Replies

But is it really a win? The article seems to suggest they're being buried in paperwork as a "compromise" to allow them to meet at public schools for free. Where did this requirement come from?

I may be misreading the piece but it seems they're being required to provide forms for each meeting, for each minor attendee. There won't be any "bring a friend" cases either since permission slips are demanded. Looks like a setup designed to provide fascist leftists a legal fig-leaf for revoking meeting privileges. BEWARE.

Look, I opposed not allowing a competitive bid process for rent of Balboa Park facilities when the Scout's contract was up. It only seemed fair that before any longterm lease (at token, not market-priced, rent) was renewed that other groups interested in the facilities have an opportunity to bid.

This case with schools is entirely different. If all groups meeting are required rent that's bad policy but it's fair. If only religious groups are being single out (since the article doesn't say otherwise) for rent, permission slips and meeting agenda paperwork that's immoral, abusive and unconstitutional.

I'm not satisfied this is a real rather than a pyrrhic victory.