Judge rules Fiesta Island lease unconstitutional, too

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

fboisseau writes:

 

...

The first set of exchanges between you and me, put you in the corner of agreeing that the state should not treat a religious organization any differently then a non-religious organization.

 

That isn't how I interpreted your original question. I thought you were asking if the government could treat organizations differently based on what religious beliefs or non-beliefs those organizations held (such as a Christian organization vs. an atheist organization). The government can and does treat religious organizations differently from other types of organizations because the government has to be careful not to involve itself in religious discrimination by showing favoritism.

 

And ProudEagle, if you'll read the ruling, like all court rulings it spells out in rather tedious detail what laws and previous court rulings the decision is based on. And it's still possible if this decision is overturned for the lease to be invalidated on other grounds, such as atheists being excluded from public property as you mentioned. Judge Jones didn't even need to consider that argument since he found that the lease wasn't legally drawn up, but that argument can be addressed later if his decision is reversed.

 

For example, in the pledge of allegiance case, if the supreme court decides that Dr. Newdow doesn't have standing, the supreme court won't even address the constitutionality of having teachers lead schoolchildren in the pledge. In the same way, Judge Jones did not even need to consider whether other aspects of the lease rendered it unconstitutional once he ruled that the lease wasn't properly awarded.

 

In fact, this could go on for years. Jones' ruling could be reversed and sent back down to be reheard; the judge could then rule that the lease is unlawful due to, say, atheists being excluded from public property. Then THAT could be reversed based on standing, since (as far as I know), the plaintiffs didn't actually apply to get their sons admitted to the Boy Scouts to be presumably turned down. And if that happens, all it would take would be for someone to actually apply and be turned down to produce a new plaintiff with proper standing to start a new lawsuit. And we're back to square one.

[evmori]

Is anyone being denied use of this property because of their religious beliefs? I seriously doubt it. Even if these people who the ACLU initiated the suit for did apply to the BSA for membership & were denied due to their lack of belief in God then their beef would be with the BSA not the city of San Diego! The city isn't denying them membership, the BSA is!

 

The judge who gave this ruling is playing "Catch 22" with the BSA. The Supreme Court ruled the BSA is a private organization (not religious) and can set it's own membership guidelines. Now this judge in the Land of Fruits and Nuts is penalizing the BSA because he feels the BSA membership guidelines are discriminatory! If this ends up back at the Supreme Court, the BSA will win!

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[Hunt]

I think the appeals court (maybe the Supreme Court) will rule that the process used was sufficiently open and public that a formal bidding process was not necessary to satisfy constitutional requirements. I'm not aware of any evidence--the judge doesn't cite any--that anybody objected to this deal when it was made in 1987, or that it was done in secret.

What's really pathetic about this is that the City has the right not to renew the lease for any reason (or no reason) when it ends, and the City will then own the facility free and clear. If the lease is ended prematurely, however, I suspect that a court may rule that the city has to pay BSA for its lost ability to use the facility.

[fboisseau]

Merlyn_LeRoy,

 

I would of though my first question was very simple. I was asking if you believed that the government should treat a religious organization differently then a non-religious organization, based on their beliefs. I now understand that you believe that the government should discriminate against religious organization just because of their beliefs. Next question, how many individuals constitute a group. Is that number 100000, 1000, 100, 2, or 1?

 

See the difference between you and me is that I believe that if a group approaches the government with a proposal program, benefit, or facility that they will open to all individuals or groups equally and a request for a little support (such as money, or land). And given that the group is a legal entity, then the state should not discriminate based on thats group's beliefs. I believe that all citizens and groups of citizens should not be treated as second class citizens and be denied government support when they want to help society.

 

You on the other hand believe that if a group is religious it should be treated as a group of second class citizens that should not be allowed help from the government when it wants to do something good for the community as a whole.

 

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

See the difference between you and me is that I believe that if a group approaches the government with a proposal program, benefit, or facility that they will open to all individuals or groups equally and a request for a little support (such as money, or land). And given that the group is a legal entity, then the state should not discriminate based on thats group's beliefs.

 

Well, that isn't the case here; the Boy Scouts get preferential use of this supposedly public land, and you can't even book "their" segment of Balboa park during the peak summer months because the Boy Scouts reserve it all for themselves. The Fiesta Island lease allows the BSA to reserve up to 75% of the use of the facilities for themselves. And since atheists can't join, it isn't open to all equally.

[Fat Old Guy]

"formal bidding process was not necessary to satisfy constitutional requirements."

 

I didn't know that bidding was covered in the Constitution.

[fboisseau]

Merlyn_LeRoy

Then get the terms of the lease adjusted so that it is open more often to other groups instead of the BSA. Do not destroy the benefit to the community, because you do not like the group that is providing that benefit. It is call negotiation. What you and your group(s) are engaged in is called "cutting your nose off to spite your face". I will also point out that whatever is negotiated between the BSA and the city should be used as a template for other groups.

 

So if the city negotiated that the BSA could only reserve 50% of the time during a months for their programs at that facility. Then if another group let say the Young Boys Club, built a facility with a special city government lease then they could reserve it for only 50% of the time available during a month. (The percentage list above are just for reference and should not reflect what should be actually done, that should be left up to the negotiations.)

 

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Then get the terms of the lease adjusted so that it is open more often to other groups instead of the BSA.

 

Better yet, open the lease to public bidding so the city can get the best deal.

 

Do not destroy the benefit to the community, because you do not like the group that is providing that benefit.

 

The problem isn't "not liking" the group, the problem is that the group discriminates on the basis of religion.

 

I will also point out that whatever is negotiated between the BSA and the city should be used as a template for other groups.

 

For a start, how about enforcing the city's written policy against leasing Mission Bay Park areas to discriminatory organizations (Fiesta Island is in Mission Bay Park). The city actually has such a policy, and it was ignored for the Boy Scouts.

[evmori]

Better yet, open the lease to public bidding so the city can get the best deal.

 

All work completed and maintained at no cost to the city. Is there a better deal?

 

The problem isn't "not liking" the group, the problem is that the group discriminates on the basis of religion.

 

Which according to the Supreme Court is OK!

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Not for the city, Ed, but you still don't understand the issues.

 

It's legal for the KKK to exclude non-whites, but that doesn't mean the city can decide to lease them city land for $1/year.

[evmori]

Ya know Merlyn, you keep telling me I don't understand the issues but refuse to explain them! I think what you don't understand is I understand the issues better than you. I just don't agree with you skewed point of view of the issues! All the BSA did was offer to improve and maintain the land at no cost to the city in return for a cheap lease & use of the land when they wanted to use it. The city said yes & they worked up an agreement. Now a couple of people who don't like the BSA because the BSA has different morals than them decided to sue because the BSA discriminates! Well guess what! The Supreme Court ruled the BSA was a private group not a public accommodation and could set it's own rules for membership! You call it discrimination! I call it membership guidelines! Augusta Country Club doesn't allow women! You must be a male to join. That's one of their membership guidelines! The Girl Scouts doesn't allow boys. And there and millions more examples! Your KKK example is flawed as long as the KKK doesn't required that only white people get the advantage of what they are doing!

 

 

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

 

Ed, I've tried to explain concepts to you before, and you simply can't understand them, so I'm not going to bother anymore. I'll let you be baffled by court decisions that are beyond your comprehension.

[evmori]

Ed, I've tried to explain concepts to you before, and you simply can't understand them, so I'm not going to bother anymore. I'll let you be baffled by court decisions that are beyond your comprehension.

 

Actually, Merlyn, what is beyond my comprehension is your utter lack of sense! Since the judge ruled the lease unconstitutional, show me where in the Constitution it states a city MUST take bids for work to be done! It isn't in there! The suit is baseless and costing the taxpayers money not to mention the bad press the city & the BSA are getting.

 

You just keep up your fight for pointless values. You're good at that.

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10(This message has been edited by evmori)

[packsaddle]

The comment about 'catch 22' relates well to the topic. It is the same 'catch 22' as the one regarding loss of funding from various sources, notably United Way. BSA knew the consequences, made the choice, and is now paying the price for that choice. The 'catch 22' was that BSA can't have its cake (public support) and eat it (private exclusive membership) too. It was an informed policy decision by BSA with predicted results. BSA is in complete control and it can have its favored status again with a stroke of its pen and a change of policy. However, BSA chooses to maintain the status quo, evidently having decided the price is worth it. Time to stop whining and get on with scouting.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

[packsaddle]

Duh!(This message has been edited by packsaddle)