(A)Berkeley protects sodomy.
(B)Scouts are against sodomy
(C) Therefore Berkely is against Scouts!
Posted on 02/28/2003 2:36:31 PM PST by laureldrive
Edited on 04/14/2004 10:05:53 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
We think of the frontiers of freedom as being patrolled by the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines. But these days, the Boy Scouts of America and affiliated groups also stand guard. In courtrooms across the country, they're resisting a domestic strain of tyranny - the totalitarian impulse to police thought and enforce a government-sanctioned orthodoxy on social and cultural issues.The Scouts are loathed by many self-styled progressives for transmitting a code of commitment, stressing God and country, that was supposed to be marginalized by now. But they're not giving in to bureaucratic bullies who try to force them to shed "outmoded" beliefs on matters of sex and social values. Lovers of liberty - even those who might disagree with Scouting's principles - should toast their tenacity for the First Amendment and the right not to be PC.This controversy was supposed to have been settled by the U.S. Supreme Court three years ago. In Boy Scouts of America v. Dale, a five-justice majority said that as a private, belief-based organization, the Scouts are free to craft their own membership rules; in particular, government can't order them to admit homosexuals as leaders. It follows that they're also within their rights to require that members profess a belief in God.But an alarming number of local and state officials refused to listen. In 2001, for instance, District of Columbia officials ordered the local Scouts to readmit two gays as adult leaders and pay $100,000 in damages. This decree was overturned by an appeals court, which noted that D.C. should take another look at Dale.Most of the current government assaults on the Scouts take the form of indirect coercion. There's shunning, as in San Francisco, where local judges are now barred from participating in Scouting. There's stigmatizing, as Connecticut and Portland, Ore., have attempted by excluding the Scouts from the charities that public employees may support through payroll deduction.There's also selective denial of public benefits. Berkeley leads the way by singling out the Sea Scouts for a fee to use the city's marina. After being permitted free use for 50 years, the Sea Scouts in 1998 were suddenly hit with a charge of more than $500 per month. No other nonprofit is required to pay to berth at the marina. The fee is imposed explicitly because of the Sea Scouts' affiliation with the Boy Scouts.High school teacher Eugene Evans, skipper of the Berkeley Sea Scouts' ship, pays the fee out of his pocket, so he can no longer cover membership costs for teenagers from poorer neighborhoods. Some have had to drop out.Unfortunately, a California court of appeal upheld Berkeley's punitive policy in November. The Sea Scouts have now asked the state Supreme Court to take the case. They cite the constitutional rule against "viewpoint discrimination" in the public sector. In other words, if Berkeley decides to offer free berthing to nonprofits - which it has done - it can't pick and choose recipients based on their beliefs or the beliefs of those they're associated with.Several recent "graduates" of the Berkeley Sea Scouts are now Marines stationed in the Persian Gulf. One of these young leathernecks is a plaintiff in the lawsuit against Berkeley's anti-Scout policy. All are following in a long tradition of Sea Scouts stepping forward in the nation's hours of need. More than 100,000 Sea Scouts volunteered after Pearl Harbor. Admiral Chester Nimitz reportedly said that the Sea Scouts were crucial to the Navy's ability to regroup after that disaster. But if Berkeley officials feel any remorse at targeting such a worthy group, they haven't revealed it.Today, the Boy Scouts' and Sea Scouts' fight is for the survival of a free and robust private sector, a sphere where all may choose their beliefs and affiliations without preclearance, editing or censorship by the state, and without fear of official discrimination or reprisal. For defending this basic principle of a free society, the Scouts deserve a hearty salute.
(Excerpt) Read more at 2.ocregister.com ...
The idea that the BSA is wrong to demand that leaders lead a moral life (openly) is one of the most ludicrous things I have ever observed in my lifetime.
If the government cannot constitutionally take a stand on anything regarding morality, then the government has no business sticking its nose in ANYTHING having to do with children. Nothing is more basic than that.
Gays do not have a constitutional right to raise kids that are not their own. Every kid that is their own was the result of heterosexuality. Nature itself has weighed in on this issue. I will fight until I die over this one!!!!!!!!! Divide the country. Let's get a national divorce over irreconcilable differences. Let's have another civil war. I will take ANY answer over caving in on something as fundamental and right as the BSA's moral leadership policy. Freedom is MEANINGLESS is they do not have that right, and no city should discriminate against morality!!!!!!!
Let gays be scout leaders to all children produced from gay unions. The right of parents to choose moral leaders for their kids is FUNDAMENTAL! And it is right.
(A)Berkeley protects sodomy.
(B)Scouts are against sodomy
(C) Therefore Berkely is against Scouts!
The Civil Rights Act of 1866, which is the foundation of all other equal rights acts, says "full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of persons and property as is enjoyed by white citizens". Ergo, whites cannot be included, since they are the baseline measure. Unfortunately, nobody foresaw 137 years ago the stunning reversal of racism that the race-baiting lobby was going to do to this country.
Ah, but that was the crux of the case. They were arguing that their alcoholism was a status, like homosexuality, and that they were illegally being punished for it. That's why I felt comfortable using the same analysis here.
Unlike being drunk in public,
Like I said, the distinctions are tough to draw sometimes... you'll notice that your comparison is off. You compare an status with a condition. Properly put, you should have typed, "being a drunk in public". (That is a status, like being a homosexual.) There are also no laws against being a drunkard and being out in public while they are sober.
being a gay person in public is not a crime.
But that is not what is being debated here. Nobody has said that gay potential Scout Leaders should be imprisoned or fined, only that the private organization has the right to exclude that group. Consider the nasty problems that arise if/when a gay Leader improperly touches a child, and the BSA is sued for putting the children in harm's way. This is the exact liability that they are attempting to avoid. If, by law, you force the BSA to take those Leaders, you can't hold the BSA liable for their acts, because their only other option is to disband entirely... and that changes yet another entire area of jurisprudence.
A hypothetical: Men's clubs who refused to hire women are forced to do so via lawsuit. A member sexually harasses (or worse) the female employees. Should the Club now be free of liability because they were forced to hire the females? Are they no longer responsible for their safety? Of course not! Clubs, employers, and private citizens have responsibility to do so because they have the power to do so. If you take away their power to protect their charges, you also remove their responsibility.
You may not like the choices that others make, but if you force them to make the choices you want, you also take away their freedom, their responsibility, and the consequences for their actions. Not a good exchange by any measure... especially because that power will eventually affect you and your choices in a similar fashion. (Here's an example: can the majority now tell gays who they can and can't associate with in their private associations and clubs, and have the force of law behind them? Shall we say a limit of one gay man per room? No? Well then, why can gays tell the BSA who they can choose to be Leaders? Heh-heh, I can't wait to see the first KKK meeting where they are required to admit Black Panther members. I hope there are enough federal agents on sight to stop THAT skirmish!)
I see. So you have no problem with a group that comprises 30% of the population suffering under laws that favor everyone BUT them? Jim Crow was a success in your eyes?
I do not lack sympathy for those who are today being denied jobs, contracts, scholarships, and opportunities for the color of their skin, just because they happen to be white. Everyone has their own hurdles in life, and you don't get an easier road in America today just because you're a white male... there are plenty of down-and-out white males, too. However, EVERY other group IS protected/preferred/accomodated in one way or another, and THAT is overt discrimination. It is a shame that you would support such inequity in the laws of this great nation.
One nation, one set of laws for every citizen of that nation. Anything else is BS.
That's already been shown.
Just by the way, I note that Berkeley council gives away $145,000 in grants annually for the 'arts.' What do you think is of more value, to the community? Scouts, or some crappy modern 'art'?
Of course not.
I'm simply saying, look to your own intolerance, before addressing your perception of it in others.
Arts is a broad term. If that includes funding for a symphony or ballet or opera then that's money well spent. The Boy Scouts seem to do OK raising money on their own.
That's what it was. The vote was five to four in support of the Boy Scouts. Rehnquist, O’Connor, Scalia, Kennedy, and Thomas were for, and Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer voted against.
...and where do you think the Berkeley Council directs their funding, bud? 'Symphony, ballet and opera'?
I can predict without checking that their funding will be weighted towards the self-indulgent PC ugliness that passes for 'art', amongst their kind.
Madg, could I respectfully ask you to put the gay victimology on hold, for the duration of this discussion?
It's not about you, it's about the Scouts.
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.