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

Skip to comments.

EDITORIAL: Sea Scouts setback
San Francisco Chronicle ^ | 10/18/6 | Editor

Posted on 10/18/2006 12:49:58 PM PDT by SmithL

IN THE SUPER-HEATED debate over gay rights, the U.S. Supreme Court has taken a modest step forward. Public agencies such as cities, schools and parks can stop subsidies to groups who don't abide by local anti-discrimination bans, the high court indicated in backing a California ruling.

The case began in Berkeley, an unlikely-sounding spot for the conservative-majority court to show its thinking. But the ruling was a win on a significant question: Can community groups, such as the Boy Scouts, who bar gays use local buildings, parks and marinas like other nonprofit groups?

The case drew hyped-up battle lines pitting the forces of family values at war with political correctness. The Sea Scouts, an affiliate of the Boy Scouts, had rent-free quarters on the Berkeley marina where it taught seamanship, sailing and carpentry.

The free ride ended when the city passed a rule banning discrimination by nonprofits who use city facilities. The Sea Scouts, because they don't admit youths or adults who are gay, no longer qualified. Since then, the group has paid $500 per month.

Was this an intrusion on free speech and personal rights? No, the California Supreme Court said earlier this year, because local governments were allowed to pass anti-bias laws. By rejecting an appeal of this decision, the high court agreed.

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


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: beserkeley; boyscouts; bsa; scotus; scouts; seascouts

1 posted on 10/18/2006 12:49:59 PM PDT by SmithL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: SmithL

Does anyone in Washington fund the Amish?


2 posted on 10/18/2006 12:53:50 PM PDT by rovenstinez
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

By the logic of the court, a community can ban use of facilities by groups that support fag rights.


3 posted on 10/18/2006 1:12:57 PM PDT by Jacquerie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

Did the "journalist" who wrote this mention thatere there was an exchange of consideration involved, a contract that predated Political Correctness?


4 posted on 10/18/2006 1:32:00 PM PDT by Doctor Raoul (New York Times? Get a rope!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SmithL
schools and parks can stop subsidies to groups who don't abide by local anti-discrimination bans, the high court indicated in backing a California ruling.

A denial of cert, which is what happened, is not a "backing" of the CA ruling. It is a refusal to hear the case. Completely different beasts.

5 posted on 10/18/2006 1:43:27 PM PDT by ModelBreaker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rovenstinez

I don't know. Ask Foley.


6 posted on 10/18/2006 2:18:20 PM PDT by Jeff Chandler (Peace begins in the womb.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Doctor Raoul

Nope, and I don't know why that hasn't been to court.


7 posted on 10/18/2006 3:25:27 PM PDT by SmithL (Where are we going? . . . . And why are we in this handbasket????)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

This editorial is left wing lying. They did not back the previous ruling. Everyone know just because they did not hear the appeal in NO WAY says how the feel one way or the other. Total BS.


8 posted on 10/18/2006 4:22:24 PM PDT by therut
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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