The ACLU and Scouting

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Beavah writes:

Nah, as we've discussed before, your rights stop when yeh try to drive all ideas other than your own out of the public forum.

 

Well, since I've never done this (I'm a big supporter of free speech, and people may have noticed I enjoy arguing), it looks like my rights are doing just fine.

 

I'm curious, do yeh think Wyman was decided correctly?

 

Certainly. A state-run charity drive can set neutral criteria that apply to all organizations participating in that charity drive, and exclude organizations that exclude blacks, Jews, gays, atheists, etc.

 

Should the state be permitted to make it harder for citizens to give money to charities it disagrees with?

 

No, but that's not what the Wyman case was about. Being part of a state-run charity drive is NOT a first amendment right, and the state is only following its own criteria on what organizations can participate. If it WAS a first amendment right, I could sign up my own for-profit "Westley Foundation" and get added too, and pocket all the money people donate, because I have first amendment rights as well.

 

Does that not amount to state-sponsored support one viewpoint over another?

 

No. You'll notice the BSA has been losing lawsuits where they argue that receiving state funds or special deals is somehow a "right" they are entitled to.

[Beavah]

Yah, yeh notice I didn't refer to the legality of the practice, eh? I asked whether yeh agreed with the decision. So bringin' up the decision as case law is just a red herring. Unless you truly believe that the law is the only reference for what is right and wrong, and you agree with the law no matter what it decides.

 

Your notion of a for-profit benefiting is also a red herring, because of course we're talkin' only about charities that qualify as 501©(3)'s.

 

Have yeh ever looked at the list of charities allowed by Connecticut? It includes religious charities, like Christian Military Fellowship, which "supports U.S. military & their families, encouraging them to love and serve the Lord Jesus Christ." It includes a number of charities like the African-American Self-Help foundation and Hispanic Scholarship Fund, that discriminate in their provision of services based on race, gender, ethnicity, or sexual orientation.

 

Yah, there are practical administrative limits for the state of Connecticut that prevent it from listin' every charity out there, eh? To that extent, Wyman has a point. But doesn't it seem to you like the deliberate exclusion of the Boy Scouts was just a wee bit unfair pursuit of a discriminatory agenda by the state, especially when every GSUSA council in CT remains on the list?

 

Beavah

 

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Beavah writes:

So bringin' up the decision as case law is just a red herring. Unless you truly believe that the law is the only reference for what is right and wrong, and you agree with the law no matter what it decides.

 

Well, I just told you I agree with the ruling.

 

Your notion of a for-profit benefiting is also a red herring, because of course we're talkin' only about charities that qualify as 501©(3)'s.

 

Sorry, no, it isn't a red herring where the BSA's argument is concerned; THEY argued that it was a violation of their first amendment rights. I have the same first amendment rights as they do, so if they could successfully argue that they HAD to be on the charity list because not being on the list limited their first amendment rights, I could make the same argument that my private, for-profit organization also must be on the list or my first amendment rights are also being violated.

 

Luckily, the BSA lost that argument.

 

Have yeh ever looked at the list of charities allowed by Connecticut? It includes religious charities, like Christian Military Fellowship, which "supports U.S. military & their families, encouraging them to love and serve the Lord Jesus Christ." It includes a number of charities like the African-American Self-Help foundation and Hispanic Scholarship Fund, that discriminate in their provision of services based on race, gender, ethnicity, or sexual orientation.

 

There may certainly be other organizations that violate the Connecticut requirements; this doesn't justify the BSA one whit, of course.

 

Yah, there are practical administrative limits for the state of Connecticut that prevent it from listin' every charity out there, eh? To that extent, Wyman has a point. But doesn't it seem to you like the deliberate exclusion of the Boy Scouts was just a wee bit unfair pursuit of a discriminatory agenda by the state, especially when every GSUSA council in CT remains on the list?

 

I think the Boy Scouts made their discriminatory policies all too clear, and Connecticut officials decided they had to act on that.

[Beavah]

I think the Boy Scouts made their discriminatory policies all too clear, and Connecticut officials decided they had to act on that.

 

Yah, nice try, eh?

 

Except that all those other groups I mentioned have their policies in black and white in the booklet that the State of Connecticut publishes!. Can't claim ignorance.

 

Only conclusion is a deliberate agenda to target one viewpoint for exclusion, eh?

 

But I'm still curious. Would yeh have agreed with da law had the Wyman decision gone the other way?

 

Beavah

(This message has been edited by Beavah)