Boy Scout troops in Europe have little trouble finding new sponsors

[evmori]

packsaddle,

The judges wouldn't even have cases like these if the ACLU didn't dig up people to retain them to pursue these cases!

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[packsaddle]

Well....yeah. Lucky for the rest of us, too!

[NWScouter]

Ed,

So you agree that these are violations of the constitution, but we just shouldnt uphold it.

 

[evmori]

NW,

No I don't agree these are violations of the Constitution.

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[fgoodwin]

According to the Supreme Court, BSA policies do not violate the Constitution.

 

So how can the ACLU claim that school or military sponsorship of a group that does not violate the Constitution, then violate the Constitution?

[SR540Beaver]

Ed: The judges wouldn't even have cases like these if the ACLU didn't dig up people to retain them to pursue these cases!

 

The judges wouldn't have criminal cases to deal with either if the police didn't go out and arrest people.

 

Some people approach the ACLU with civil liberty cases and the ACLU keeps an ear to the ground for cases that they feel are civil rights injustices. They exist for a reason Ed and making sure that every US citizen is provided the civil rights guaranteed them by the Constitution are upheld is the reason. What is wrong with championing the downtrodden? Doesn't the Scout Oath say, "to help other people at all times"? Are we to teach our Scouts to only help certain people at certain times?

[NJCubScouter]

fgoodwin says:

 

According to the Supreme Court, BSA policies do not violate the Constitution.

 

Really? Which Supreme Court decision says that BSA policies do not violate the Constitution?

 

To save you the trouble of finding one that says that, I'll tell you: There isn't one. In fact it is highly unlikely that there would ever be a case about whether the policies of the BSA or any other non-governmental organization violate the Constitution, because with one exception, the Constitution only prohibits conduct by government (federal and state) and not "private" conduct, that is, conduct by individuals or non-governmental organizations. (The one type of conduct prohibited directly by the Constitution regardless of who is doing it is slavery, by the 13th Amendment.)

 

The relevant Supreme Court case (BSA v. Dale) dealt with whether the BSA's anti-gay policy violated a New Jersey state statute. The Supreme Court (by a 5-4 vote) decided that the statute could not be constitutionally applied against the BSA.

 

So how can the ACLU claim that school or military sponsorship of a group that does not violate the Constitution, then violate the Constitution?

 

Since the middle part of your question is based on a false premise (as explained above), the question is meaningless. In the case of the Department of Defense, the constitutional issue is obvious: The government cannot discriminate against atheists, and therefore it cannot own a unit of an organization that discriminates against atheists.

[evmori]

SR540Beaver,

Can't compare criminal & civil. Two completely different animals. But, if there was no crime, we would still need judges to handle the civil cases!

 

NJ is correct! The supreme court ruled the BSA as a private organization has the right to set it's own membership requirements. I don't think they said a thing about discrimination. However, it is kind of odd how a group who can by law set it's own membership requirements be persecuted for those very requirements!

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[Hunt]

The suggestion that the ACLU is "self-serving" is an example of something I have been seeing more and more in public discourse--the idea that those who disagree with you don't really disagree, but rather have some hypocritical, ulterior motive for disagreeing. This attitude can make it difficult to really understand the issues. It's much easier to dismiss the ACLU if we think they don't really object to discrimination, but have some secret reason for harassing the BSA. On the other hand, if you accept the idea that people in the ACLU think it's wrong to discriminate against gays and atheists, you have to explain why you think it's OK for BSA to do so, on the merits. (By the way, this attitude is rampant on both sides of most issues--BSA opponents think BSA is full of homophobes and religious fanatics who know that discrimination is wrong but do it anyway for their own ulterior motives.)

[evmori]

The BSA is a private organization that has membership guidelines. The ACLU doesn't like these guidelines & is doing everything in it's power to destroy the BSA. There is no other organization that has received this type of treatment from the ACLU!

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[NJCubScouter]

Ed says:

 

The supreme court ruled the BSA as a private organization has the right to set it's own membership requirements. I don't think they said a thing about discrimination.

 

You don't think so? That seemed kind of odd to me, since the entire case was about discrimination and whether the BSA has a constitutional right to discriminate in a way that state law says is prohibited. So I found the opinion and did a word search on "discriminate," "discrimination" and all variations thereof. The word appears in the majority opinion 11 times and the dissenting opinions 49 times for a total of 60 times. Now, a few of those are in appendices where the New Jersey statute at issue (called the "Law Against Discrimination," by the way) is quoted directly, and of course the statute uses the word discrimination, but the vast majority of the references are in the text of the opinions. But regardless of how you count it, I'd say the Supreme Court said much more than "a thing" about discrimination.

[NWScouter]

Ed,

Have you ever tried to get a federal, state or local contract? If you had for example a company that would not hire people based on their race, religion, or sex (and some areas sexual preferences), you could not get a contract. There are some laws that make you hire without discrimination but if you are small enough no one can make you hire anyone but the law says they cant buy from you.

 

The law says the same thing about the BSA, it may set its own membership requirements but it must accept that it has consequences no government entities chartering units, United Way chapters not giving money, business and people refusing to contribute, organizations refusing to support, and bad publicity.

 

[evmori]

I didn't mean they didn't use the word discrimination or discriminate, NJ! You're starting to sound like Bob White!

 

Ed Mori

Troop 1

1 Peter 4:10

[SR540Beaver]

Ed,

 

It is called an analogy. You are correct, if people didn't commit crimes, there would be no criminal cases. Likewise, if civil rights were not violated, the ACLU would go out of business. Do a google search and you will find that there are a number of conservative civil rights legal groups who do the same thing the ACLU does. They go out and dig up cases that reflect their mission statement and drag them before the courts. Guess what they do? They provide their services free of charge to their clients. Know who pays for their services? Same as ACLU, they get their costs paid by the party they are suing and your tax dollars if it is the government being sued.

[Hunt]

In Dale, the Supreme Court basically ruled that the state of New Jersey can't stop BSA from discriminating, any more than it could make the Roman Catholic Church stop discriminating. The plaintiffs in the case, along with the ACLU, tried to make a distinction between BSA and groups (like churches) that clearly can discriminate under the Constitution, and they failed to persuade the Court. So yes, BSA has a constitutionally-protected right to discriminate.

But that is irrelevant to the following two questions:

1. Can a government entity sponsor a BSA unit? Just as a government entity clearly couldn't sponsor a Roman Catholic youth group that discriminated against non-Catholics, it can't sponsor a BSA group that discriminates against atheists. (Indeed, if the Dale case is relevant, it cuts the other way, because BSA argued that its ability to discriminate against atheists was one of its core values.)

2. Is it morally right for BSA to discriminate against atheists and gays? This is not a legal question, and thus the argument that BSA has the legal right to set its membership criteria isn't an answer either. Personally, I think it's morally defensible for BSA to discriminate against atheists, because it's an explicitly religions organization, in some ways like a church. I'm more conflicted when it comes to gays, but it's still a moral (or religious) question.