Posted on 06/22/2010 2:19:41 PM PDT by JoeProBono
A non sequiter, they have occupied the building they built and that they maintained for generations, under an agreement that gives them perpetual rights to same. The City is breaching that agreement.
Well then produce that written agreement in court and the Scouts win. Problem solved.
You are not a lawyer, are you? If that agreement was with the KKK and prevented blacks from joining, would the contract be enforceable? That is the tack these pro-queer dirtbags are taking.
The KKK would have the same problem that the Scouts have with the city's anti-discrimination laws. They just wouldn't have as many supporters.
So you support the city?
I support the Boy Scout's right to exclude anyone they want from membership and leadership positions. I recognize that that right comes with a price. Those who disagree with their position who may have supported them in the past may not do so in the future. So the Scouts can either compromise their position, which I don't think they should do, or give up that support that comes with strings attached. They should stick to their principles and either give up the property in Philadelphia then sue the city for the value of the improvements that they made to the property, i.e. the building, or pay the rent.
They should stick to their principles and either give up the property in Philadelphia then sue the city for the value of the improvements that they made to the property, i.e. the building, or pay the rent.Clueless. BTW, a jury says you are wrong.
I know a jury ruled for the Scouts. I don't have a problem with that.
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.