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

Skip to comments.

Santa Barbara Libertarians help win Boy Scout discrimination fight
LP News ^ | February | LP

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."


TOPICS: Culture/Society; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: braad; bsalist; libertarians; sasu
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 241-260261-280281-300 ... 441-457 next last
To: tpaine
If the activity is deemed criminal and it is not a guaranteed right, it is due process. Or are you gonna pull some wild excuse out of your butt for why our founders allowed states to prohibit witchcraft, sodomy, ect....
261 posted on 02/19/2002 1:43:04 PM PST by Texaggie79
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 250 | View Replies]

To: Texaggie79
Nope, I didn't say that. I said that you are limited in your remedies but that you could have him evicted under the deeds and covenants of your community. If what he is doing is deemed a "public nuisance" because it's in full view of the whole neighborhood, that might be a different story, but you have a tendency to want to peep into the neighbor's windows, it seems to me.

WRT law enforcement officers who use their police powers to "enforce" unconstitutional edicts, they SHOULD be punished and that much more harshly than any other perp, because the boys and girls in blue are acting under color of law in their depredations. And the politicians who give them their marching orders should be equally penalized. The ones who act properly and do a CONSTITUTIONALLY-PROPER job of keeping the peace are to be commended and supported! I would back up one of these folks ANY time! Do you see the difference? I made it clear in the original post, except to you, I guess.

However, BATFags and the DEA and even the Feebs have no constitutional basis for EXISTENCE, as the Constitution prescribes only THREE crimes that fall under Federal jurisdiction outside of a military reservation or the District of Columbia, treason, piracy and counterfeiting. Which "duties" of the BATFags or the DEA or FBI fall into the prescribed categories? And since the Secret Service is charged with investigating counterfeiting, it seems to me that it could be expanded to include treason and piracy as well. These are not, that I can see, "growth" crimes so it might work out well!

262 posted on 02/19/2002 1:46:12 PM PST by dcwusmc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 243 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe
There are, and always have been, unconstitutional federal, state, & community laws.
263 posted on 02/19/2002 1:48:40 PM PST by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 253 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe
I couldn't say for sure as I am NOT a member of the LP, nor have I been for a good number of years (at least twenty). I speak of the SMALL "l" variety, but I know that the LP would prefer that we at least shrink fedgov to its CONSTITUTIONAL size. From there maybe they'd want to go further. But I can't speak for them. Nor do they speak for ME.
264 posted on 02/19/2002 1:51:58 PM PST by dcwusmc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 254 | View Replies]

To: dcwusmc
but you have a tendency to want to peep into the neighbor's windows, it seems to me.

Why would you say that? Because I support state drug laws? Have I ever said that I want to spy on my neighbors?

Reality is, most behavior done inside the home, no matter how illegal it is, is never known about. Ask victims of child abuse. This is just a price we pay for privacy, and I would fight to keep it.

And I agree that the feds have no business in most of these matters. They are completely disregarding the USC by trying to enforce federal laws on drugs. I also share your desire to have all officers who commit crimes held responsible.

265 posted on 02/19/2002 1:53:12 PM PST by Texaggie79
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 262 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe
His arguments that the 14th 'covers' the first 8 amendments are not clear. [that means not in context]

-- Just as a start. - Make a point or give it up.

266 posted on 02/19/2002 1:53:31 PM PST by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 260 | View Replies]

To: Texaggie79
Why would you say that? Because I support state drug laws? Have I ever said that I want to spy on my neighbors?

It's implied in a number of your previous posts, but as I am not going to go looking right now, I apologize if I offended you. In some areas we do agree and perhaps we should capitalize on that.

267 posted on 02/19/2002 1:57:25 PM PST by dcwusmc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 265 | View Replies]

To: dcwusmc
I wasn't offended, just curious. Many Libertarians say that and I just don't see it. I mean, I support laws against child porn, but I don't support the measures that the Fed is trying to take to find it. Same with drug laws.

And I welcome anyone that would join in the fight to protect our rights.

268 posted on 02/19/2002 2:08:49 PM PST by Texaggie79
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 267 | View Replies]

To: Texaggie79
Exactly.

Read Section 1. -- People are not to be deprived of Life, Liberty, or Property without due process.
Fiat declarations that a queer or an addict is a criminal is not due process.

250 posted by tpaine

If the activity is deemed criminal and it is not a guaranteed right, it is due process.

The state has no power to 'deem' an activity criminal on whim. Or through majority rule. Fiat declarations of an actions 'criminality' are not due process. They are prohibitions that violate the constitution on quite a number of legal grounds.

Or are you gonna pull some wild excuse out of your butt for why our founders allowed states to prohibit witchcraft, sodomy, ect....

Many states had such laws before the constitution. Most have been repealed, as they are now clearly unconstitutional, dispite the wild excuses of buttheads like you.

269 posted on 02/19/2002 2:13:51 PM PST by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 261 | View Replies]

To: DoSomethingAboutIt
Good job, libertarians. Well done. And let me add my thanks to the efforts put forth here.
270 posted on 02/19/2002 2:18:32 PM PST by rdb3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
LOL, I see, the founders saw practicing witchcraft in a state that forbade as a violation of rights? Thats why we can find them labeling witchcraft as an evil practice worthy of punishment?
271 posted on 02/19/2002 2:28:43 PM PST by Texaggie79
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 269 | View Replies]

To: Roscoe

If the Boy Scouts owned an apartment building and rented out units to the general public, they would be required to make the apartments available to applicants without regard to their races.

The fourth amendment refuses government access to a person's home, property or business without a properly signed warrant. Yet the government forces business owners to give access to total strangers via discrimination laws. In effect the government, taxpayers' employees, can't be trusted, yet the same government that can't be trusted proclaims that business owner must trust total strangers.

272 posted on 02/19/2002 2:49:09 PM PST by Zon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 242 | View Replies]

To: Texaggie79
I don't feel like arguing your sophomoronic word games about witchcraft laws.

Since the 14th amendment, no state may abridge, deprive or deny persons of life, liberty, or property, without due process.

No matter how many wild witchcraft excuses you pull out of your silly butt, you can't deny that fact.

273 posted on 02/19/2002 3:00:54 PM PST by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 271 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
Let's just praise the Lord that the founders didn't mean the Constitution in the way you twist it.
274 posted on 02/19/2002 3:06:07 PM PST by Texaggie79
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 273 | View Replies]

To: Texaggie79

So you think that my neighbor should be able to do these things in his front yard for all to see?

If you think you've been harmed by another person take it before a court and impartial jury.

"No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another, and this is all from which the laws ought to restrain him."
--Thomas Jefferson to Francis Gilmer, 1816. ME 15:24

How and why individual rights prevail over the illusion of group rights.

The smallest minority is the minority of one -- the individual. When the individual is protected all larger-than-one minorities as well as the largest majority are protected. The largest majority is the human species.

Whenever possible, absolutes are preferred to relatives. Absolutes are constant across all cultures and times whereas relatives change from culture to culture and generation to generation or century to century.

Absolute: The highest moral, human and individual right is the right to self-defense against the initiation of force, fraud and coercion. The proof is that without one's own life a person has nothing, nada, zero, zip.

Absolute: Every instance that force, fraud or coercion is initiated against a person that person experiences a loss of value to his or her life. Only the victim knows how much his or her life was, is and will be diminished by the person that wielded initiation of force, fraud or coercion against him or her.

When plaintiff decides that arbitration will not meet plaintiff's needs, trial by jury is the best recourse that a plaintiff has for gaining restitution for plaintiff's life being diminished by the initiation of force, fraud or coercion.

The plaintiff must convince a jury beyond reasonable doubt that he or she has been the victim of initiation of force, fraud or coercion by the defendant. Also, plaintiff must express the loss of value plaintiff suffered and express what plaintiff seeks in terms of restitution or compensation for plaintiff's loss of value.

Here's a short, partial list that a plaintiff might bring charges against a person whom the plaintiff claims victimized him or her. All cases can be settled via trial by jury.

Plaintiff claims defendant initiated force, fraud or coercion against plaintiff by:

Defendant killed person that is close relative or close friend to plaintiff. This is a logical choice of who would be first in line to become plaintiff. E.g., spouse, child, sibling, etc.
Defendant assaulted victim
Defendant stole from victim
Defendant blackmailed victim
Defendant ingested drugs
Defendant sold drugs to third party consenting adult
Defendant viewed pornographic material
Defendant sold pornographic material to third party consenting adult
Defendant sold sexual favors to third party consenting adult
Defendant engaged in gambling with third party consenting adult

The burden is on the plaintiff to prove to a jury beyond reasonable doubt that he or she has been the victim of initiation of force, fraud or coercion and to what extent the plaintiff has been damaged by the defendant.

The bottom line is: if the jury agrees with you/plaintiff you're right and win the case. If the jury disagree with you/plaintiff you're wrong and lose the case.

 

275 posted on 02/19/2002 3:06:45 PM PST by Zon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 243 | View Replies]

To: Texaggie79
They did mean it that way, & the 14th proves my point.

You don't like it? - Go over to DU and cry about it. -- Or.
-- You can stay here and learn to reason.

276 posted on 02/19/2002 3:10:39 PM PST by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 274 | View Replies]

To: Zon
You can choose a jury when convicted for drug possesion. It is the job of every juror to vote you innocent if they see that the law is immoral or unconstitutional.
277 posted on 02/19/2002 3:11:28 PM PST by Texaggie79
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 275 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
Let's see..... I have the founders actuall ACTIONS to back up my assertions. All you have is some excuse for why our founders had no backbone to stand up against laws that violated rights which you claim they saw us having.
278 posted on 02/19/2002 3:13:25 PM PST by Texaggie79
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 276 | View Replies]

To: Texaggie79
You can choose a jury when convicted for drug possesion. It is the job of every juror to vote you innocent if they see that the law is immoral or unconstitutional.

That is called jury nullification. It is actively discouraged by the courts. I believe a woman was actually arrested for it. The courts want nothing but a finding of the facts from the jury.

279 posted on 02/19/2002 3:16:26 PM PST by AUgrad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 277 | View Replies]

To: Texaggie79
You live in a dream world. - Directed verdicts, even contempt of court charges for jury nullification, are ever more commmon. -- Any mention of judging the law in a case will get you thrown off a jury in a flash.
280 posted on 02/19/2002 3:20:22 PM PST by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 277 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 241-260261-280281-300 ... 441-457 next last

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