Supreme Court Rejects Boy Scouts Appeal
The following was crossposted from Revealing the ACLU:
The latest setback came Monday when the high court without comment refused to take a case out of Berkeley, Calif., in which a Scouts sailing group lost free use of a public marina because the Boy Scouts bar atheists and gays.
The action let stand a unanimous California Supreme Court ruling that the city of Berkeley may treat the Berkeley Sea Scouts differently from other nonprofit organizations because of the Scouts’ membership policies.
Two years ago, the court similarly rejected a Boy Scouts appeal of a case from Connecticut, where officials dropped the group from a list of charities that receive donations from state employees through a payroll deduction plan.
And in Philadelphia, the city is threatening to evict a Boy Scout council from the group’s publicly owned headquarters or make the group pay rent unless it changes its policy on gays.
[…]
In 2000, the court ruled that the Scouts have the right to ban openly homosexual scout leaders, a decision that rested on First Amendment rights.
“The Boy Scouts asserts that homosexual conduct is inconsistent with the values it seeks to instill,” then-Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist wrote for the court in a 5-4 decision.
By refusing to hear this case, the Supreme Court has let state the cases in California and Connecticut stand. This is no small setback for the Scouts, and for those who agree with the value system the Scouts have applied to the selection of Scout Masters. More critically, this opens up further attacks by allowing cities to discriminate against faith based organizations for merely following what they believe. The gay community has become adept at arguing a right to special privileges, and yet is so quick to deny privileges to other organizations.
The Boy Scouts released the following statement:
Boy Scouts of America is disappointed that the United States Supreme Court has declined to hear an appeal of a California Supreme Court decision affecting Sea Scouts in the City of Berkeley.
[…]
George A. Davidson, attorney for Boy Scouts of America, stated that “The issue of governments seeking to punish organizations for exercising their First Amendment rights is a recurring one. There will be other opportunities for the Supreme Court to affirm First Amendment protections for organizations dealing with government agencies. Boy Scouts will continue to be active in bringing to the attention of the Court opportunities to provide needed guidance to lower courts on this important issue.”
What a sad state of affairs this is, when an organization like the Boy scouts which promotes individual accountability, honesty, and integrity can be so openly discriminated against. It must be comfortable for the ACLU and Gay Rights groups to so readily call the Boy Scouts discriminatory while they practice a much more vile form of discrimination.
I am sure the Supreme Court will be given other opportunities to hear similar cases, and I pray they will accept and act in accordance to the best interest of our children.
Email This
Posted by Stop The ACLU Special Contributor on October 18, 2006 7:09 pm
» Filed Under Uncategorized
Trackback URL:
- My Own Thoughts » Religious freedom will be limited pinged this post.
Comments
5 Responses to “Supreme Court Rejects Boy Scouts Appeal”
-
-
-
Affiliations
The Giants
Advertise
-
-
Our Store
- Click the design to visit our store and help Stop the ACLU!
-
- More blogs about the ACLU
Syndicate Me
Which definition of “descrimination” are you using?
Which definition of “descrimination” are you using?
The same one the federal government uses in these cases.
The U.S. Constitution does not apply to state or local governments.
That would be considered a contract between the city government and the boy scouts and as such the city is allowed to set the terms.
In every case I can think of the Supreme Court has favored the government. One case is when several law Universities sued the federal government over the Don’t Ask, Don’t tell policy.
This is one the people of the local community will either choose to solve by removing local politicians or tolerate by allowing them to stay.
The Boy Scouts are a powerful organization if they want to get people to vote. I wonder if they will flex that muscle.
That would be considered a contract between the city government and the boy scouts and as such the city is allowed to set the terms.
True, but… the contract was established in late 30’s, formalized in 1945 and 1969.
The Sea Scouts honored that contract without deviation. The city of Berkeley was willing to honor the contract, The Waterfront Commission recommended the city council continue the Sea Scouts’ free berths.The city manager, however, recommended the council discontinue the free berths.
The Court said… Girls as well as boys participate, and the Sea Scouts have never actually discriminated against anyone on the basis of sexual orientation or religion.
Court Decision
It all came down to the city attempting to force the Sea Scouts to change their policy.
So, the way I see it… the city entered into a contract, broke the contract and punished the Sea Scouts for violating something they didn’t and wasn’t part of the contract to begin with.
The U.S. Constitution does not apply to state or local governments.
You and I know that is the way the founders intended it, but then came the 14th Amendment.
loboinok,
“No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States”
The Supreme Court misinterpreted this clause to mean the Bill of Rights when it was addressing an argument by the majority Justices in Dred Scott v Sandford that referred to the clause in Article IV Section 2 that goes “The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.” That is just another case of legislating from the bench.
Even when the Fourteenth Amendment is involved, the federal courts can not legally step in until Congress makes a law according to section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment.
It must be nice to be able to rewrite the law anytime five can agree. It is a lot more efficient than Congress and you don’t have to listen to the pesky objections of the peons (people).