Posted on 02/15/2002 6:50:19 AM PST by DoSomethingAboutIt
Libertarians in Santa Barbara, California have scored a victory for freedom of association by helping to nullify a resolution that censured the local Boy Scouts chapter.
On November 14, county supervisors approved a statute forbidding the government from discriminating against private organizations -- even if that group has "incorrect membership requirements," said Santa Barbara LP Secretary Robert Bakhaus.
"Even the U.S. Supreme Court had said the Boy Scouts have the right to associate, and make their own internal rules as they choose," he said. "If LPers could not lead in such a case as local government censuring the Boy Scouts, who would?"
The new statute invalidated a resolution adopted in March by a 3-2 vote, which censured the Boy Scouts for refusing to allow gay men to serve as scoutmasters.
County commissioners said the Boy Scout's policy violated the country's anti-discrimination law. The censure would have allowed county officials to prevent Scouts from using local camp grounds, leasing property from the city, or passing out leaflets on school grounds.
However, the Boy Scouts of America said the gay lifestyle violated the organization's oath, which requires members to be "morally straight." It won a U.S Supreme court decision in June 2000, which affirmed its right to decide who could be a Boy Scout.
Bakhaus said Libertarians support the right of the Boy Scouts to set their own membership requirements without government interference -- even if some Libertarians personally oppose those requirements.
"Even bigots have rights," he said. "Private organizations [should have] the right to make their own membership and leadership rules."
After the commission passed its resolution in March, "libertarian sympathizer" Michael Warnken and local LP members collected 20,000 signatures to put an initiative on the ballot to overturn it.
Libertarians helped drum up publicity for the campaign by sending letters to the editors of local papers, appearing at meetings and rallies, and speaking out on local television shows, said Bakhaus.
A number of conservative Republicans also joined the effort, which shows that small organizations "can't afford to be shy about having allies," he said.
"[Our LP affiliate is] too small to abolish taxation or achieve other radical reforms outright. We must first develop our clout by helping enforce the current good laws limiting government, while rallying better liberals and conservatives to uphold the best American traditions of freedom," he said.
However, the coalition ran into opposition from the county attorney's office, which filed a suit to stop the petitioning.
The attorney claimed the initiative language was "vague," and that only a statute or regulation -- not a resolution -- was subject to invalidation by initiative.
In response, activists changed the language of the measure meet state initiative requirements, and hired their own attorney to defend them from legal attacks, said Bakhaus.
With the initiative back on track and a large public turn-out at the commission's November meeting, county commissioners decided to nullify the anti-Boy Scout resolution, said Bakhaus.
"[It] was approved as law without a vote of the people, thanks in part to a large public showing -- but mostly by the fears of an electoral backlash if it went to a vote," he said.
Most importantly, Libertarians learned valuable lessons from the experience, said Bakhaus.
"The [Santa Barbara LP] learned that a countywide petition drive is not outside the bounds of doability," he said. "We also learned that a 1% investment ratio can be leveraged into victory, if that investment consists of extensive knowledge and experience about the intricacies of real politics."
Amen!
Liar.
I used to live in the People's Socialist Republik of Taxachusetts, but I moved to rural Florida, so I could hobnob amongst drunken bikers in peace.
New Hampshire was a possibility, but it's too cold there and was being polluted by Massholes such as myself who had already ruined their own state.
Regards.
Taint so. The medium doesn't put forth that message. --- And we can't read your self centered mind.
Let's ask him then, shall we? Freeeee, did you take my post to you in #166 the wrong way, or did you grasp it's humorous intent?
Then your imitation is excellent.
If you force someone to employ or rent a person because of that person's race, people are not equal before the law.
If you refuse employment or tenancy to certain racial groups, you're engaged in illegal racist practices.
LOL!!! DemocRats respect nothing but communities and groups -- hence, their various flavors of identity politics.
Yup. (See my post #75. "And we don't apologize!")
(Just to put it into context, Libertarians want to force their will on others, too: no force, no fraud. If I wanted to be fraudulent, I might accuse you of using force to keep me from being fraudulent. Or from initiating force. In fact, this is what Liberals do!)
Really? So they respect the boy scouts? Do they respect my community that does not wish to allow gay marriages? Do they respect my state when our head Justice said that homosexuals are deviants and should not be allowed to have children?
You don't troll, and haven't made personal attacks against me, and have plenty of logic in your replies, rather than just plain old emotionalism, remniscent of liberals that is all too common here.
Which is quite a refreshing change I must say, from some other people I won't mention. I wish those other people would come up with some new witty remarks, because being called a druggie gets pretty old.
What are you talking about? Every city with more than a few thousand inhabitants has fairly clear residential, commercial, etc. regions (either through government-imposed zoning or through natural development) with markedly different standards of normal activities and construction.
Then your imitation is excellent.
Now if you say you're not a Liberal, I'll say your imitation is excellent! ;-)
I am White, but I have never ever hated or even disliked anyone because he wasn't White. And I don't think I'll ever choose to employ a White person if there is a better-suited Black candidate for the job. Unless, of course, it is illegal for me to employ the Black guy. And that's just what your favorite law says, only with the colors swapped!
Does the state have the power to take away his kids?
Really? Mind quoting it?
A-ha, so you admit you hate women who aren't white. Just kidding :-)
Really? Mind quoting it?
I don't know the exact language of the law (luckily, I needn't--I'm not an American). Perhaps it doesn't mention colors. But it was passed by Liberals to discriminate against Whites, and it is used by Liberals to discriminate against Whites. And to hurt the economy.
To approach the matter from another direction, do you support laws against refusing to employ ugly (pardon me, aesthetically challenged) women (sorry: persons) as stewardesses (oops ... flight attendants)?
Weaken the grip of the law, return responsibility to the individual, and watch people as a whole, correct most of the things I am sure you think of as wrong. You, or God, cannot make people more loving or moral by enforcing laws. It makes moral wrongs, become conflicts with the law. When govt takes the hobbles off of the economic horse, the economy soars, if they would take the chains off of the individual, morality will be in vogue again.
Libertarians say that it is immoral to initiate force or fraud. I agree with this, with a little change: "it is immoral to initiate force other than in order to enforce morality." (Without this amendment, you couldn't use force to stop fraud.)
But the problem is, the Liberals would not agree to it when it did not suit them! You know how irrational they can get. They would call you immoral, claiming that you wanted to force your morality on them.
This is to make the point that there is no such thing as absolute morality. There is no morality that everyone agrees on. I wish there were, but there isn't. Morality is determined by ... oh, I hate to say this ... the majority. Too bad!
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.