Posted on 11/26/2002 9:28:29 AM PST by churchillbuff
Edited on 04/12/2004 5:46:29 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
The city is allowed to rescind the free berth at the marina because of the group's ban on gays.
SAN FRANCISCO -- The Sea Scouts are no longer entitled to a free berth at Berkeley's marina, an appeals court ruled Monday in a decision that lets the city enforce its policy of nondiscrimination toward homosexuals against an affiliate of the adamantly anti-gay Boy Scouts.
(Excerpt) Read more at sacbee.com ...
This is a state and local issue just like the Ten Commandments case in Alabama should be.
If the shoe fits...
Seems to me, the Scouts PAID/BARTERED a berth...I see that the Darth side of the DemonRATs is now surfacing..."I have altered the bargain. Pray that I do not alter it further".
Seems to me the Scouts can, in court, show they have OWNERSHIP of a berth due to their arrangement.
Ergo, tell the Bezerkleys' to pound sand instead of some other orifice!
There are 1600 local United Way chapters in the U.S. About two dozen of them, or about 1.5%, have stopped funding BSA Councils over this matter. The rest are still doing so.
My own local Council is an exemplar of this. Eleven UW chapters have historically provided funding to our Council. One of them stopped doing so over this issue. The other 10 still provide funding to our Council, over $116,000 this last year.
Didn't the article say there was a quid pro quo with the city where the scouts did something with rocks to help fill a part of the marina?
So now the city is reneging on that in order to help the FAGGOTS.
It's as if they think that since the BSA doesn't allow "avowed" gays or atheists as members, nothing about the BSA is good, and it deserves to have everything it has earned or paid for taken from it, and to be cut off from the public. It is, in fact, not at all far fetched to think that there are deliberate attempts to bleed it dry; the death of a thousand cuts.
Which is what Chad and I were trying to tell you on Salon "TableTalk", Ron: These are not nice people, under the rubric that "People who are nice to you but rude to the waiter, are not nice people."
Nice to see you again, and I think you got it right both times. No obligation on the part of Berkeley to treat the Scouts differently than other eleemosynary groups (taking a pass on the marina-fill issue), and no obligation on the Scouts to do what Berkeley's political leadership manifestly wants them to do.
On the whole, maybe the divorcement is a good thing. Maybe at the most basic level it's simply true, that Berkeley doesn't deserve the benefits of scouting, which ought to be redirected to other, nearby communities that appreciate Scouts and scouting instead.
If "the wafer thing" is how you think of it, then it would be better if you didn't participate. Practicing Catholicism isn't like signing up with Carnival Cruises for a five-day getaway to St. Bart's.
I don't remember the priest saying that you had to be Catholic to do it. How does this work in practice - does the priest ask people who is Catholic before certain services begin?
No. You're catechized and baptized into the faith if you're an adult, and you are further catechized, confessed, shriven, and given a penance of prayers to perform. Once this is accomplished, you may then share in Holy Communion. Baptism, confession, and Holy Communion are the three principal sacraments of the Roman Catholic Church, and they don't play around with them.
If the Berkeley City Marina uses any Federal subsidies in their capital or operational budgets, I wonder if the Equal Access Act could be applied in such a way as to negate the local anti-discrimination policy?
Of course, using a Federal law to override a local one is not exactly conservative, is it?
Exactly -- my first thought on reading your suggestion, I had it before I reached the end of the sentence! It isn't exactly condemning the fascizing passions of the Left, to go out and imitate them. Of course, it was amusing to hear them start to chant "Stare decisis!" when the possibility of putting together five conservative votes on the Supreme Court began to loom large with the confirmation of Clarence Thomas. As if the liberals on the Supreme Court had ever done any such thing! "Penumbras" and "interstices", my happy ass!
William F. Buckley, Jr., has written a lot about the ideal of "subsidiarity", which is the idea that local problems should be settled at the local level, and so on. That ideal leaves open somewhat the possibility for debate about whether a given problem is local, state, or national -- if some repercussion can be shown -- which was the preoccupation of the Supreme Court during much of the Roosevelt and Truman Administrations, when the Court ran riot with laughable stretches of the Commerce Clause to justify Congressional and Executive invasions of Tenth Amendment rights and powers.
So I wouldn't be in favor of using federal law to pimp Berkeley, howbeit that that would be a summarily condign punishment for Leftist weenies who put that blunderbuss in the hands of a conservative Administration. That is why the Left, and especially the Left Media, hated Nixon's guts -- he used their tools, their beautiful Imperial Presidency that the Congress had built for JFK to sit in, to screw them! To me, Nixon was a great if perverse teacher -- he taught us why we shouldn't give presidents sweeping powers, and why their powers should be constitutionally circumscribed, and the office filled with circumspect men who respect the office, the Constitution, and the People. And since I've mentioned Bill Buckley, it's worth mentioning that he has publicly admired the Swiss in this, that their government officials so rarely exhibit the typical pol's hunger for fame and power, that ordinary Swiss citizens would be embarrassed by a request that they name their last four presidents.
Before leaving the point about subsidiarity, I would add that I've read that it's more a Catholic than a conservative, or a constitutional, or even an American idea, though I've never seen substantiation or documentation of that statement. Buckley is the person I most associate with its propagation, and he's a devout Catholic, so it could be true, or not. But subsidiarity would require that the problem be worked out at City Hall level, unless City Hall were violating state law or the California constitution.
I wonder if that is what's going on here.
There is a real good defense to that type of economic assault: don't hire a lawyer. No lawyer, no legal fees. Your not required to have a lawyer.
And you can turn that approach on the party waging legal econmic war by calling their lawyer several times a week - not to harrass but to "work the case."
Run up their legal bill with every sort of legitimate request imaginable. Document every request and take special note of any failure to supply what you have asked for. If you go to court, make the case for postponment on the basis their side has not been forthcoming. You can play this out for a long, long time (and run up one heck of a bill - for their side).
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.