Boy Scouts face setback in Supreme Court

Associated Press ^ | 10/17/06

[Non-Sequitur]

Wanna bet there's some gay group who is enjoying free use of public property because of Berkeley's arbitrary rules?

If the scouts can show that there are other private groups that discriminate in their membership but who still receive some form of benefit or subsidy from Berkley then they can claim discrimination on their own, and then that could lead to a USSC review. Doesn't sound like they made that case here.

[Carry_Okie]

Even so, the California Supreme Court said in March that local governments are under no obligation to extend benefits to organizations that discriminate.

This isn't a matter of "benefits" because the Scouts got the boat berth in return for rock supplied from a Scout owned quarry.

This isn't a matter of "benefits" it's breach of contract.

[Non-Sequitur]

Possibly, but that's a moot point, because it DOES, in fact exist. As long as it exists, the Scouts have as much right to it as any other organized group.

Nobody is denying them access, just making them pay for it.

[stephenjohnbanker]

Damn shame they bungled this in court!

[Congressman Billybob]

A purely verbal agreement becomes a binding and enforceable contract when it has been acted on by the parties. The City asked for a breakwater in return for a permanent lease. The Sea Scouts then built the breakwater. That makes the contract enforceable.

Berkeley is stealing from the Scouts for its political correctness.

John / Billybob