Philly raises scouts rent $199,999/year

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

By the way, onehouraweekmy, my position is that the BSA does have the right to exclude gays and atheists, but that the government cannot further their discrimination with public school charters or special lease deals. In fact, such arrangements are why I considered the BSA to be a public accommodation, as no organization that had 10% of its "private clubs" run by public schools could honestly hold itself out as a private, discriminatory, religious organization.

 

If the BSA would act as a private organization, there wouldn't be so many lingering legal issues.

[evmori]

Why shouldn't the BSA be given special lease deals similar to other non-profits? To not allow this would be discrimination.

 

Ed Mori

1 Peter 4:10

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

In this (the Philadelphia case), being a non-profit isn't the only criterion. A city could give special leases to all nonprofits, but since it's possible to create a nonprofit organization that, say, is whites-only, or is only for people whose last name is Westley, it's probably a better idea to have additional requirements than just being a nonprofit, like Philadelphia.

[erickelly65]

I think the government should provide access to a variety of not-for-profits. If a jewish, christian, muslim or atheist group wants to have a softball league only open to their respective belief system and the school has the facilities to have games...go for it. So long as access to those resources is allowed to all, I don't see a problem. As long it is not a group espousing hate or violence against those outside there belief system, I think we should all have access. We all pay our taxes.

[evmori]

Interesting. Maybe Philly should take a closer look at all the lease deals it has out there to make sure they are kicking everyone to the curb who discriminates! Bet a lot of vacant space open up!

 

Ed Mori

1 Peter 4:10

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

erickelly65, there's a difference between a school-run group vs. a private group using school facilities open to the public. A cub pack chartered by a public school is the former, and has the school practicing religious discrimination, which is illegal.

[eolesen]

There are thousands of church congregations who meet in public schools. That doesn't mean that those schools are endorsing the religion, or that they are imposing it. There's no valid argument that can be made for denying law abiding taxpayers access to facilities built and maintained by their tax dollars. That's why so many units still meet in public schools, even though the school district no longer directly charters them. Likewise with units sponsored by fire department auxillaries,

 

As long as other groups aren't denied access to those same facilities, there's nothing wrong with allowing groups who exercise their freedom of association (perhaps the correct description as opposed to the over-use of discriminatory) to be using public facilities.

 

I originally wrote:

When San Diego was faced with kicking BSA out of Balboa Park and Fiesta Island a few years ago, the ACLU filed a brief with the court SUPPORTING the BSA (go figure...).

 

 

Merlyn responded:

No they didn't. The ACLU of San Diego has been litigating against the BSA's special lease, e.g.:

http://www.aclusandiego.org/issues_item.php?cat_id_sel=001&sub_cat_sel=000011&article_id=000065

 

 

My apologies... the brief was labeled as being filed by the ACLU, but was really filed by the American Civil RIGHTS Union...

 

http://www.bsalegal.org/downloads/bsa_pdfs/BWPDFS/Amicus_ACLU.pdf

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Exactly eolesen, private groups, like the BSA and churches, can use school facilities on the same basis as any other outside group. Some schools allow free use, some rent, some don't allow outside groups at all.

 

But a cub scout pack chartered by a public school is not the same thing. When the public school charters it, it's the school's "private, religious, discriminatory" club. And public schools can't run private, religious, discriminatory clubs. If the school has its facilities available to the public, private clubs can use them on the same basis as anyone else. But that's entirely different from a public school chartering a cub scout pack.

[DanKroh]

eolesen writes: "There are thousands of church congregations who meet in public schools. That doesn't mean that those schools are endorsing the religion, or that they are imposing it. There's no valid argument that can be made for denying law abiding taxpayers access to facilities built and maintained by their tax dollars. That's why so many units still meet in public schools, even though the school district no longer directly charters them. Likewise with units sponsored by fire department auxillaries,

 

As long as other groups aren't denied access to those same facilities, there's nothing wrong with allowing groups who exercise their freedom of association (perhaps the correct description as opposed to the over-use of discriminatory) to be using public facilities."

 

eolesen, can you give an example of a scout unit being denied access to public facilities that other groups are still allowed to use? Not a scout unit being denied a special rate (i.e. special lease rate) to use that facility, but being told that they do not have the same access to that public facility that other groups have? And please, lets not try to compare apples to oranges and say that the BSA is the same another group that doesn't exclude based on religion or sexual orientation (there, see, I didn't even have to say the dreaded D-word). Even better, come up with an example of another private organization with exclusionary memberhip policies (especially one that targets groups protected by federal civil rights legislation), that have access to public facilities that the BSA are being denied access to.

 

I have never, ever heard of such a case. All the packs and troops in our town regularly use facilities in our public schools and municipal buildings, and have even been allowed to recruit at after-school activites such as book fairs, etc. If you don't have an example, can we please drop the strawman that the BSA is being denied equal access?

 

Frankly, Merlyn, I think you deserve some sort of metal for your continued willingness to explain facts over and over again.

[Hunt]

I'm sure somebody (maybe me) made this point in an earlier thread, but what's troubling about the Philly situation is really that the city changed the rules--the Scouts didn't change. The concept of the $1 per year lease was that the facility would be used in perpetuity for Scouting--obviously, the city thought that such an arrangement would benefit the people of the city. However, the city initiated a new discrimination policy, and changed the terms of the deal it offered. That just seems cheesy, since BSA built and maintained the building, and the obvious intention of the parties at the inception of the deal was that this would continue in perpetuity. This is why I thought a compromise should have been worked out (such as increasing rent payments over a period of years.) Also, I have yet to learn whether Philly has similar rental agreements with other non-profits with similar membership rules--for example, the Roman Catholic Church. If there really aren't any, I can't say that Philly's action is unfair, exactly. I would still say that it was handled in a cheesy manner, however. (I blame both the city and the Council for pretending that some kind of non-discrimination statement by the Council could solve the problem--they must have known better.)

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Hunt, the city never changed the deal. The lease has always said that either side can terminate the lease by giving one year's notice. And I would say the BSA "changed the deal" by going to the supreme court to define itself as a private religious organization. Leasing public land to a religious organization at special rates has problems even without a local nondiscrimination ordinance.

 

In any case, what the city did is certainly legal. They had a lease that said they could end it by giving one year's notice, and they exercised it. I haven't even heard any BSA lawyers try to misrepresent this as a "public forum" red herring.

[Eamonn]

I don't live in Philadelphia.

At this time I don't have any plans to move there.

But for the sake of argument, let's say I moved there and was elected to the city council.

I'm informed that the BSA is a private organization.

I knew that!!

As a private organization, the BSA is free to grant membership to any group that it wants. It is also free to turn away any group that it doesn't want.

I know this because the Supreme Court has ruled it so.

The guy who lives next door to me is a gay atheist. Who really feels that he doesn't want the money he pays out in taxes to be used to support an organization that would never allow him membership.

While maybe I might not care for his lifestyle or believe in what he believes in?

I do see his point.

As a Scouter I may well agree with the BSA.

But if I were serving on the Philadelphia City Council? I don't see that I'd have any choice but to vote against any organization that discriminates being supported with tax payers monies.

This would not in any way change my support for the BSA.

I of course am very aware of the good I think the BSA can do and does.

Still we can't have it both ways!!

We seem happy to be a private organization.

I'm unsure why some people think that we (The BSA) are or need to be a special case?

Eamonn.

 

[evmori]

Hunt, the city never changed the deal. The lease has always said that either side can terminate the lease by giving one year's notice. And I would say the BSA "changed the deal" by going to the supreme court to define itself as a private religious organization.

 

The BSA went to court to defend it's right as a private organization to restrict it's membership. No change in the deal at all.

 

Ed Mori

1 Peter 4:10

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Ed, the SC decision determined whether the BSA was a public accomodation or a private organization.

[Gold Winger]

For someone who isn't involved in Scouting, Mervyn seems to spend far too much time worry about what the Scouts do. Makes you wonder if he was frightened by a group of Boy Scouts when he was a baby. Other possibilities come to mind. Maybe his mother wouldn't let him join because she was afraid that he'd get dirty while camping.