Lambda Legal urges LA to cut ties with Learning for Life

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

 

http://gaynewsblog.net/2008/02/lambda-legal-urges-city-of-los-angeles.html

 

(Los Angeles, February 26, 2008) --- Lambda Legal has sent a strongly-worded request to Los Angeles City Attorney Rocky Delgadillo that the city honor its own nondiscrimination policies and cut ties with a Boy Scouts of America affiliate that currently administers youth programs for the Los Angeles Police and Fire Departments.

 

"Learning for Life" is a national program that provides career education for youth. While its mission statement says LFL does not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation or religion, it is essentially an arm of Boy Scouts of America, which clearly does.

 

"Only a tissue-thin layer of corporate formality, if even that, separates Learning for Life from the Boy Scouts," said Brian Chase, Senior Staff Attorney for Lambda Legal. "The organizations share offices, intermingle finances, and share directors and personnel. This is an attempt by BSA to skirt anti-discrimination policies of Los Angeles and other cities by setting up a not-so-separate corporate entity."

 

In 2000, BSA fought Lambda Legal all the way to the United States Supreme Court in Boy Scouts of America v. Dale, and as a private organization was allowed to continue its policies barring gays, lesbians, agnostics and atheists. But Los Angeles City Code reads that anyone contracting with the city must agree "not to discriminate in his employment practices... against any employee or applicant for employment" due to religion or sexual orientation, among other bases.

 

The letter, delivered Tuesday, February 26, 2008, explains that any city affiliation with Learning for Life is illegal, and that the LAPD should sever all ties with the program, and to develop its cadet program in a way that rejects discrimination and is more consistent with city codes.

 

[OldGreyEagle]

I thought Learning for Life met all the tests as a non-discriminatory organization, so now it doesn't?

[evmori]

Well whoop de do! Wonder how many Lambada members are atheists!

[scoutingagain]

Well they can always write as many letters as they want regardless of facts or reality.

 

This is a much tougher nut to crack though than a BSA unit, that does discriminate at the local level. While, it is true the two organizations share office locations, and probably staff and some intermingling of finances, I don't see how those actions in Irving, TX effect participation and membership in LA. If there are any intermingling of finances I would be willing to bet the private discrimanatory part of the BSA, provides financial support to the non-discrimanatory Learning for Life.

 

I would hope the City would have the kahunas to say, "See you in court if you want. Oh by the way, expect a countersuit for any legal expenses incurred on the City's part to defend itself."

 

 

SA

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

OGE, LL is pointing out that the city code requires that all organizations that contract with the city must meet the city's nondiscrimination requirements, which includes sexual orientation and religion. Even if L4L does not discriminate, the city is contracting with the BSA, which does. The policy doesn't just cover the services rendered, but the organization. And a lot of cities have similar policies.

 

scoutingagain, LL has a solid case. The city code apparently covers the employment practices of every organization that contracts with the city, and not just the service offered through that contract. The LA Area Boy Scouts council discriminates against gays and atheists in employment, so the city can't use their services.(This message has been edited by Merlyn_LeRoy)

[DanKroh]

Ed, Lambda Legal represents the rights of the GLBT community.

[OldGreyEagle]

I am not trying to be obtuse, but I have to say something. Learning for Life is an organization that administers its program to anybody. LFL does not have the same membership requirements as does BSA, but thats not enough?

 

I realize this is from 2002, but this is the 2002 report from Catholic Charities and it shows revenues from "Goverment" of 22,198 (in thousands). How is this possible that this organization would get money from any governmental units as the Catholic Church certainly practices religious and sex discrimination even though it may administer to all who need regardless of who/what they are

 

http://www.catholiccharitiesla.org/annual2002/ccla_annual2002.pdf

 

Page 9

[evmori]

DanKroh,

 

I know that! Are their rights different than ours?

 

Do we know the LA Council has no gays or atheists working for them? They probably don't but do we know they actively discriminate in their employment practices?

 

Ed Mori

1 Peter 4:10

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

OGE, there can certainly be similar cases with Catholic Charities, there's a bill in Colorado that could cut them off from public money because of their discriminatory hiring practices. It's also notable that Catholic Charities officials are threatening that they will have to 'close its doors' if they can't discriminate and get public money at the same time -- so, it's apparently a "charity" only with public money, they aren't interested in running as an entirely private, real, charity.

 

Now, the LA city code only covers LA, and it looks like the city can't contract with the BSA for services without violating that city code. I don't know if LA has any contracts with Catholic Charities, or if the city code has some exemptions, or if there are contracts between LA and CC that also violate the city code. But that doesn't affect whether the L4L contracts violate the city code or not.

[OldGreyEagle]

So, an organization that administers to all isnt good enough? It has to have a totally open employment policy as well before it can give services away?

 

Has Catholic Charities not given help to anyone because that person was gay or atheist or anything?

[evmori]

Good points, OGE, but it is all for naught. The few shall decide the rights of the many.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

OGE, cities can, and many do, try to influence what they see as good and proper behavior by refusing to deal with organizations that discriminate on the basis of religion or sexual orientation. It's quite legal for cities to do this. This doesn't infringe on the BSA's rights; the city is simply (supposed) to refuse to take them up on any city contracts for services, EVEN IF those services don't discriminate. The organization discriminates, and the city does not want to support the organization. Would you object if LA refused to sign any contracts with the KKK due to the KKK's racial discrimination, even if the contract was for services that the KKK would supply in a nondiscriminatory way?

 

Discrimination really isn't popular any more. Governments have a lot of ways they can discourage and distance themselves from discrimination, and refusing to take up the BSA on any programs they offer is one way to do that. If you don't meet the requirements, you're out. Sound at all familiar?

[Gold Winger]

" Would you object if LA refused to sign any contracts with the KKK due to the KKK's racial discrimination, even if the contract was for services that the KKK would supply in a nondiscriminatory way?"

 

Of course.

[skeptic]

I want to know what LL is doing to make life better for the majority of the population. It is wonderful that they want to support and make life easier for their small percentage of the populace. But, attacking organizations that do far more, just because they don't like them is the worst kind of reverse descrimination. How can these sleep at night?

 

Unfortuneately, they can waste money in any way they wish, as they have no restrictions on their legal funds. Frivolous and questionable suits do not require public money, but those they sue have only limited resources and that is what they count on.

 

 

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Skeptic, LL is just telling LA to obey their own city code. Yes, if cities refuse to follow the law, people can bring lawsuits, although it's laughable that you'd try to portray the city of Los Angeles as somehow the underdog and strapped for cash when up against Lambda Legal.