered in the links, I will read it later, but I have to say that now

 

[msnowman]

To quote Trail Pounder : "80% of the Catholic priests who sexually assaulted children were homosexual."

 

Sexual assault is less about sexuality and more about power. For a sexual predator (either of children or adults) a large part of the attraction (not quite the right word) is from the taking of power from someone else. Perhaps the priests in question were/are gay, I don't know and won't debate that issue. Personally I believe any sexual predator should be shot, drawn & quartered, boiled in oil and then stomped on until more horrible can be found to do to them. I'm just trying to point out that no all sexual predators are gay any more than all gays are sexual predators.

 

Unless I totally misunderstand things (which has been known to happen), the Catholic church seems to put boys in positions where they are accessable to sexual predators (ie altar boys, etc)in one on one situations. Perhaps they should take a page from Boy Scouts and require two deep leadership and the buddy system.

[Hunt]

Who would have ever thought that it would be a relief to get back on THIS topic?

 

Here's a thought experiment: Imagine that the United Methodist Church decides, through its internal policies, to change its position on whether homosexual behavior is contrary to Christian morals, and decides that it's now OK. Furthermore, the Church decides that it will not discriminate based on sexual orientation. If this happened, would it be surprising if the church decided that it would no longer serve as the CO for BSA organizations? You could disagree with the church's underlying decision (as I would, by the way)--but you couldn't really argue with the consequences.

What's the difference between this and the San Diego situation? While the city is a government entity, it is simply enforcing a non-discrimination policy with which one can agree or disagree. I assume that nobody would object if the city refused to grant a dollar-a-year lease to the KKK? Or to be less inflammatory, if the city refused to grant a dollar-a-year lease to a church that wanted to run a camp that would be open only to members of its own denomination?

 

[evmori]

Hunt,

You make a valid argument but if I recollect it wasn't the city who filed the lawsuit. It filed by someone who didn't realize the excellent work & tons of cash the BSA saved the city by maintaining this piece of property.

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

 

So Ed, if a city decided to lease parkland for $1/year to the KKK, it somehow makes it OK if the city likes the arrangement? Would you criticize black citizens who sued to end the lease?

[NJCubScouter]

Hunt says:

 

Here's a thought experiment: Imagine that the United Methodist Church decides, through its internal policies, to change its position on whether homosexual behavior is contrary to Christian morals, and decides that it's now OK. Furthermore, the Church decides that it will not discriminate based on sexual orientation. If this happened, would it be surprising if the church decided that it would no longer serve as the CO for BSA organizations?

 

This is not merely a "thought experiment," it has actually happened in at least one instance that I know of, Reform Judaism, though with a slight variation. The Jewish religion does not have any central policy-making body. Each congregation has ultimate decision-making authority for itself. (I think that in Christianity this is called "congregationalism" or a "congregational denomination"; those terms are not used in Judaism as far as I know, probably because that type of system is universal within Judaism so it doesn't need a name.) However, each of the main branches of Judaism (Orthodox, Conservative, Reform, Reconstructionist) have one or more nationwide or worldwide organizations or associations to which congregations may choose to belong, and these make "recommendations" for consideration by the congregations. (And since it is the congregations that are voting on the recommendations, presumably one that is supported by a majority will be followed by a majority.) The largest of these organizations within the Reform branch recommended a few years ago that its members not serve as CO's for BSA units, due to the gay-exclusion policy. It is my understanding that at the present time, only a very small number of Reform congregations serve as CO's, as opposed to Orthodox congregations, where the opinion of homosexuality is consistent with that of the current BSA leadership, and where as I understand it, Scouting is thriving.

[evmori]

Merlyn,

Would you fight as hard if it was the KKK & not the BSA?

 

I don't know, Merlyn. If the KKK was doing the same thing the BSA is doing, I think it would be OK. And if black people wanted to bring suit to stop them, they could.

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[LovetoCamp]

Moms and dads would have to learn "bounding overwatch"

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Yes, I would Ed; I don't want my own government creating "no blacks allowed" parks any more than "no atheists allowed" parks by renting parkland for $1/year to discriminatory organizations. And I think lawsuits against both should (and will) win.