Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

[California Supreme] Court rules Berkeley can withdraw Scouts' rent subsidy
San Francisco Chronicle ^ | 3/9/6 | Bob Egelko

Posted on 03/09/2006 12:39:56 PM PST by SmithL

SAN FRANCISCO -- The state Supreme Court, in a victory for gay-rights advocates, ruled unanimously today that Berkeley could withdraw a rent subsidy to a Boy Scouts affiliate at the city marina because of the scouts' no-gays-allowed policy.

Although the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2000 that the Boy Scouts had a constitutional right to exclude gays, Berkeley is not required to provide funding to an organization that violates the city's antidiscrimination policy, the state justices said.

Cities can require recipients of public money to "provide written, unambiguous assurances of compliances with a generally applicable nondiscrimination policy,'' Justice Kathryn Mickle Werdegar said in her opinion for the court.

The case involved the Sea Scouts, a nonprofit organization that teaches sailing and maritime skills to teenagers. The Boy Scouts affiliate used space at the Berkeley Marina without charge from the 1930s until 1998, when the City Council eliminated rent subsidies at the marina for nonprofits that discriminated on the basis of sexual orientation, religion or various other categories.

When the organization, after consultation with the Boy Scouts, refused to promise that it would admit gays as members or leaders, the city began charging $500 a month in rent.

The Sea Scouts and individual members sued in 1999, saying the fee was an unconstitutional punishment for free speech and association. Lower courts ruled in the city's favor.

(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; US: California
KEYWORDS: berkeley; boyscouts; bsa; buttpirates; endcorporatewelfare; homosexualagenda; kiddierapers; nambla; nofreeride; norentsubsidies; paytherent; scouts; turdburglars
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-57 last
To: RonF; AppauledAtAppeasementConservat; Da Jerdge; Looking for Diogenes; Congressman Billybob; ...

This will end up with SCOTUS I think.


41 posted on 03/09/2006 8:51:16 PM PST by SandRat (Duty, Honor, Country. What else needs to be said?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

You expected more from the CA Supreme Court. Surely you jest. They are the most liberal in all of the land.


42 posted on 03/09/2006 9:14:47 PM PST by notpoliticallycorewrecked (God bless our military)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: notpoliticallycorewrecked
You expected more from the CA Supreme Court. Surely you jest. They are the most liberal in all of the land.

Actually, they aren't. The California Supreme Court is one of the most conservative State courts.

You're probably thinking of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, also based in San Francisco, which is probably the most liberal (and most overturned) of the Federal courts.

43 posted on 03/09/2006 9:37:07 PM PST by SmithL (Sarchasm: The gulf between the author of sarcastic wit and the person who doesn't get it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

Yep, your are right, I was thinkin of the 9th Court.


44 posted on 03/09/2006 9:39:43 PM PST by notpoliticallycorewrecked (God bless our military)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Extremely Extreme Extremist

California SCOTUS is a fairly conservative court.


45 posted on 03/09/2006 10:07:19 PM PST by Torie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Torie

And the decision was unanimous. Apparently subsidies does not equal free speech.


46 posted on 03/09/2006 10:11:31 PM PST by Torie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: newzjunkey
Similar situation here in San Diego with an over abundance of consideration given to the Scouts for a lease in Balboa Park.

The City of San Diego must be required to repay the Scouts the full value of all improvements made to the property. The city accepted all the labor and materials to maintain the site for years. The city can't have it both ways. The Scouts made the investment in good faith and the city has taken it away without just compensation.

47 posted on 03/09/2006 10:14:01 PM PST by Myrddin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Extremely Extreme Extremist

Is California still part of the USA?

Just wonderin'.


48 posted on 03/09/2006 10:20:45 PM PST by Mears (The Killer Queen-caviar and cigarettes.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: DBeers
The change in policy applies to any non-profit organization which will not embrace and condone homosexual activity or will not embrace and condone those that promote homosexual activity.

Exactly, the change in policy is legal. The governmental entity is not discriminating against the Boy Scouts, they are setting a policy which says taxpayer supported non-profits can't discriminate based on sexual preferrence. There is nothing wrong with that.

Berkely wishes to promote, support and promulgate homosexual activity within the community on the tax payers dime -the Boy Scouts do not serve that bizarre goal; as such, Berkeley will not finance "homophobic" & "heteronormative" Boy Scout activities e.g. camping...

So what? The elected officials of Berkley can spend the taxpayers money as they see fit. They set policies for the town regarding the use of public lands, they did nothing illegal here.

No one can discriminate against a subjective feeling held by another e.g. "homosexuality"... Discrimination applies to objective things only such as activities or innate characteristics e.g. "race"...

Well, the courts, all levels including the Supreme Court disagree with you. The city did nothing wrong here.
49 posted on 03/09/2006 10:50:18 PM PST by jf55510
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: jf55510

>>>The city did nothing wrong here.<<<

Other than to violate an act of Congress, you may be right.


50 posted on 03/10/2006 8:26:34 AM PST by reagandemocrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: jf55510
So what?

The attempted homosexualization of society is what it is. Something I oppose. Thats what!

The elected officials of Berkley can spend the taxpayers money as they see fit. They set policies for the town regarding the use of public lands, they did nothing illegal here.

Thanks for stating the obvious which by the way means nothing in regards to legitimate opposition to the homosexual agenda that Berkely promotes on the taxpayers dime.

Well, the courts, all levels including the Supreme Court disagree with you.

Again -the obvious -and again, no relevance...

The city did nothing wrong here.

You mean nothing illegal; however, promoting homosexual activity is very very wrong...

51 posted on 03/10/2006 11:23:19 AM PST by DBeers (†)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: FormerLib
The Boy Scouts will have folks willing to pay that rent wrapped around the block so long as it helps keep the fudge-packers away from the little boys.

No one has so far.

52 posted on 03/10/2006 3:49:01 PM PST by RonF
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Arthalion
they're just going to start treating them like any other tenant

Is that clear? They still grant a number of other organizations subsidies. Do none of them discriminate?

53 posted on 03/10/2006 3:51:15 PM PST by RonF
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

I wonder if the City of Berkeley will feel any moral obligation to make good on the $150,000 worth of goods (in 1930 dollars) that they received from the BSA in return for this deal in the first place.


54 posted on 03/10/2006 4:07:51 PM PST by RonF
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RonF

Must be a bunch of turd burglars out there then.


55 posted on 03/10/2006 4:25:52 PM PST by FormerLib (Kosova: "land stolen from Serbs and given to terrorist killers in a futile attempt to appease them.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: reagandemocrat
Other than to violate an act of Congress, you may be right.

And exactly, what law is that?
56 posted on 03/10/2006 5:12:16 PM PST by jf55510
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: RonF
Do none of them discriminate?

The others discriminate in ways that Beserkeley approves.


I wonder if the City of Berkeley will feel any moral obligation to make good on the $150,000 worth of goods (in 1930 dollars) that they received from the BSA in return for this deal in the first place.

I've always wondered why the Scouts never included that in their arguments.

57 posted on 03/10/2006 7:21:17 PM PST by SmithL (Sarchasm: The gulf between the author of sarcastic wit and the person who doesn't get it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-57 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson