San Diego and 9th Circuit

[skeptic]

Merlyn:

 

I have no idea if you have ever actually seen either Mission Beach or Balboa Park; but if you have, you would know that the areas in question are only a very small part of the parks overall. So, if you are not able to use a particular area for a certain time frame, there are many other similar areas still accessible. If it is the equipment and facilities that are at issue, then, we come back to why you think BSA should pay for these items and their upkeep, supervise safety considerations, and so on, yet not have some type of relatively minor priority of use for their own groups. It has little or nothing to do with blocked off time in the summer keeping these individuals from using the park or beach. Again, if the facility is in use, then arrange another time or another place. It is not that difficult for reasonable people; but, as you note with your Shaw quote, unreasonable people are somehow more important.

 

And we bemoan the state of the country, even as our supposedly unbiased and wise leaders and educators continue to bow to PC minorities and the "Me, Me" attitude. Rights are not license if you actually "read" the constitution with some sort of fairness to more than yourself. Most of our founders have likely polished their bones to a high luster by now watching some of the things that pass for balanced interpretation. (Of course that means nothing to you, since you do not believe in God).

 

Very little, if anything, has changed from you over the past year or more that I can see. When someone challenges you with a legitimate question or statement that would require a possible shift in your view, you simply ignore it and throw out the same PC fodder. I keep waiting for you to actually look beyond your blinders and admit that there are areas where you may have room for flexibility or compromise for the better good. It is really rather sad to see this from someone who seems on many levels to be well read and intelligent.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

skeptic writes:

I have no idea if you have ever actually seen either Mission Beach or Balboa Park; but if you have, you would know that the areas in question are only a very small part of the parks overall. So, if you are not able to use a particular area for a certain time frame, there are many other similar areas still accessible.

 

So Montgomery should have been able to allow blacks to sit in the front in only most of their busses, and still permit a few busses to continue segregation, since only a few busses would be left, and many other busses would still be accessable?

 

And we bemoan the state of the country, even as our supposedly unbiased and wise leaders and educators continue to bow to PC minorities and the "Me, Me" attitude. Rights are not license if you actually "read" the constitution with some sort of fairness to more than yourself.

 

You might have overlooked the fact that the BSA is currently losing this lawsuit.

 

I keep waiting for you to actually look beyond your blinders and admit that there are areas where you may have room for flexibility or compromise for the better good.

 

In other words, you keep waiting for me to agree that atheists should be treated like second-class citizens if it involves some feel-good benefit, like making a lot of kids happy, as long as they aren't nasty atheist children.

 

[evmori]

Ed, gays and atheists (and girls, for that matter) have inferior access to public parkland, because the BSA controls access and prefers their own members.

 

And how does this violate their civil rights, Merlyn?

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

The same way blacks had their civil rights infringed by city busses in Montgomery, Ed. They could ride the busses, they just didn't get equal treatment. The court said it violated equal protection under the 14th amendment.

[skeptic]

Merlyn;

 

How do you feel about the fact the Girl Scouts having similar special treatment for their members at the neighboring camp? They take precedence over outside users during certain times. Should the lawsuit be expanded to include them as well? Perhaps also the other groups with similar leases who all have priority times for their groups?

[evmori]

The same way blacks had their civil rights infringed by city busses in Montgomery, Ed. They could ride the busses, they just didn't get equal treatment. The court said it violated equal protection under the 14th amendment.

 

Completely different & not applicable Merlyn!

 

Regardless of race, color, creed, national origin, or sexual orientation, if the place is reserved, no one can get in. No ones right are violated.

[SSScout]

For bucoo bucks, BSA leases a large section of the local park (5 picnic pavillions, the sport field, the "lower woods area", the "middle woods area" and the boat house pavillion for our CSDC. Upwards of 200 Cub Scouts swarm over the area, but the park people insist we cannot impede the publics use of the rest of the park. John and Mary Q. Public walk around and thru the camp all day. We have even had joggers run THRU the roped off archery range. So is this part of this decision?

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Skeptic, I don't know the details of the girl scout arrangement. Do you have any?

 

Ed, your objection is with the court, they brought up the similarities.

 

ssscout, no, a local park (presumably in Maryland) isn't part of a legal decision in California. Duh.

[skeptic]

If you read the legal documents, you will note comments regarding GS, as well as others. My understanding is there are time frames with GS usage having priority over public use. Of course, the GS have bent to the PC harassment and eliminated some of their traditional rules.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

I only recall reading very slanted remarks written by BSA lawyers, who for some reason think that somehow makes their arrangement legal. And the GSUSA took an actual vote to change their policies (and they weren't being harassed); the BSA doesn't bother, they just announce whatever policies exist by fiat (or make a secret, internal memo, and announce it whenever they feel like it).

[SSScout]

Rosa Parks was not seeking to ride a privately chartered bus. She was seeking to use a publicly provided utility.

 

Yes, my park is in Maryland, but the California court decision is a Federal Law Decision and will, therefor, provide precedent in all 50 states. Hence my query, duh.

 

My reading of the provided sources indicates the court is allowing legal standing to the idea of injury thru non-injurious offense. Name calling is generally not a sueable offense, except in extreme cases, am I correct? Name calling to the point of inciting a riot, for instance. But if purely an idea or a quality of belonging (membership?) is found "offensive", then, by this ruling, in far less than extreme cases, the mere declaration of being "offended" can be grounds for seeking recompense (how much is an insult worth?).

 

In my park, we go to lengths to assure the public has access to that part of the park that the CSDC is not actually using.

And we make sure that the public is aware that our leased part of the park is brimming with overactive, loud Cub Scouts. And yes, the park people get complaints about "limiting use of OUR parks" from folks. But these complaints are no different than the ones they receive about the reserved use by Locheed Martin, or the County Rec Department, or the State Police (when they close off the park for rescue dog training. You wanna jog past a dozen German Shepards?), or the First XYZ Church Christian school Day Camp. All could be offensive to someone, but all have reserved the park in their turn and paid the appropriate fee.

So the court case is certainly not really about Park Use. Is it?

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

ssscout writes:

Rosa Parks was not seeking to ride a privately chartered bus. She was seeking to use a publicly provided utility.

 

Owned by a private bus company. Public transportation provided by a private company. Just as use of public parkland is being regulated by a private organization.

 

Yes, my park is in Maryland, but the California court decision is a Federal Law Decision and will, therefor, provide precedent in all 50 states. Hence my query, duh.

 

Well, your hypothetical had no resemblance to the San Diego situation. It's apparently the current policy in that park in your area already, so your bizarre question "so is this part of the decision" doesn't make sense. I doubt the people running that park have even heard of the Barnes-Wallace case.

 

My reading of the provided sources indicates the court is allowing legal standing to the idea of injury thru non-injurious offense.

 

I disagree. It's like the Montgomery bus situation -- everyone could ride, it's just some people were second-class. That was ruled to violate the 14th amendment for equal treatment.

 

But if purely an idea or a quality of belonging (membership?) is found "offensive", then, by this ruling, in far less than extreme cases, the mere declaration of being "offended" can be grounds for seeking recompense (how much is an insult worth?).

 

Since your assumption is wrong, your conclusion is wrong.

 

So the court case is certainly not really about Park Use. Is it?

 

Of course it is. Your example is backwards. Change it so American Atheists controls who can rent the park, and they refuse to allow any boy scouts to rent any park of public parkland during the summer. Sounds fair, right?

 

 

 

[evmori]

Bottom line is the original decision was based on flawed logic & now those who made that decision are running & hiding. SCOTUS will do the right thing.

[Gunny2862]

So, would it make the plaintiffs happier if the BSA organization who rented the park said "No non-BSA members allowed during the time of our rental period" rather than playing nice and allowing use to others during off-peak or low usage times?

 

This is patently ridiculous. Try to be nice...

 

If everyone has the right to use the park (at will and with a lack of possible offense from any vector then)the the City is at fault for "renting" it out to ANYONE(and if offense is the standard they should probably put up very high walls with no doors so that NO ONE can get in); OR, no one has the right to complain if someone else has rented the park - find another place to be until you rent the park or it has reverted to city use public space.

[ScoutMomSD]

"So, when the Zoological society at the San Diego Zoo has a special set of hours for members to attend and see new things, or simply enjoy as members, someone who is not a member should have the right to participate during that time too, even though they do not meet requirements?"

 

As a member of the SD Zoological society (and having been one for close to 20 years), note that it is not limited to race, sexual preferance or religion. If you have the money to join, you can join. And there are no religious references and meetings and events arent held in a church.

 

I am a proud and loyal scout leader, at least to my Pack and Den.

 

But you cant support prop 8, have a huge influence of the LDS church (ie from what I can tell ALL monthly committee meetings IN THE COUNTY are in LDS churches), have discussions as have happened NUMEROUS times on this board that you have to have a religion to be in the group, have religious badges, etc.

 

The girl scouts have a much nicer property that is right next door, I mean if you take a left you will be on their property from the BSA spot. The girl scouts have NEVER had this issue. BUT the girl scouts are not joined at the hip to a religious organization and do not have the religious requirements. I have never even heard in Girl Scouts (and I was one, my mom was a leader and my daughter has been one for 6 years) of even asking about religion.

 

I have no problems with the boy scouts and folks on this board having their opinions. But when you are cited for precisely that, dont complain. You cant have it both ways.

 

Proud boy scout AND girl scout mom and proud San Diegan for 21 years.