Jump to content

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


Merlyn_LeRoy

Recommended Posts

Moi-lyn said that the gummit said, "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."

 

Of course that's what the government is going to claim but that ain't what's happening. When special groups are given preferential treatment without regard for ability, that's discrimination. The idea of affirmative action might sound good to those like you but it doesn't work in the real world.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 79
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

 

The law already has to be neutral regarding atheism. See decisions like Torcaso v. Watkins, which unanimously decided that states couldn't require a belief in god for public office:

 

"We repeat and again reaffirm that neither a State nor the Federal Government can constitutionally force a person "to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion." Neither can constitutionally pass laws or impose requirements which aid all religions as against non-believers, and neither can aid those religions based on a belief in the existence of God as against those religions founded on different beliefs."

 

Can you name any laws that distinguish between US citizens based on whether they believe in a god or not?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK they got dibs! They should. They did a ton of work & saved the city a ton of money. But when they weren't using it, anyone could use it, right? Gays, atheists, murderers, the KKK?

 

Am I missing something here?

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As usual, yes. For instance, the judge ruled that the lease was invalid on its face because the city simply renewed the lease with the BSA instead of going through its usual bidding process. Since the BSA is a religious organization, the city couldn't do that any more than it could decide to lease land to the Catholic church for $1/year if the city council wanted to support Catholicism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I probably should keep my yap shut but we get low to no cost usage of parks, includng times that they are "closed," because Scouts this area provide about 20,000 hours of volunteer labor in the parks each year. When the parks people wanted to jack our rates, BSA said, "fine but we won't do any work anymore." The parks people gulped and said, "Okay."

 

20,000 hours at even $5 an hour is quite a bit of change. These jurisdictions aren't thinking smart. The facilities are being paid for by sweat and we all know that atheists don't do any honest work. Heck, I've never met an atheist that I could trust.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

And all blacks are lazy and all Jews are moneygrubbers, right?

 

Can anyone here seriously argue that the Boy Scouts' discriminatory policies don't encourage bigoted attitudes exemplified by Fat Old Guy? You know, I won't hold my breath waiting for fellow Scouters to criticize him, because in my experience, most BSA members can't even see discrimination against atheists.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What am I missing? Atheists were denied use of the area? Your upset because the BSA got dibs? Well if that's the case, let's call a "do over"!

 

Fat Old Guy is correct! Scouts do usually get discounted rates at parks. Then again, large groups no matter what the affiliation get discounts. And what about those groups that "always use the area at a certain time". Are you concerned with their affiliation?

 

And by the way, the BSA is not a religious group. Private yes, religious NO!

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just as FOG said he knew better, I do too, but that doesnt matter

 

Merlyn, I know you are a single issue fellow here, and you probably dont read a lot of the threads unless your hot button comes up, but I wouldnt hold my breath about many people jumping on FOG over his language as most of us know what a Curmudgeon he is.

 

Besides, he is just expressing his first amendment rights and while I dont like the way he expresses himself a lot of the times, he does get to post how he feels.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...