evmori Posted April 14, 2004 Share Posted April 14, 2004 Why Merlyn? I understand the issues just fine. It's you logic that has me puzzled. "The city as part of that settlement agreed to pay the ACLU $790,000 in legal fees and $160,000 in court costs and step aside from any further litigation." Sounds like the ACLU bought off the city! Maybe because the city was on the BSA side? Ed Mori Troop 1 1 Peter 4:10(This message has been edited by evmori) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merlyn_LeRoy Posted April 14, 2004 Author Share Posted April 14, 2004 No Ed, you've stated before that you don't understand the legal issues involved, and I agree. You don't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
evmori Posted April 14, 2004 Share Posted April 14, 2004 Here's what I understand. > The BSA put $2 million dollars into the park. > The BSA put many hours into the park to maintain it. > The BSA is required to pay the cost of operation and maintenance. And for this the BSA doesn't pay to use the land. What's the problem? Oh wait! I know! The BSA requires a belief in God to be a member. So that means the ACLU is going after them because a couple people who don't believe in God couldn't join & decided to sue because the BSA getting "special treatment" was a violation of the separation of church & state! I'm still looking for that one! What don't I understand Merlyn? Ed Mori Troop 1 1 Peter 4:10 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merlyn_LeRoy Posted April 14, 2004 Author Share Posted April 14, 2004 Everything, obviously. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
evmori Posted April 14, 2004 Share Posted April 14, 2004 I know what I don't understand! I don't understand the situation from you point of view! That's it! Glad I figured that out. (This message has been edited by evmori) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fat Old Guy Posted April 14, 2004 Share Posted April 14, 2004 It is all a case of sour grapes. Instead of trying to build an organization like BSA, the atheists and the swishy types work to destroy it. Now the ACLU has nearly another million of tax dollars in their war chest. Now the facility will be shut down because no organization will step up to run it and the taxpayers won't want to pay for it. BTW, I don't know what Boy and Girls Clubs are like in Moi-lin's area but around here they suck big time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fboisseau Posted April 14, 2004 Share Posted April 14, 2004 Merlyn_LeRoy, I have another question. Would you agree that the government should not treat any group differently based on its religious or lack of religious beliefs? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merlyn_LeRoy Posted April 14, 2004 Author Share Posted April 14, 2004 I agree; I suppose you have something specific in mind? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hunt Posted April 14, 2004 Share Posted April 14, 2004 Merlyn, since you avoided my question, let me pose it more pointedly: Would you continue to criticize BSA for discriminating against gays if if stated that its policy was to leave it up to chartering organizations to determine whether to permit gay leaders or members? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merlyn_LeRoy Posted April 14, 2004 Author Share Posted April 14, 2004 No, though I might criticize individual units that still excluded gays. By the way, you don't seem to have noticed that nearly all of my criticism of the BSA is tied to its religious discrimination. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hunt Posted April 15, 2004 Share Posted April 15, 2004 Well, Merlyn, I have to say that if that's your focus, you're really wasting your time posting here; BSA will change its position on gays long, long before it will change its position on God--many more members (like me) support BSA on that one. If your focus is trying to get BSA kicked out of government facilities, it's really a waste of your time to talk to BSA members about it. Are you just gloating? I also have to point out that in the San Diego case it's really absurd to talk about your (or anybody else's) tax dollars going to support religion, when clearly the BSA saved the city tax dollars. That's part of why I predict the decision will be overturned, especially with respect to the aquatic center. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merlyn_LeRoy Posted April 15, 2004 Author Share Posted April 15, 2004 It appears you haven't read the opinion; the judge didn't say tax dollars were going to support religion, the judge said that the city made a special lease deal with a religious organization, instead of opening the lease to public bidding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
evmori Posted April 15, 2004 Share Posted April 15, 2004 So all the good the BSA has done and would continue to do at NO COST TO THE TAXPAYERS should be tossed in the dumper? The lawsuit is costing the taxpayers money. The BSA's work in the park cost the taxpayers nothing. I know this is not about money but if the ACLU is going to side with a few disgruntled people against the BSA, everything should be considered. Ed Mori Troop 1 1 Peter 4:10 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hunt Posted April 15, 2004 Share Posted April 15, 2004 "I'm an atheist and I'm not going to allow my own government to discriminate against atheists by subsidizing a group that excludes atheists." When you wrote that, Merlyn, I assumed that your use of "subsidizing" had something to do with use of your tax dollars. I will rephrase my comment to say that it is absurd to say that San Diego is "subsidizing" BSA in the case at hand, when the opposite appears to be the case--which Ed understands, and you (and the judge) don't. The judge's decision (and your defense of it) try to suggest that there was a "sweetheart deal" between the city and the BSA, because the leasing opportunity wasn't make available to other entities. But the actual facts--as the judge recites them--make that obviously untrue--BSA approached the city with a proposal and a big sack of money (makes me wonder if you read the opinion). It was all done in the open, and obviously nobody else showed up with a bigger sack of money. This wasn't a case in which, say, the city was looking for an operator for its aquatic center and failed to seek competitive bids. But I suspect, Merlyn--correct me if I'm wrong--that you wouldn't be satisfied if the city had accepted competitive bids--you would oppose the city leasing the land to the BSA under any circumstances, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merlyn_LeRoy Posted April 15, 2004 Author Share Posted April 15, 2004 Oh, ED understands the law, but the judge doesn't?! And "subsidizing" includes leasing land for less-than-market rates, which can happen when leases are granted instead of bid on the open market. However, the judge didn't even need to address that part, since he found method used to lease the land to be unconstitutional. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now