Why does bsalegal.org condone gross violations of the Scout Law?

[Fat Old Guy]

"You dont seriously think thats comparable, do you? The discrimination is in activities, not types of people, and it is with regard to areas which the school has a legitimate interest. And why couldnt you join the French club?"

 

Sure it is. How many boys do you see on the girl's basketball team? What's that you say, they have their own team? Separate but equal? Didn't work for education or bathrooms, did it? Oh, I guess that's okay because it discriminates against men.

 

Why couldn't I join the French club? I don't speak French. Duh!

[whitewater]

Merlyn,

 

I have read the decision- I just don't agree with it. My impression was that the judge was against the Scouts from the beginning.

 

The fact that he sided with the plaintiffs on their contention that the City's leases with other non-profit organizations was irrelevant, supports my feelings that he was biased. I think the other lease arrangements are very relevant. The fact that the BSA is singled out, when there examples of similar lease arrangements, supports my contention of viewpoint bias.

 

I also don't follow his reasoning that the lease violates the establishment clause. It sounded like the judge quoted every available resource that mentioned religion in order to support his belief that the Scouts were a primarily religious organization. He mentioned very little of the secular nature of the majority of Scout activities.

 

Deloe,

The BSA is 'fighting' for their right because they are under attack. I don't agree that everyone is 'supporting' the Boy Scouts because they lease land from the city. The agreement with the city was a value-for-value arrangement. The BSA was required to spend millions on development of the property, in addition to maintainance, utilities, etc. as a condition of the lease. In return the City gets facilities, without cost to the city, that are available to other groups besides the Scouts.

 

'Have you ever heard of an ATHEIST group being offered a rent-free lease?' That is only relevant if they were turned down. The majority of the leases by San Diego to non-profit groups are low-rent or rent-free. And it should be noted that some of them were also exclusive negotiations.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

whitewater writes:

I have read the decision- I just don't agree with it. My impression was that the judge was against the Scouts from the beginning.

 

The fact that he sided with the plaintiffs on their contention that the City's leases with other non-profit organizations was irrelevant, supports my feelings that he was biased. I think the other lease arrangements are very relevant. The fact that the BSA is singled out, when there examples of similar lease arrangements, supports my contention of viewpoint bias.

 

I also don't follow his reasoning that the lease violates the establishment clause. It sounded like the judge quoted every available resource that mentioned religion in order to support his belief that the Scouts were a primarily religious organization. He mentioned very little of the secular nature of the majority of Scout activities.

 

Well, you keep talking about the USE of public facilities, as if the judge ruled that the BSA can't use or rent public property, which isn't at all the issue. The city gave the BSA a special deal.

 

And the other leases ARE irrelevant; some of them may or may not be legal, but that doesn't affect whether the BSA lease is legal. The only reason the BSA was "singled out" is because the lawsuit was filed against the BSA's lease; if you think other leases are illegal, you are free to file your own lawsuit against those other leases. The ACLU is not required to file lawsuits against all leases that may be illegal in order to press a lawsuit against a single lease that may be illegal.

 

And if you read the ruling carefully, you'll notice the judge ruled the BSA a religious organization partly because the BSA's own filed briefs SAID they were a religious organization. And the BSA's secular activites are irrelevant as long as they keep out atheists for not having acceptable religious beliefs; a country club that doesn't admit Jews is still practicing religious discrimination even if all they do is play golf.

[Fat Old Guy]

Gee Moi-lin, your CV doesn't say anything about you being a lawyer. Are you?

[whitewater]

"Well, you keep talking about the USE of public facilities, as if the judge ruled that the BSA can't use or rent public property, which isn't at all the issue. The city gave the BSA a special deal."

 

I don't agree that it is a 'special deal' without knowing what deals were given to other groups. Therefor, the other leases aren't irrelevant. Even on its own merits, I'm not so convinced the lease is such a 'special deal' since the City received substantial value in return.

 

Why would what the BSA considers itself, be relevant to the Judge. Shouldn't the definition of what the BSA, is be determined by facts, not the BSA's opinion?

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Well, you said you read the decision, but you somehow missed things like the judge also citing facts to conclude that the BSA is a religious organization; he didn't base it solely on the BSA's self-declaration of being a religious organization, nor did I say it was the only reason.

 

And yes, the BSA lease was a special deal; no other organization was given the opportunity to lease the property or give a different proposal on how to use the land.

[whitewater]

I didn't miss anything, I was simply responding to your comment.

 

The Judge apparently missed several other precidents for determining whether or not the BSA should be considered a religious organization.

 

In EEOC v. Kamehameda Schools/Bishop Estate, the Ninth Circuit Court held that a group of private schools with a religious charter, daily class prayers, prayer before meals, required Christian religious intruction, and required attendance at worship services were not religious institutions because the curriculum was predominately secular. If these schools are deemed secular for legal puposes then how can the BSA be called religious?

 

Even in the BSA v. Dale case, the BSA was not considered a religious organization or it would have been able to use the Free Exercise Clause.

 

It's been said that the Boy Scouts are trying to have it both ways, but it sounds to me like the Judge in California is the one trying to have it both ways.

 

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

If you're advocating that the BSA is not a religious organization, I think you should direct your criticism at the BSA for filing court documents where they've said they're a religious organization. Why are you complaining about a judge AGREEING with the BSA's position?

[whitewater]

I just think that whatever the BSA considers itself to be may not correspond to what their legal status should be in this case. There is legal precidence to NOT classify them as a religious organization here.

 

My beef with the judge is not that he AGREED with the Boy Scouts' self-definition. My beef is that he apparently didn't consider some valid court cases in making that determination.

 

I do think that the BSA declaring themselves a religious organization in a such a case may not have been a wise move from a legal standpoint.

[Deloe]

FOG:

Separate but equal? Didn't work for education or bathrooms, did it? Oh, I guess that's okay because it discriminates against men.

Men are not being discriminated against; if anything, its the women that are. But I dont think theres much chance of discussing this rationally with you. You still refuse to tell me whats wrong with my explanation.

 

Why couldn't I join the French club? I don't speak French. Duh!

And didnt you CHOOSE not to learn French?

 

Whitewater:

The fact that the BSA is singled out, when there examples of similar lease arrangements, supports my contention of viewpoint bias.

Can you name such a lease?

 

It sounded like the judge quoted every available resource that mentioned religion in order to support his belief that the Scouts were a primarily religious organization.

Do you disagree with the contention that the BSA holds the promotion of religion, and religious values, to be a major goal?

 

The BSA is 'fighting' for their right because they are under attack.

Under attack is a rather biased way of looking at it. And they are not fighting merely because they are under attack. Surely you arent saying that the BSA, when sued, automatically will oppose the suit, regardless of the issue?

 

The agreement with the city was a value-for-value arrangement.

That claim is belied by their continued resistance to the ruling. If it truly were the citys best use of the land, they would not need to appeal the ruling. They could simply apply for a renewal of the lease on an equal basis with everyone else.

 

That is only relevant if they were turned down

Huh? You mean you dont think any atheist group has ever been turned down?

 

The majority of the leases by San Diego to non-profit groups are low-rent or rent-free.

But they dont promote religion.

 

I don't agree that it is a 'special deal' without knowing what deals were given to other groups.

Unless the same deal were offered to EVERY SINGLE other group, its a special deal.

 

Even on its own merits, I'm not so convinced the lease is such a 'special deal' since the City received substantial value in return.

Either they received market value, or they didnt. One or the other. If they received market value, then putting this lease on the open market will not result in any change. If they didnt receive market value, then it was a special deal.

 

If these schools are deemed secular for legal puposes then how can the BSA be called religious?

Do you have a link to the text of that decision?

 

Even in the BSA v. Dale case, the BSA was not considered a religious organization or it would have been able to use the Free Exercise Clause.

Can you cite what part of the decision to which you are referring?

 

It's been said that the Boy Scouts are trying to have it both ways, but it sounds to me like the Judge in California is the one trying to have it both ways.

Is the judge both claiming that the BSA is a religious organization, and claiming that it isnt?

[Fat Old Guy]

"Men are not being discriminated against; if anything, its the women that are."

 

Again Dee-low shows how little he know of the real world. Quite often the women's rest room has sofas and comfy chairs and carpeting. Men's room's have ceramic fixtures.

 

"And didnt you CHOOSE not to learn French?"

 

Don't atheists choose to not believe in a supreme being?(This message has been edited by Fat Old Guy)

[whitewater]

The fact that the BSA is singled out, when there examples of similar lease arrangements, supports my contention of viewpoint bias. Can you name such a lease?

The City of San Diego leases real property to 123 non-profit organizations.  Of these, 96 either pay no rent or less than the $2500 annual administrative fee that the Boy Scouts pay for Camp Balboa.  Fifty of these leases are for 25 years or longer. Other exclusively negotiated leases were made to the Girl Scouts, several YMCA's, Hillel of San Diego, the Black Police Officer's Association, the San Diego Hebrew Day School, the Sherman Heights Community Center, the Neighborhood House Association, the Japanese Friendship Garden Society, and others.The City also leases property to religious organizations: San Diego Calvary Korean Church, the Point Loma Comm. Presbyterian Church, the Jewish Community Center.

Do you disagree with the contention that the BSA holds the promotion of religion, and religious values, to be a major goal?

I believe the BSA  promotes religious values as only one part of a broader program to promote positive character development in our youth.

The BSA is 'fighting' for their right because they are under attack. Under attack is a rather biased way of looking at it. And they are not fighting merely because they are under attack. Surely you arent saying that the BSA, when sued, automatically will oppose the suit, regardless of the issue?

? Are you suggesting that it's not proper to fight a suit?  The BSA believes they are right, I believe they are right.  Why wouldn't they fight back?  Look at the litigation against the Scouts in the last 20 years- I think 'under attack' is appropriate.

The agreement with the city was a value-for-value arrangement. That claim is belied by their continued resistance to the ruling. If it truly were the citys best use of the land, they would not need to appeal the ruling. They could simply apply for a renewal of the lease on an equal basis with everyone else.

If the City didn't feel the agreement was the best use of the land, why did they originally extend the lease? And what does their resistance to the ruling have to do with it?  The Boy Scouts built a $4 million aquatic center which is available to the public, they've spent millions on other improvements, they pay utilities, insurance, etc. and the City has to pay nothing.  The intention has never been to open up the bidding to non-religious groups, the intention has been to kick the Scouts out.  And the lease extension is no longer the issue, the City has yielded to pressure from the ACLU and others and terminated the existing lease as well leaving the Scouts and their monetary obligations for the remainder of the lease term in limbo.

That is only relevant if they were turned down Huh? You mean you dont think any atheist group has ever been turned down?

Do you have an example of one?

 The majority of the leases by San Diego to non-profit groups are low-rent or rent-free. But they dont promote religion.

The Point Loma Community Presbyterian Church doesn't promote religion? And they don't even have to pay a yearly administrative fee.

I don't agree that it is a 'special deal' without knowing what deals were given to other groups. Unless the same deal were offered to EVERY SINGLE other group, its a special deal.

Well, by that definition you may be right.  However, there are other groups that apparently got 'better' deals.

Even on its own merits, I'm not so convinced the lease is such a 'special deal' since the City received substantial value in return. Either they received market value, or they didnt. One or the other. If they received market value, then putting this lease on the open market will not result in any change. If they didnt receive market value, then it was a special deal.

Do you honestly believe that if the lease were offered on the open market and the Boy Scouts still were able to retain the lease, that the issue would be over? The Scouts spent millions on the property and the City had to spend nothing and the community got access to the facilities.  That sounds like a pretty good value to me.

 If these schools are deemed secular for legal puposes then how can the BSA be called religious? Do you have a link to the text of that decision?

I'm sorry, I don't.  The FindLaw site that I was referencing only archives cases back to 1996 and the EEOC v. Kamehameha Schools case was 1993.  The Justice Department's Amicus Curiae brief references the case at http://www.bsalegal.org/downloads/DOJ_Amicus.pdf

Even in the BSA v. Dale case, the BSA was not considered a religious organization or it would have been able to use the Free Exercise Clause. Can you cite what part of the decision to which you are referring?

I'm not referring to a part of the decision.  Religous organizations are exempted from state and federal laws which would affect their ability to choose their leaders or exercise their beliefs.

It's been said that the Boy Scouts are trying to have it both ways, but it sounds to me like the Judge in California is the one trying to have it both ways. Is the judge both claiming that the BSA is a religious organization, and claiming that it isnt?

I will concede this point- I mispoke.  The judge is not claiming that they are NOT a religious organization. I strongly disagree with his contention that they are, however, and their are quite a few court cases that agree with me.

[Deloe]

FOG:

Again Dee-low shows how little he know of the real world. Quite often the women's rest room has sofas and comfy chairs and carpeting. Men's room's have ceramic fixtures.

Hmm, I wonder where your knowledge of womens bathrooms come from. I rather doubt that is the norm, but I dont need to know enough to investigate myself. However, a more important measure would be time spent waiting in line for use of the bathroom, and here women are the clear losers.

 

Don't atheists choose to not believe in a supreme being?

No.

 

Whitewater

Are you suggesting that it's not proper to fight a suit?

No, Im suggesting that its not proper to AUTOMATICALLY fight a suit, regardless of the subject of the suit.

 

If the City didn't feel the agreement was the best use of the land, why did they originally extend the lease?

Because they were evaluating it on unconstitutional bases.

 

And what does their resistance to the ruling have to do with it?

They must think theres a significant chance that they wont get the lease back in competitive bidding.

 

Do you have an example of one?

I know of quite a few atheist groups that are not receiving rent-free leases from the City of San Diego.

 

Do you honestly believe that if the lease were offered on the open market and the Boy Scouts still were able to retain the lease, that the issue would be over?

Yes.

 

Religious organizations are exempted from state and federal laws which would affect their ability to choose their leaders or exercise their beliefs.

Its not quite that simple.

 

[whitewater]

Deloe:

Don't atheists choose to not believe in a supreme being? No.

That makes no sense to me.  A person's beliefs are not a choice? Are we pre-programmed?  Don't people change their views?

Are you suggesting that it's not proper to fight a suit? No, Im suggesting that its not proper to AUTOMATICALLY fight a suit, regardless of the subject of the suit.

I'm sorry, but if I feel I'm right about something, I'm going to fight back.  You seem to think that the Boy Scouts are wrong and they know they are wrong.  I'm here to tell you that they are correct and they believe they are correct.

If the City didn't feel the agreement was the best use of the land, why did they originally extend the lease? Because they were evaluating it on unconstitutional bases.

They felt they were correct at the time.  The only reason the judge ruled it unconstitutional was because he decided they were a religious organization- which I very strongly disagree with.  There are cases that determined the Boy Scouts were not a religious organization and that will be the grounds for overturning this judges ruling.

Do you have an example of one? I know of quite a few atheist groups that are not receiving rent-free leases from the City of San Diego.

Again, that is only relevant if they applied and were turned down

Do you honestly believe that if the lease were offered on the open market and the Boy Scouts still were able to retain the lease, that the issue would be over? Yes.

B--- Sh--.  If that were true, then all groups recieving "special" deals would have been named in the suit, not just the BSA.  The BSA was specifically targeted and they will continue to be targeted.

Religious organizations are exempted from state and federal laws which would affect their ability to choose their leaders or exercise their beliefs. Its not quite that simple.

It is that simple- anti-discrimination laws were written with specific exceptions for religious organizations.  If the Boy Scouts are classified as a religious organization, then they should be exempt from being required to have leaders that don't share their views on that basis.  Besides, constitutionally protected freedoms should carry more weight that anti-discrimination laws (regardless of how honorable the intent).  Otherwise the laws are inherently unconstitutional.

[Deloe]

"A person's beliefs are not a choice? Are we pre-programmed? Don't people change their views?"

No, beliefs are not a choice. A person's height changes, too, but that's not a choice. I wouldn't say that we are "pre-programmed", but our beliefs are part of who we are, and we can't choose who we are (because what we choose is part of who we are, and if we could choose that, that would be circular).

 

"I'm sorry, but if I feel I'm right about something, I'm going to fight back."

You seem to be missing the most important word. I even put in in all caps: "automatically". I asked "[W]hy are they fighting for their 'right' to force these other people to financially support the BSA?"

You replied: The BSA is 'fighting' for their right because they are under attack.

Can you really not see the absurdity of that statement? The BSA is fighting because they are under attack? That's no reason. "The BSA thinks it is right" is a reason. "The BSA is under attack" is not. Your response implied that it doesn't matter whether the BSA is right or not; as long as there are people who disagree with some aspect of the BSA, the BSA will defend that aspect, simply because there are people that have a problem with it.

 

"There are cases that determined the Boy Scouts were not a religious organization and that will be the grounds for overturning this judges ruling."

And yet you are unable to cite any such cases.

 

"Again, that is only relevant if they applied and were turned down"

And just what would constitute "applying"? Is there an official "application for City of San Diego to give me free land" form to fill out? There are plenty of atheist organizations in San Diego, and I'm sure that the City of San Diego has a reasonable basis to belive they would like free land. Good enough for me. San Diego isn't going to give out free land to atheist groups, period. Doesn't matter how official their request is.

 

"B--- Sh--"

So you have decided that you magically know what the litigants will do, and disagreeing with you is bull **** ? Wow, how open-minded.

 

"It is that simple"

No, it's not. You seriously believe that if someone belongs to a religion that calls for human sacrifice, he is exempt from murder laws? Puh-leeze. The question of when free exercise takes precedence over public policy is a hugely complicated issue, and is not "that simple".