Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

[California Supreme] Court rules Berkeley can withdraw Scouts' rent subsidy
San Francisco Chronicle ^ | 3/9/6 | Bob Egelko

Posted on 03/09/2006 12:39:56 PM PST by SmithL

SAN FRANCISCO -- The state Supreme Court, in a victory for gay-rights advocates, ruled unanimously today that Berkeley could withdraw a rent subsidy to a Boy Scouts affiliate at the city marina because of the scouts' no-gays-allowed policy.

Although the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2000 that the Boy Scouts had a constitutional right to exclude gays, Berkeley is not required to provide funding to an organization that violates the city's antidiscrimination policy, the state justices said.

Cities can require recipients of public money to "provide written, unambiguous assurances of compliances with a generally applicable nondiscrimination policy,'' Justice Kathryn Mickle Werdegar said in her opinion for the court.

The case involved the Sea Scouts, a nonprofit organization that teaches sailing and maritime skills to teenagers. The Boy Scouts affiliate used space at the Berkeley Marina without charge from the 1930s until 1998, when the City Council eliminated rent subsidies at the marina for nonprofits that discriminated on the basis of sexual orientation, religion or various other categories.

When the organization, after consultation with the Boy Scouts, refused to promise that it would admit gays as members or leaders, the city began charging $500 a month in rent.

The Sea Scouts and individual members sued in 1999, saying the fee was an unconstitutional punishment for free speech and association. Lower courts ruled in the city's favor.

(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; US: California
KEYWORDS: berkeley; boyscouts; bsa; buttpirates; endcorporatewelfare; homosexualagenda; kiddierapers; nambla; nofreeride; norentsubsidies; paytherent; scouts; turdburglars
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-57 next last
Sad news - I expected better from the California Supreme Court.
1 posted on 03/09/2006 12:40:01 PM PST by SmithL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: SmithL

I ain't surprised. The land of granola bars strike again.


2 posted on 03/09/2006 12:41:08 PM PST by Extremely Extreme Extremist (Spontaneous combustion occurs most often in Democrats)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

Turnabout is fair play. SCOTUS said that schools taking federal money had to allow military recruiters on campus, and we should expect no less cooperation from anyone else who benefits from a subsidy or freebie.

Still doesn't speak well for the landlord, but it's his gameboard.


3 posted on 03/09/2006 12:44:32 PM PST by SlowBoat407 (The best stuff happens just before the thread snaps.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

Maybe I'm wrong, but isn't this the same (basically) as the USSC just upholding the Solomon Amendment? I think the Scouts can do as they wish, but they don't have any right to public money, and they don't have to take it. The USSC told the law schools that they can personally hold whatever position they wish, but if you take the gov't money, you follow our rules.


4 posted on 03/09/2006 12:46:33 PM PST by TheBigB (Try Ma Skillett's Funky Fritters!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

And from the Sacramento Bee:

Read the Decision (pdf).

5 posted on 03/09/2006 12:47:23 PM PST by SmithL (Sarchasm: The gulf between the author of sarcastic wit and the person who doesn't get it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SlowBoat407
Turnabout is fair play.

I completely agree. The populus needs to replace the local politicians, or suffer under them (not literally, I hope).

6 posted on 03/09/2006 12:49:24 PM PST by Onelifetogive (* Sarcasm tag ALWAYS required. For some FReepers, sarcasm can NEVER be obvious enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: SmithL
One has to ask if others still get that subsidy, in which case there is an equal protection issue.
7 posted on 03/09/2006 12:50:47 PM PST by Carry_Okie (There are people in power who are truly evil.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

Next up: a bitch slap from SCOTUS.


8 posted on 03/09/2006 12:55:34 PM PST by pabianice (contact ebay??)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SlowBoat407

Fully agree.


9 posted on 03/09/2006 12:55:42 PM PST by GSlob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: SmithL
I just suggested to the leadership of the Boy Scouts that they turn around and sue San Diego for the cost of a sea wall they built, decades ago, at a cost of about $150,000, plus interest to date, plus the economic cost of the "permanent" lease the Scouts were granted back then.

The Scouts should be able to get a fat sum from San Diego, put that in an endowment at interest, and pay the "fair market" rate for their dockage in perpetuity. The City wants to play hardball, and damage the Scouts for exercising their First Amendment rights per the US Supreme Court. Okay, the Scouts should play hardball and take the City for every dime they can.

Turn about is fair play.

Congressman Billybob

Latest column: "Puckett and Reeve, Gone before Their Time"

10 posted on 03/09/2006 12:57:12 PM PST by Congressman Billybob (www.ArmorforCongress.com RIGHT NOW. I need your help.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

The Boy Scouts will have folks willing to pay that rent wrapped around the block so long as it helps keep the fudge-packers away from the little boys.


11 posted on 03/09/2006 12:58:25 PM PST by FormerLib (Kosova: "land stolen from Serbs and given to terrorist killers in a futile attempt to appease them.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

Here we go again. I guess gays have nothing better to do than to go after the Boy Scouts.

When does it become harassment???


12 posted on 03/09/2006 12:58:35 PM PST by Londo Molari
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TheBigB

Not that this is pertinent to this subject, but looking at govt money in this way... wouldn't that make vouchers for choice in schooling dangerous for religious organizations to take? It seems they would then have to comply with govt rules in how they run their schools.
One reason why I think tax credits for school choice is better than vouchers.


13 posted on 03/09/2006 12:59:54 PM PST by antceecee (Reagan Democrat and now a Bush Republican...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Londo Molari
I guess gays have nothing better to do than to go after the Boy Scouts.

It's all part of their "lifestyle" when you get right down to it.

14 posted on 03/09/2006 1:00:20 PM PST by FormerLib (Kosova: "land stolen from Serbs and given to terrorist killers in a futile attempt to appease them.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: antceecee
Yes, I agree. I support school choice, and I support tax credits rather than vouchers.

Whether I agree with the beliefs of x or not, I think the Gov't can say, "X can believe and act as it wishes, but if x chooses to accept public money, x will accept conditions." That's exactly what the USSC just said, and it's why so many support private schools. I think it should be enforced equally, whether it's for Yale or the BSA.

15 posted on 03/09/2006 1:03:22 PM PST by TheBigB (Try Ma Skillett's Funky Fritters!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: SmithL
I see this as good news.
Finally we can get a ruling on this nonsense by the SCOUS.
16 posted on 03/09/2006 1:06:21 PM PST by Zathras
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

I read the decision....

The California Supreme Court fails to address SEC. 8173. SUPPORT FOR YOUTH ORGANIZATIONS- (a) Short Title- This Act may be cited as the `Support Our Scouts Act of 2005'. An Act of Cogress.

I wonder why?

RD


17 posted on 03/09/2006 1:08:56 PM PST by reagandemocrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: reagandemocrat

An Act of 'CONGRESS' (Sorry)


18 posted on 03/09/2006 1:10:04 PM PST by reagandemocrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Congressman Billybob

The scouts built a seawall that cost them $150,000 and gave it to San Diego?


19 posted on 03/09/2006 1:12:04 PM PST by Fresh Wind (Democrats are guilty of whatever they scream the loudest about.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

Gay men having access to boys is a very high priority for them.


20 posted on 03/09/2006 1:12:40 PM PST by Always Right
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

"No State or unit of general local government that has a designated open forum, limited public forum, or nonpublic forum and that is a recipient of assistance under this chapter shall deny equal access or a fair opportunity to meet to, or discriminate against, any youth organization, including the Boy Scouts of America or any group officially affiliated with the Boy Scouts of America, that wishes to conduct a meeting or otherwise participate in that designated open forum, limited public forum, or nonpublic forum."

Seems to me that Berkeley cannot discriminate against the Boy Scouts...


21 posted on 03/09/2006 1:18:14 PM PST by reagandemocrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SlowBoat407
Turnabout is fair play. SCOTUS said that schools taking federal money had to allow military recruiters on campus, and we should expect no less cooperation from anyone else who benefits from a subsidy or freebie.

My understanding of the reasoning behind the SCOTUS ruling is that it was based on the Constitution's explicit provision that Congress may raise an army, and not that there is some generalized concept in the law that whoever pays part of the bill gets to punish those who do not kowtow to politically-correct (and politically-corrupt) mandates.

22 posted on 03/09/2006 1:22:48 PM PST by Zeppo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: SmithL
Unfortunate, but I really don't have a huge problem with it. Berkley isn't throwing them out of the marina and isn't discriminating against them, they're just going to start treating them like any other tenant. I believe strongly that the scouts have a right to limit their membership however they want since they're a private organization. Since they are a private organization, however, they really shouldn't be expecting government handouts and subsidies. Either you're private, or you're publicly funded. You can't claim one while demanding the other.

That said, where do I send my check? I have no problem donating to help them pay for their spot.
23 posted on 03/09/2006 1:25:02 PM PST by Arthalion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

SAN FRANCISCO -- The state Supreme Court, in a victory for sodomite-rights advocates, ruled unanimously today that Berkeley could withdraw a rent subsidy to a Boy Scouts affiliate at the city marina because of the scouts' no-sodomites-allowed policy.

Although the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2000 that the Boy Scouts had a constitutional right to exclude sodomites, Berkeley is not required to provide funding to an organization that violates the city's antidiscrimination policy, the state justices said.

Cities can require recipients of public money to "provide written, unambiguous assurances of compliances with a generally applicable nondiscrimination policy,'' Justice Kathryn Mickle Werdegar said in her opinion for the court.

The case involved the Sea Scouts, a nonprofit organization that teaches sailing and maritime skills to teenagers. The Boy Scouts affiliate used space at the Berkeley Marina without charge from the 1930s until 1998, when the City Council eliminated rent subsidies at the marina for nonprofits that discriminated on the basis of being a sodomite, religion or various other categories.

When the organization, after consultation with the Boy Scouts, refused to promise that it would admit sodomites as members or leaders, the city began charging $500 a month in rent.

The Sea Scouts and individual members sued in 1999, saying the fee was an unconstitutional punishment for free speech and association. Lower courts ruled in the city's favor.


There... fixed it


24 posted on 03/09/2006 1:37:23 PM PST by Ouderkirk (Funny how death and destruction seems to happen wherever Muslims gather...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AFA-Michigan; AggieCPA; Agitate; AliVeritas; AllTheRage; An American In Dairyland; Annie03; ...
Homosexual Agenda Ping!

To be included in or removed from the
HOMOSEXUAL AGENDA PING LIST,
please FReepMail either DBeers or DirtyHarryY2k.

Free Republic homosexual agenda keyword search

SAN FRANCISCO -- The state Supreme Court, in a victory for gay-rights advocates, ruled unanimously today that Berkeley could withdraw a rent subsidy to a Boy Scouts affiliate at the city marina because of the scouts' no-gays-allowed policy.

LOL -a victory for "gay-rights" advocates? This is nothing more than an acknowledgment that homosexual agenda advocates once again have failed to intimidate the Boy Scouts and are sore losers who want to monetarily penalize the rebellious reality based heteronormative organization!

What is another 'legal' victory by judicial fiat for the homosexual activists is but another acknowledgment of societal rejection of homosexual activity...

25 posted on 03/09/2006 1:42:07 PM PST by DBeers ()
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TheBigB

Money strings are exactly how the Feds control every aspect of our lives, organizations, and the like. Revenus sharing by the Feds did more to undermine states rights than any single stroke of the pen ever instituted. Ask the homosexuals how much in federal dollars they have recieved for a preventable, lethal, venereal disease.


26 posted on 03/09/2006 1:42:57 PM PST by Neoliberalnot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: SmithL
Sad news that they're off the public dole? Give me a break!

Similar situation here in San Diego with an over abundance of consideration given to the Scouts for a lease in Balboa Park.

It's not for any American municipality to endorse (which free rent is) the Scout's exclusionary agenda which they have a legal right to have. However, if they can't pay, they can't lease. The court is correct whether you like the Scouts or do not.

27 posted on 03/09/2006 1:52:25 PM PST by newzjunkey (All I need is a safe home and peace of mind. Why am I still in CA?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FormerLib
Exactly correct: The BSA will find a way to pay the rent. BSA-devoted Freepers would probably throw money at them for this cause.

No harm done, it's just one more organization / corporation off the taxpayer's nipple.

28 posted on 03/09/2006 1:55:27 PM PST by newzjunkey (All I need is a safe home and peace of mind. Why am I still in CA?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

Just a reminder of what the queers are really all about.


29 posted on 03/09/2006 2:01:26 PM PST by jmaroneps37 (John Spencer is the warrior we have been waiting for.We can trust him with our future.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Neoliberalnot
HIV/AIDS is not exclusively homosexual. Stop pretending otherwise. So long as there are tainted blood and blood products or sexual predators caring HIV, it's worth researching with public funds. We've learned a lot about immunology which can be applied to other situations. Federal funds apply to beneficial research on a variety of preventable diseases, not just HIV-AIDS.

It'd have been useful if, in the Reagan era, HIV/AIDS patients had been able, politically, to be quarantined since human behavior otherwise means the disease will continue to spread, sometimes face only partial treatment and mutate causing lost ground for researchers. Seems like a genie political reality dictates we can't put back in the bottle now no matter how useful quarantine could be. Maybe when it becomes easily transmitted by oral sex and whole middle schools are riddled with HIV/AIDS carriers, political winds will shift.

30 posted on 03/09/2006 2:05:05 PM PST by newzjunkey (All I need is a safe home and peace of mind. Why am I still in CA?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: SmithL
Sad news - I expected better from the California Supreme Court.

Private enterprise has no right to expect or demand government subsidy.

Those who see a decision based on sound conservative principle, the right of a local electorate to reasonably direct where and how their money is spent, need to reexamine their political logic.

31 posted on 03/09/2006 2:15:55 PM PST by Amerigomag
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: newzjunkey

I am fully aware that the homosexual community disseminated HIV to others. Nevertheless, 90% of AIDS cases still reside in homosexual groups which represents about 2% of the population.

The disease was treated as a civil rights issue as a first where public health concerns were relegated to the back seat. We are paying the price now. Quarantine in the early 80s was the solution, but, concern for public health and applying principles of disease control gave way to "civil rights."

The amount of money spent on AIDS on the basis of morbidity/mortality data far exceeds (>200%) that spent on cardiovascular, cancer, diabetes, etc. WE have learned more about immune suppression at the expense of studying diseases that kill far more people.


32 posted on 03/09/2006 2:28:09 PM PST by Neoliberalnot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: newzjunkey
HIV/AIDS is not exclusively homosexual. Stop pretending otherwise. So long as there are tainted blood and blood products or sexual predators caring HIV, it's worth researching with public funds. We've learned a lot about immunology which can be applied to other situations. Federal funds apply to beneficial research on a variety of preventable diseases, not just HIV-AIDS.

It'd have been useful if, in the Reagan era, HIV/AIDS patients had been able, politically, to be quarantined since human behavior otherwise means the disease will continue to spread, sometimes face only partial treatment and mutate causing lost ground for researchers. Seems like a genie political reality dictates we can't put back in the bottle now no matter how useful quarantine could be. Maybe when it becomes easily transmitted by oral sex and whole middle schools are riddled with HIV/AIDS carriers, political winds will shift.

relax LOL...

Homosexuality is exclusively defined by feelings of predisposition toward and or actual participation in homosexual activity.

Homosexual male on male brokeback sex is the most predominant method of HIV/AIDS transmission. So I would suggest that rather than "Maybe when it becomes easily transmitted by oral sex and whole middle schools are riddled with HIV/AIDS carriers, political winds will shift" that when homosexual male on male brokeback sex is publicly recognized as the health threat to society that it is and no longer given a free ride as you attempt to do THEN and only then will it be possible to turn the corner on the disease...

33 posted on 03/09/2006 2:30:00 PM PST by DBeers ()
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: DBeers

People should remember that a few years ago the demand was made (by who? I can't remember) that every judge in CA with a membership in the BSA be required to quit or leave their judgeship. It was amended so that judges with a membership in the BSA - listen carefully - CANNOT PRESIDE OVER ANY CASE INVOLVING HOMOSEXUAL ISSUES.

California is a doomed pit.


34 posted on 03/09/2006 3:03:05 PM PST by little jeremiah (Education without values, as useful as it is, seems rather to make man a more clever devil. CS.Lewis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: reagandemocrat

How are they discriminating against the Boy Scouts? The change in policy applies to all non-profits, not just the Boy Scouts.


35 posted on 03/09/2006 3:06:12 PM PST by jf55510
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: SmithL
Well if you receive public funds, there are strings attached. It works both ways - law schools can't exclude military recruiters and cities may dictate what conditions go along with receiving a rent subsidy. The Sea Scouts will just have to do without it to maintain their organizational independence.

(Denny Crane: "I Don't Want To Socialize With A Pinko Liberal Democrat Commie. Say What You Like About Republicans. We Stick To Our Convictions. Even When We Know We're Dead Wrong.")

36 posted on 03/09/2006 3:32:02 PM PST by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives On In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jf55510

Not so. Berkeley provides free berths to many non-profit organizations, they've just targeted the Boy Scouts to revoke their stipend due to BSA's policy on homosexuality.



37 posted on 03/09/2006 3:38:36 PM PST by reagandemocrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

"Sad news - I expected better from the California Supreme Court."

You did?

Hope the scouts take this to the USSC.


38 posted on 03/09/2006 4:03:41 PM PST by gidget7 (Get GLDSEN out of our schools!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: reagandemocrat
Not so. Berkeley provides free berths to many non-profit organizations, they've just targeted the Boy Scouts to revoke their stipend due to BSA's policy on homosexuality.

The change in policy applies to any non-profit organization which "discriminates" based on homosexuality. They aren't targeting the Boy Scouts, they are targeting any and every organization which "discriminates" based on homosexuality.
39 posted on 03/09/2006 4:09:59 PM PST by jf55510
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: jf55510
The change in policy applies to any non-profit organization which "discriminates" based on homosexuality.

The change in policy applies to any non-profit organization which will not embrace and condone homosexual activity or will not embrace and condone those that promote homosexual activity. Berkely wishes to promote, support and promulgate homosexual activity within the community on the tax payers dime -the Boy Scouts do not serve that bizarre goal; as such, Berkeley will not finance "homophobic" & "heteronormative" Boy Scout activities e.g. camping...

No one can discriminate against a subjective feeling held by another e.g. "homosexuality"... Discrimination applies to objective things only such as activities or innate characteristics e.g. "race"...

40 posted on 03/09/2006 4:48:51 PM PST by DBeers ()
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: RonF; AppauledAtAppeasementConservat; Da Jerdge; Looking for Diogenes; Congressman Billybob; ...

This will end up with SCOTUS I think.


41 posted on 03/09/2006 8:51:16 PM PST by SandRat (Duty, Honor, Country. What else needs to be said?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

You expected more from the CA Supreme Court. Surely you jest. They are the most liberal in all of the land.


42 posted on 03/09/2006 9:14:47 PM PST by notpoliticallycorewrecked (God bless our military)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: notpoliticallycorewrecked
You expected more from the CA Supreme Court. Surely you jest. They are the most liberal in all of the land.

Actually, they aren't. The California Supreme Court is one of the most conservative State courts.

You're probably thinking of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, also based in San Francisco, which is probably the most liberal (and most overturned) of the Federal courts.

43 posted on 03/09/2006 9:37:07 PM PST by SmithL (Sarchasm: The gulf between the author of sarcastic wit and the person who doesn't get it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: SmithL

Yep, your are right, I was thinkin of the 9th Court.


44 posted on 03/09/2006 9:39:43 PM PST by notpoliticallycorewrecked (God bless our military)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Extremely Extreme Extremist

California SCOTUS is a fairly conservative court.


45 posted on 03/09/2006 10:07:19 PM PST by Torie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Torie

And the decision was unanimous. Apparently subsidies does not equal free speech.


46 posted on 03/09/2006 10:11:31 PM PST by Torie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: newzjunkey
Similar situation here in San Diego with an over abundance of consideration given to the Scouts for a lease in Balboa Park.

The City of San Diego must be required to repay the Scouts the full value of all improvements made to the property. The city accepted all the labor and materials to maintain the site for years. The city can't have it both ways. The Scouts made the investment in good faith and the city has taken it away without just compensation.

47 posted on 03/09/2006 10:14:01 PM PST by Myrddin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Extremely Extreme Extremist

Is California still part of the USA?

Just wonderin'.


48 posted on 03/09/2006 10:20:45 PM PST by Mears (The Killer Queen-caviar and cigarettes.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: DBeers
The change in policy applies to any non-profit organization which will not embrace and condone homosexual activity or will not embrace and condone those that promote homosexual activity.

Exactly, the change in policy is legal. The governmental entity is not discriminating against the Boy Scouts, they are setting a policy which says taxpayer supported non-profits can't discriminate based on sexual preferrence. There is nothing wrong with that.

Berkely wishes to promote, support and promulgate homosexual activity within the community on the tax payers dime -the Boy Scouts do not serve that bizarre goal; as such, Berkeley will not finance "homophobic" & "heteronormative" Boy Scout activities e.g. camping...

So what? The elected officials of Berkley can spend the taxpayers money as they see fit. They set policies for the town regarding the use of public lands, they did nothing illegal here.

No one can discriminate against a subjective feeling held by another e.g. "homosexuality"... Discrimination applies to objective things only such as activities or innate characteristics e.g. "race"...

Well, the courts, all levels including the Supreme Court disagree with you. The city did nothing wrong here.
49 posted on 03/09/2006 10:50:18 PM PST by jf55510
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: jf55510

>>>The city did nothing wrong here.<<<

Other than to violate an act of Congress, you may be right.


50 posted on 03/10/2006 8:26:34 AM PST by reagandemocrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-57 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson