1 posted on
06/24/2010 12:25:09 PM PDT by
mdittmar
To: mdittmar
I hope the city does have to eat that legal bill. Freedom of association still lives there in Philly...at least for now.
To: mdittmar
I guess the City of Brothers in Love will have to
SUCK IT UP!"
3 posted on
06/24/2010 12:29:28 PM PDT by
Young Werther
("Quae cum ita sunt" Since these things are so!)
To: mdittmar
The scouts can now ask the court to order the city to pay legal fees of about $860,000.It's nice to know that the city is so awash in cash that we can afford to use our courts and solicitors wage nuisance law suits to make our sodomite City Solicitor and our useless mayor.
4 posted on
06/24/2010 12:32:00 PM PDT by
End Times Sentinel
(In Memory of my Dear Friend Henry Lee II)
To: mdittmar
Jury says Philly can't evict Boy Scouts for anti-gay policy existing ... (fixed it)
To: mdittmar
Well, sometimes it seems evil doesn’t win. I was beginning to get discouraged.
6 posted on
06/24/2010 12:32:30 PM PDT by
IrishCatholic
(No local Communist or Socialist Party Chapter? Join the Democrats, it's the same thing!)
To: mdittmar
They mention city-owned building a few times but fail to mention that the Scouts built the building at the city’s request and deeded it back to them with the right to rent it for $1 a year. Unfortunately they also gave the city the right to change the terms with one year’s notice and the city did just that.
7 posted on
06/24/2010 12:36:07 PM PDT by
NonValueAdded
("The real death threat is their legislation" Rush Limbaugh, 3/25/10)
To: mdittmar
8 posted on
06/24/2010 12:36:14 PM PDT by
fatima
(Free Hugs Today :))
To: mdittmar
Good. The queers can go stuff each other and leave the Scouts alone. I was a Boy Scout, First Class with a few merit badges. Some of the best days of my boyhood.
To: mdittmar
“While the good work of the Boy Scouts cannot be disputed, the city remains steadfast in its commitment to prevent its facilities from being used to disadvantage certain groups.”
Their logic is backwards. It is they who think they can legally disadvantage private groups of associated citizens; picking and choosing which citizens groups they will honor on equal terms and which ones they won’t.
There is no honest truth to any idea that the lease given the Boy Scouts is an act of promotion of, or support of the policies of the Boy Scouts.
In such matters, the government MUST be agnostic, neither actively promoting or actively suppressing the points of view of one group of citizens over another.
The city is free to offer the same terms to a youth organization that does not restrict its membership to homosexuals. It is not free to pick and choose between those that do and those that don’t.
10 posted on
06/24/2010 12:40:51 PM PDT by
Wuli
To: mdittmar
12 posted on
06/24/2010 12:54:44 PM PDT by
beelzepug
(This administration is a tagline-rich environment.)
To: mdittmar
Councilman Darrell L. Clarke, whose district includes the scouts' headquarters, was disappointed: "If in fact you have a policy that does not comply with the city's antidiscrimination policy, then you should not be allowed to be in a city-owned facility, period." Unless, of course, the "antidiscrimination" policy is discriminatory!
13 posted on
06/24/2010 1:12:48 PM PDT by
TheDon
("Citizen" of Kalifornia, USSA)
To: mdittmar
"Under the ordinance that leased the property to the scouts, the city has the right to evict them without giving any reason at all, both sides have agreed. Asked if the city would take that step, Smith said, "The verdict was just issued today, and we'll be considering all of our options.""This is worrisome.
To: mdittmar; RonF; AppauledAtAppeasementConservat; Looking for Diogenes; Congressman Billybob; ...
17 posted on
06/24/2010 1:34:38 PM PDT by
SandRat
(Duty, Honor, Country! What else needs said?)
To: mdittmar
The scouts can now ask the court to order the city to pay legal fees of about $860,000.A good day for all. A very good day.
Mom of 2 Eagle Scouts.
21 posted on
06/25/2010 8:23:07 PM PDT by
MarMema
To: mdittmar
If the city wants to save face at this point, perhaps it should agree to sell the building outright to the Scouts for $1.
22 posted on
06/26/2010 3:23:31 AM PDT by
pnh102
(Regarding liberalism, always attribute to malice what you think can be explained by stupidity. - Me)
To: mdittmar
My head is spinning?????
- Councilman Darrell L. Clarke, ... was disappointed:
"If in fact you have a policy that does not comply with the city's antidiscrimination policy, then you should not be allowed to be in a city-owned facility, period."
- Under the ordinance that leased the property to the scouts, the city has the right to evict them without giving any reason at all, both sides have agreed.
Sooooooooo.
Per Philly pols the Boys Scouts can't 'discriminate' even though SCOTUS says they can.
BUT! Philly can 'discriminate' when leasing property (or anything) and they don't even have to give a reason why they ARE discriminating.
To quote Capt. John Joseph Yossarian:
"That's some Catch, that 'Catch-22."
24 posted on
06/26/2010 5:02:37 AM PDT by
Condor51
(SAT CONG!)
To: mdittmar
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson