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."
Zon: If you see a person selling hard drugs would you be harmed, and if so, how would you convince the jury that the defendant harmed you? 295
Texaggie79: My family would be harmed by such as substance being sold in my neighborhood and any jury you can pull from my state would convict em in a hearbeat. 297
Zon: How had you been harmed and how would you convince a jury? 299
My kids, as well as my neighbors not only having to see that, but also having a user live near them is an unnecessary threat.
The suspect doesn't live in your neighborhood but he is selling drugs there. How does you seeing a person selling drugs harm you? How are you threatened or harmed by a person ingesting drugs?
By forced threat. A drug addict living in my neighborhood is a threat to my and my families well being. And I also have a right to raise my kids in a neighborhood where they don't have to see drugs being used or sold.
By forced threat. A drug addict living in my neighborhood is a threat to my and my families well being.
So is an alcoholic then. In that regard, according to your standard when was the last time you took a drunk to court? I mean, after gaining additional information you were certain that the person walking across the street from you was drunk, how were you harmed and why didn't you press charges that you'd been harmed and make your case before an impartial jury?
And I also have a right to raise my kids in a neighborhood where they don't have to see drugs being used or sold.
How does seeing drugs being used or sold harm you?
My community does not share that view, and that's all that matters.
The threat is that of physical harm, be it through a psychotic episode of the user who thinks my house is a nest of hornets and he must burn it, or be it financial though my property value going down due to a drug user living in the neighborhood.
Having drugs be illegal does several things. First, it makes the current users sneek around so I dont have to see it. Second it detracts non-users from starting to use due to the risk, be it financial from the expense, physical from the use, or legal from the arrest.
'Someone' is dreaming up a lot of non-existent boogie-men to justify his drug paranoia.
By forced threat. A drug addict living in my neighborhood is a threat to my and my families well being. 303
So is an alcoholic then. In that regard, according to your standard when was the last time you took a drunk to court? I mean, after gaining additional information you were certain that the person walking across the street from you was drunk, how were you harmed and why didn't you press charges that you'd been harmed and make your case before an impartial jury? 305
My community does not share that view, and that's all that matters.
First off, communities don't have rights and even if they did they would still be trumped by individual rights. Besides, the question is why didn't you take the drunk to court and since when does the community decide whether you have been harmed by a drunk or drug addict walking across the street from you?
The threat is that of physical harm, be it through a psychotic episode of the user who thinks my house is a nest of hornets and he must burn it, or be it financial though my property value going down due to a drug user living in the neighborhood.
The threat is that of physical harm, be it through a psychotic drunk episode of the user drinker who thinks my house is a nest of hornets and he must burn it, or be it financial though my property value going down due to a drug user alcoholic living in the neighborhood.
Having drugs be illegal does several things. First, it makes the current users sneek around so I dont have to see it.
I've asked you three times how you were harmed by seeing a person on drugs. Were you offended? Will you argue that you have a right not to feel sad? How were you harmed?
Personally, it is offending, but for children to see it, it is harming because it sets a bad example. Children look up to all adults, especially law abiding ones, as opposed to those breaking the law.
And I don't see as much of a threat in alcohol, due to the majority of users not getting severly drunk. With hard drugs, the only intention is to get sky high. And the addiction rate is more so than alcohol.
Personally, it is offending,
So anything that offends you should be against the law?
but for children to see it, it is harming because it sets a bad example.
So does smoking cigarettes, drinking alcohol, swearing, eating fatty foods, public nose picking and the list goes on and on. Should all those be against the law?
Children look up to all adults, especially law abiding ones, as opposed to those breaking the law.
Children learn who to look up to and who not to look up to by their parents teaching them. It doesn't take a village to raise a child no matter how much you want Hillary to be right? According to your standard a child should look better upon the law-abiding alcoholic than the person that exceeds the speed limit.
No, but how do you explain state laws on public attire (i.e. I can't run around naked through the streets)?
According to your standard a child should look better upon the law-abiding alcoholic than the person that exceeds the speed limit.
Actually, public intoxication is illegal in most states. So the only legal activity they would see is a guy buying a beer or hard liquor. I don't see a problem with that.
Having drugs be illegal does several things. First, it makes the current users sneek around so I dont have to see it. 306
I've asked you three times how you were harmed by seeing a person on drugs. 308
Personally, it is offending, 309
So anything that offends you should be against the law?310
No, but
But what? But implies an exception. Here's the exception...
but how do you explain state laws on public attire (i.e. I can't run around naked through the streets)?
Your argument is that because public nudity offends some people and therefore outlawed that other things that offend you should also be against the law?
According to your standard a child should look better upon the law-abiding alcoholic than the person that exceeds the speed limit. 310
Actually, public intoxication is illegal in most states. So the only legal activity they would see is a guy buying a beer or hard liquor. I don't see a problem with that.
You're obfuscating. Nothing new. But I'll take your forthcoming-word on it that you weren't obfuscating. According to you it is better for a child to look up to a law-abiding alcoholic than a person that exceeds the speed limit. According to your non-obfuscating response you wrote, "I don't see a problem with that." My question was about a law-abiding alcoholic which obviously means when he is drunk in public he must be in a state that hasn't outlawed public intoxication. And since we both know you weren't obfuscating it means you answered the question I asked and you did not respond to a question that you may have implied that I asked.
No, I'm saying that some things are TOO obscene for a community, and they make a law against it. As long as the BoR does not forbid them, they can. Some may make stupid laws, but hopefully they will learn from them, as they have over the past couple hundred years.
My question was about a law-abiding alcoholic which obviously means when he is drunk in public he must be in a state that hasn't outlawed public intoxication. And since we both know you weren't obfuscating it means you answered the question I asked and you did not respond to a question that you may have implied that I asked.
How much wood coulda woodchuck chuck..............
Seriously, I support public intoxication laws, so, no, I don't think it is better for a child to look up to an alcoholic than a speeder.
Wrong, in several ways.
It WOULD take a Libertarian to be on your side and call your moral normal stance bigoted! What a bunch of whacked out goofs! With friends like these, who needs enemys. LOL
Seriously, I support public intoxication laws, so, no, I don't think it is better for a child to look up to an alcoholic than a speeder.
In post #309 you wrote. "Children look up to all adults, especially law abiding ones, as opposed to those breaking the law."
There is such a thing as law-abiding alcoholics and because they are law-abiding adults your assertion stands that a child is more likely to look up to the law-abider than the person that exceeds the speed limit.
BTW, you still haven't shown how you've been harmed by seeing a person on drugs and the best you've come up with is that you'd be offended. To which you further said, and I paraphrase, "it sets a bad example for children and as you know it takes a village to raise a child so the government must outlaw the bad example."
I've asked you three times how you were harmed by seeing a person on drugs. 308
Children look up to all adults, especially law abiding ones, as opposed to those breaking the law.
Children learn who to look up to and who not to look up to by their parents teaching them. It doesn't take a village to raise a child.
It seemed like one big run-on thought. Maybe it is the time I read it, but I would love you to restate and ask your question better if you can please?
The fourth amendment refuses government access to a person's home, property or business without a properly signed warrant. 272
Wrong, in several ways.
So you chose to obfuscate off on a tangent rather than acknowledge that the purpose of the fourth amendment is to protect citizens from unwarranted access by government onto their property. Please elaborate on your reasoning so that I can compile this discussion into a article.
Just so that we don't lose sight of the main issue at hand, I'll repost it...
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. 242
Zon: 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
Roscoe, how do you explain the glaring contradiction?
Pretty ignorant assertion. The Fourth Amendment was a clarification of the extent of the powers delegated to the federal government.
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.