Boy Scouts, ACLU Settle Land Lease Lawsuit

KFMB TV ^ | 1/8/04 | Not Given

[RonF]

San Diego and the American Civil Liberties Union settled a lawsuit over two leases between the city and the Boy Scouts, both sides announced Thursday.

The ACLU suit, filed in 2000, challenged the city's subsidy of the Desert Pacific Boy Scout Council through leases for public land in Balboa Park and Fiesta Island Aquatic Park.

In July 2003, a federal judge ruled the Balboa Park lease violates First Amendment guarantees of separation of church and state. The judge also put over for trial the matter of the Fiesta Island lease.

Under its settlement with the ACLU, the city will take no position on the validity of the leases in future legal proceedings, and the city will pay the ACLU's attorneys $790,000 for legal fees incurred during the three years of litigation and $160,000 in court costs.

"The Boy Scouts cannot have it both ways," said ACLU volunteer attorney M.E. Stephens. "Having gone to great lengths to establish that discrimination against gays and (athiests) is essential to their mission, and, therefore, protected by the First Amendment, they cannot now turn around and ask the people of San Diego to foot the bill for that discrimination."

The settlement also relieves the city of any liability to pay future ACLU legal costs.

"While it may be legally acceptable for the Scouts to privately discriminate against so many boys and their families, it has never been acceptable for the city to bar those families from a public park," said ACLU co-counsel Mark Danis. "Government has a constitutional duty to treat everyone equally and fairly."

The Boy Scouts of America, which is not a party to the settlement, has the right to continue to present defenses to ACLU legal claims.

The national organization, based in Irving, Texas, also retains possession of the leased properties during the pending litigation, including all appeals, according to Deputy City Attorney John Mullen.

The BSA says the mission of the organization is to "prepare young people to make ethical and moral choices over their lifetimes by instilling in them the values of the Scout Oath and Law."

The Scout Oath reads: "On my honor, I will do my best to do my duty to God and my country and to obey the Scout Law, to help other people at all times, to keep myself physically strong, mentally awake and morally straight."

[RonF]

San Diego settles for a little under $1 million with the ACLU and bows out. The BSA is on it's own regarding the legality of their lease with San Diego for a section of a public park they have spent large sums of money improving and that they allow the public to use.

[Support Free Republic]

Rank	Location	Receipts	Donors/Avg		Freepers/Avg		Monthlies
3	Florida	1,185.00	30	39.50	808	1.47	478.00	33

Thanks for donating to Free Republic!

Move your locale up the leaderboard!

[RonF]

"While it may be legally acceptable for the Scouts to privately discriminate against so many boys and their families,

How many is so many? How many kids are there that are the sons of atheists, or are open about their sexuality during youth activities?

it has never been acceptable for the city to bar those families from a public park,"

Which it doesn't; non-Scouting groups have been and are welcome to use the facilities in question.

"Government has the responsibility to treat everyone equally and fairly."

Including the BSA.

[Jack Wilson]

"While it may be legally acceptable for the Scouts to privately discriminate against so many boys and their families, it has never been acceptable for the city to bar those families from a public park," said ACLU co-counsel Mark Danis.

Did the city bar a gay scout troop from the park?

[cajun-jack]

an awful lot of these judges really need to be working the graveyard shift at wal-mart stocking shelves for $6.00 an hour...most aclu lawyers aren't qualified to earn that much!!

[LiteKeeper]

The thought processes of the ACLU defy explanation

[lafroste]

the city will pay the ACLU's attorneys $790,000 for legal fees incurred....

"The Boy Scouts cannot have it both ways," said ACLU volunteer attorney M.E. Stephens.

Am I missing something? How can legal fees be racked up by "volunteer" attorneys? Do they just volunteer to only make $150.00 per hour instead of the $1,500.00 per hour they could realize chasing ambulances?

[The Old Hoosier]

The people of San Diego do, however, have to pay for the ACLU's bigotry against the Boy Scouts.

[Viking2002]

The American Crippled Liberties Union must some how, some way, be officially labeled as a subversive organization. Yes, we know they are, but we've got to figure out a way to sanction it. What they espouse isn't a matter of free speech - it's the planned destruction of a culture, a society, and a country. They must be prevented from using the Consitiution as a means of it's own destruction.

[DBrow]

"The thought processes of the ACLU defy explanation"


How about, Anything that advances our agenda is OK, even if it seems illogical and demented.

Sort of like the Marxist "ends justify the means" concept.

If they can hurt the Scouts by claiming that they are a religion (thus the Church and State claim to use the 1st Amend.) then they do it.

[Buffalo Bob]

ACLU's attorneys are among Satan's most valuable minions.

[Stone Mountain]

Will this have any effect on the similar case involving the Berkeley Marina and the Sea Scouts?

[Conservativegreatgrandma]

Funny. Here in Iowa they didn't see anything wrong with Mujslims leasing federal land to build a camp for Muslim young men. Taxpayers will also be providing roads, rangers, etc.

[theyibby]

"First Amendment guarantees of separation of church and state..."

First of all, I agree with the concept of seperation of church and state. BUT...the First Admendment does NOT mention anything about "SEPERATION" of church and state. That was borne out of one of Thomas Jefferson's letters.

Check it out.

[Michael.SF.]

Ann Coulter said it best:

"Questioning whether gay Scoutmasters should be taking 14-year-old boys on overnight sleepovers in the woods is "out of the mainstream."

[rightwingcrazy]

I had a friend in the Boy Scouts who announced to the Scoutmaster that he was an atheist. Then there was the following exchange...

Scoutmaster: "Do you believe that there is a right and wrong?"
Scout: "Yes."
Scoutmaster: "Then as far as I'm concerned, you're not an atheist."
Scout: "Oh, OK."

Such was my experience of "religious intolerance" in the Boy Scouts.

[SandRat]

When the case goes before the 9th Circus the BSA will lose, when it goes before the USSC, BSA is batting 1.0 and the ACLU and BSA haters will lose.

[Looking for Diogenes]

When the case goes before the 9th Circus the BSA will lose, when it goes before the USSC, BSA is batting 1.0 and the ACLU and BSA haters will lose.

The USSC did decide on the BSA's behalf that they are a private organization and therefore have the right to discriminate.

In this case (should it continue) the BSA is in the position of defending San Diego's lease of the land at a nominal rent. The city has bowed out and will not defend its own actions. I imagine the issue comes down to whether the city can lend its resources to a private (though benevolent) organization which discriminates.

San Diego has entry in its municipal code which might apply:

City Facilities. It shall be an unlawful service practice for any person to deny any individual the full and equal enjoyment of, or to place different terms and conditions on the availability of the use of any City facility on the basis (in whole or in part) of such individual?s sexual orientation or gender identity.

I haven't seen the suit so I'm not sure what its basis is. There may be other city, state, or federal laws that could apply. I'm not sure that this is a case that'd make it all the way to the USSC. It does have relevance to dozens, maybe hundreds, of BSA leases and accomodations.

[RonF]

That's what I'm thinking.

[RonF]

Both in this example and in many areas nationally, the BSA has put large amounts of money, materials, and labor in improving leaseholdings. Are they now to be deprived of their use, while people who made no contribution to them get all the benefit? I think that's neither law nor justice.