Libs, hypocrisy? Come on!
A great book:
Posted on 01/09/2006 5:11:27 PM PST by proud_yank
SAN FRANCISCO - The city of Berkeley, which was celebrated in the 1960s as the home of the Free Speech Movement, now finds itself accused of violating the First Amendment rights of a group of young sailors connected to the Boy Scouts of America.
Citing a violation of its nondiscrimination policy, the City Council revoked the free berthing the Berkeley Sea Scouts received for six decades. The city targeted the group because the Boy Scouts bar atheist and gay members.
The council's actions will be tested Tuesday during oral arguments before the California Supreme Court in a case that challenges the legality of removing or withholding public subsidies from groups whose ideals run counter to the government's. Both sides maintain legal precedent is on their side.
City officials told the Sea Scouts in 1998 that the group could retain its berthing subsidy, valued at about $500 monthly, if it either broke from the Boy Scouts or disavowed the policy against gays and atheists.
(Excerpt) Read more at mercurynews.com ...
I hope the Sea Scouts win their case. It takes a real batch of Dog poops to go against 60 years of common practice and screw ove the kids.
Just so nobody forgets, the so-called "Free Speech Movement" basically entailed shouting down anyone who didn't agree with the radical leftists. That IS what it was all about.
FMCDH(BITS)
Agreed. I imagine that Berkeley has given more support to local communist efforts.
Only liberals are entitled to free speech. Any speech that liberals do not like is, by definition, hate speech.
Earthquake anyone??? Be a shame to see these idiots slide into the pacific.
When did treason stop being a crime?
Berkeley has every right to shut down the Boy Scouts. They are a "Hate Group", aren't they?
[sarc]
Count on it!
I too have noticed that is their MO and has been for many years. It is so obvious that it seems more people would take note of their hypocrisy.
Right there as clear as can be is the evidence. Berkeley is trying to tell a group what they can and can not believe in or avow.
Berkeley would NEVER be involved in something like that...
Revocation of free berthing is not an infringement upon any right the Scouts may have. It is not as though the Boy Scouts are entitled to dock their ships for free, nor is docking for free a "free speech right."
I support the Boy Scouts as much as the next guy (Eagle Scout, '97), but they are not entitled to any support from the public, worthy though their goal may be.
I think Howard Dean, Hillary and all their pals should come out loud and clear for homosexuals in the boys tents. : )
Now Berkeley is getting involved in the religious views a private organization can be allowed to have. So much for "separation of church and state."
The only free speech is left speech. The only freedom is the freedom they grant you. Prepare to be assimilated.
Then what private organization does?
Precisely.
Fair enough.
I find it interesting that conservatives on this board (not you personally) tend to lose all fiscal restraint when its an organization whose mission we find laudable.
Applied equally, no problem.
The cost for Boy Scouts is negligible compared to its benefits.
Cost isn't really the factor in this debate.
Now, once we can establish that the Boy Scouts have a right equal to that of any other group, then its time to take on the fiscal sins of the city government, and they're pretty grim. This situation isn't even the tip of the iceburg.
No, it isn't. The debate is whether the government should be supporting private non-for-profits at all. If the Boy Scouts are to be given free berthing, then the Queers Yacht Club also should be given free berthing, unless we want the government involved in deciding the Boy Scouts are good and the Queers are not.
Sure they aren't already?
They are. If you don't descriminate, and you're a non-profit, you can berth for free in Berkley. If we ignore the fact that this may not be something that the government might even need to be involved in, then we're left with the question of whether this is discriminatory. Making minimal requirements of the non-profit (that they not be discriminatory) is certainly legitimate.
Your argument is, to say the least, specious and weak. Actually, it is meaningless.
It said no such thing. It said that the State of NJ could not compel the Boy Scouts to admit someone into membership who violates their membership criteria. It never said that those organizations have the right to use public facilities, however.
Do you know what "compel" means?
(And, before you dismiss this reasoning, this is the exact reasoning the Supreme Court used in South Dakota v. Dole.)
They already have become involved in deciding this. That's why after 60 years they no longer have a berth. That's also why some school systems don't let the Scouts use school property on the weekend.
And this is a free speech issue and association issue.
Berkeley has told the Scouts that if they mend their ways, i.e. conform to what the state claims is the correct stance on an issue, they can have the berth back.
I quote from the BSA Website: BSA At A Glance
The purpose of the Boy Scouts of America — incorporated on February 8, 1910, and chartered by Congress in 1916 — is to provide an educational program for boys and young adults to build character, to train in the responsibilities of participating citizenship, and to develop personal fitness.
Besides, if every organization had the same membership criteria and rules for the officers, what would be the point in there being DIFFERENT organizations.
One thing I've come to understand the last few years is that DIVERSITY is anathama to the left and their running dog lackeys.
Between 1975 and 2004, the Boy Scouts had a perfect record in litigation (30+ to zero) in lawsuits by the ACLU and individuals regarding God, Gays, and Girls (cases that "challenged Scouting's right to set standards for membership, principally that Scouts are required to believe in God, be male, and not to be openly homosexual"). The BSA has lost cases at the trial and appellate court level, but has always prevailed in a final judgement -- whether by the U.S. Supreme Court or some other appellate court.
Since then, the ACLU has gone a different route. Now, they attack governmental relationships with the BSA. The ACLU won its first lawsuit against the BSA -- a ruling that the Pentagon could no longer spend money to ready Fort A.P. Hill for the National Boy Scout Jamboree (held every four years).
As I understand it, the result of that ruling was disasterous -- for those affected by this year's hurricanes. Normally, the Army used the set-up for the Jamboree as an exercise in setting up a city (with temporary electric power, large tents, sanitation, communications infrastructure, etc.) for 40,000+ plus in a short period. You could truly test preparedness for responding to a disaster because the project was real-time and was tested by 40,000+ Scouts, Scouters, staff, and visitors for ten days.
Fellow Scouters in the military tell me that the military was not as prepared to respond to hurricanes as they have been in the past, because they hadn't practiced a real-time, real people event in four years. I can't say for certain that it's true, but I've heard it from a handful of Scouters.
I want to follow up with a second post about California and the Boy Scouts -- the Balboa Park incident in San Diego. Give me a minute to put my hands on the facts. Balboa Park is MUCH more outrageous than the Sea Scout's slip.
Thanks - very informative!
How are public subsidies for private groups constitutional?
There's one law the ACLU will never understand or overthrow: The Law of Unintended Consequences.
The trouble began nearly four years ago, when the ACLU’s San Diego affiliate and a homosexual legal group demanded that the city kick the Scouts off the public park land they’ve occupied since World War II.
“The Boy Scouts are an anachronism in these times of diversity and inclusiveness,” wrote the San Diego ACLU’s director, Nancy Sasaki, in an editorial explaining the reason for the lawsuit. “And the Scouts show no sign of joining the progress the rest of society has made.”
The lawsuit was filed on behalf of two San Diego couples—the Breens, who are agnostics, and the Barnes-Wallaces, homosexuals—who claim their children should be able to join the DPC without having to espouse its principles.
. . .
Not even a [Supreme Court] mandate [Scoutmaster's Note: The article is talking about the Dale case, regarding gay Scout leaders, folks], however, has stopped gay-rights groups from trying to push the Scouts out of the public marketplace.
The property at issue in San Diego is leased to the DPC for $1 a year—on the condition that the Scouts supply costly renovations and maintenance.
And for half a century, the Scouts have kept their end of the deal, completing at least $5 million worth of construction on both properties—including an amphitheater, nine camping sites, a swimming pool and an archery range at Balboa Camp. At the aquatic center, which was an unused landfill before they developed it, the Scouts installed camping facilities, aquariums and water-sport equipment.
In fact, the DPC has invested more in the land than its current sale value, and they make those facilities available to anyone who wants to use them—even gay-rights groups. Recognizing a good deal for the community, city council members voted in December 2001 to extend the Scouts’ lease for at least 25 years. As part of the agreement, the DPC committed to another $1.7 million in renovations over the next seven years and about $150,000 worth of yearly maintenance. (On top of that, it pays a $2,500 annual administration fee.)
Those negotiations were open to the public and broadcast live on the radio. City officials were forced to move the proceedings to a bigger room after some 1,000 people showed up, most expressing support for the extension.
Then on July 30, 2003, U.S. District Judge Napoleon A. Jones ruled that “the Balboa … lease violates the Establishment Clause of the federal constitution.” A final ruling on the aquatic center was pending at presstime.
Just google "Boy Scouts," "San Diego," and "Balboa Park." The article I quoted is at: href="http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=50112".
The United States Constitution has very limited applicability to the decisions of local and state governments ... in spite of the ACLU's contentions to the contrary.
Public subsidies for private groups are constitutional as long as all similar private groups have similar access to public subsidies. It also depends on the nature of the subsidy. Thus, for example, it would be unconstitutional for the military to allow the BSA, and only the BSA, access to purchase surplus military equipment at a discount. But if the government allows all such educational organizations to do so, then it's not unconstitutional.
That's typical ACLU nonsense. They think other people don't notice that all of them are mad as hatters.
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.