Posted on 10/16/2006 8:04:00 AM PDT by SmithL
A Boy Scouts sailing group that lost free use of a public boat slip because of the Scouts' discriminatory policies failed to persuade the Supreme Court to take its case.
The justices on Monday let stand a unanimous California Supreme Court ruling that the city of Berkeley may treat the Berkeley Sea Scouts differently from other nonprofits because the Scouts bar atheists and gays.
The leader of the Sea Scouts argued that forcing the group to pay for a berth at the marina violated the group's free speech and freedom of association rights.
The U.S. high court ruled in 2000 that the Boy Scouts have the right to ban openly homosexual scout leaders, a decision that rested on the Scouts' First Amendment rights.
Even so, the California Supreme Court said in March, local governments are under no obligation to extend benefits to organizations that discriminate.
Berkeley, home of free speech protests since the 1960s, adopted a nondiscrimination policy on the use of its marina in 1997 and revoked the Sea Scouts' subsidy a year later.
The Sea Scouts are a branch of the Boy Scouts that teaches sailing, carpentry and plumbing. City officials had told the group that it could retain its berthing subsidy if it broke ties with the Boy Scouts or disavowed the policy against gays and atheists, but the Sea Scouts refused.
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
Why?
The liberal activist SCOTUS does it again.
Washington fiddles while America burns...
Because there are still too many liberals on the court that would uphold it and make bad law. It is better to wait until the right mix is on the court.
Have the President's two "conservative" appointees ruled conservatively on a single case yet? This sure looks like the same old liberal SCOTUS to me.
They don't have the votes. I believe we need one more conservative to start winning cases.
"...sailing, carpentry and plumbing" ?
Don't necessarily like the decision but now the SeaScouts need to SELL their rip-rap and RENT space at a marina.
lol. every freeper should stay at home and not vote to protest! then we get more liberal judges confirmed by a dem senate...that'll show em!!
There shouldn't be children in a place like Berkeley anyway. It's abuse.
Children could get infected or sodomized in a sick place like Berkeley.
Have you considered how a long a wait this might be? Most of the Justices on the Supreme Court are "conservatives" who have been placed there by "conservative" Presidents, so I guess we're waiting for a third Party to rule, or for America to collapse; whichever comes first.
It would be nice if someone who owns a private slip says "Here ya go boys". My dad was a scout and that's how I became a sailor. Payment?? I'll put it in my will. It's yours "FOREVER".
Private organizations are (or at least should be) free to include or exclude whomever they want. However, they should be prepared to face the consequences of such policies, like those who don't share their views not giving them freebies.
I wonder how many boat slips the Scouts could have rented for what this case is costing them?
Sounds good until you look a little deeper into your logic.. This is a govt. owned marina, and it gives free access to nonprofits. It is, in fact, discriminating against the scouts and trying to force its own mores on a private orgn. Does the govt. then have the right to discriminate or not according to whomever is in power when te rules are made? Or should it treat all orgn. fairly? Oh, I forgot--this is CA. vaudine
Not SCOTUS, it's the California SC.
I'm sure Berkeley offers various privileges to other organizations whose biases they favor. Sounds like a research project...
Yes we Dems fight hard to keep the perverts away from pages and scouts.
Aren't all of the other organizations also discriminating? They do not allow people with the boy scouts view into their organizations.
I have not read the opinion of the California court, but I think this case seems equivalent to what happened in the 80s when cities divested investment in South Africa. For example, my town could treat NAMBLA or NARAL differently from other groups because they are perverts or baby killers.
IIRC, Congressman Billybob predicted that SCOTUS wouldn't take this case up, and he was involved in the same somewhat himself. jSomething about the trial findings betting messed up, and that it clouded the issue at hand. CBB, could you enlighten us?
Those who pine for a return to Constitutional government should remember this. Because every activist decision like this embitters American conservatives. Every decision like this means that it is less likely conservatives will put constitutional scholars on the court, and more likely they will put activists of a conservative stripe on the SCOTUS. There IS a culture war going on, and nobody will play fair after this kind of dirty fighting.
I don't care about the SCOTUS intervening in an intrastate decision. On the basis of federalism, this should have been left alone. In fact, vaudine, STATE governments should have the right to discriminate or not according to whomever is in power when the rules are made. It's the federal government that is restricted by the BoR, generally, and the federal courts shouldn't be intervening in state establishment of religion (or in this case, secularism). If Alabama wants state schools to teach Baptist theology, it ought to be able to have its schools do so.
But simply remaining silent and not explaining this is to me a travesty, especially since the rules only seem to be enforced in this fashion when they're explicitly pro-gay or pro-atheist. God forbid (pun intended) a state ALLOW a religious expression and restrict government subsidy on that basis...the SCOTUS would never support that.
Good question. Congressman Billybob predicted this result -- I'd like to know more about how he knew this would happen.
"Not SCOTUS, it's the California SC. "
Nope. The CASC already ruled, unanimously. The SCOTUS just decided not to hear the case, thereby letting the CASK stand.
One of us should do this one. Have to depart this minute, back later.
Oh - finally I realized it's the CA Supremes and not the real Supremes. Duh.
Wrong again.
Going back to simple lurk mode.
I'm not in the business of criticizing other counsel, especially where they have acted as volunteers, on an issue and for a client that I respect highly. So, I won't go into chapter and verse, but just stay with my conclusion that the case was scrambled, and the Court would not take it.
This does not foreclose a similar case with the facts lined up like ducks, from presenting the same issue to the Court again in the future. A denial of certiorari has NO value as precedent as the Court said in the Bradley case, which followed my first loss in the Supreme Court.
John / Billybob
It looks like we still have a liberal Supreme Court. Again their ruling is plain WRONG. What is wrong with them? This ruling is sickening.
That's the way I read it, too. It's the Kalifornia Supreme Court that ruled against the Scouts, in support of the idea that if you have moral or religious grounds to NOT admit sex deviates, you are "discriminating".
Discriminating in good taste is now banned in Kalifornia as a result.
I would think that if any non-profit in Kalifornia does not allow goat-f*($)#$*#) into their organization, they would also lose their free venue?
Thanks.
The story's link shows it from Washington, this is the SCOTUS that it's talking about.
Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the homosexual agenda ping list.
Click FreeRepublic homosexual agenda keyword search for a list of all related articles.
Add keywords homosexual agenda to flag FR articles to this ping list.
So much for a more conservative Supreme Court...
How many years did we hear that Sandra Day O'Connor was the "swing vote"? Well, the 'swing vote' has been replaced by a 'conservative' Justice, installed by a 'conservative' President, and nothing has changed. I don't look for anything to change either, until the time comes when the American people are no longer buffaloed into believing that men like George W. Bush are 'conservatives'. Bush may appear 'conservative' when compared to the Communist Party known as Democrats, but true conservatism no longer exists in American politics.
No, we need to show 'em but eliminating two of the GOP members of the Gang of 14 that cost conservatives several judges on circuit courts -- Lincoln Chafee and Mike DeWine.
The government has the power to choose whether it will do business with any entity. Would you feel comfortable giving freebies to "Mad Mohammed's Jew-Killin', Infidel-Slicin' Mosque"?
I think you're all missing the point here. This case is small beans to the main agenda this court wants to push through. They are trying to keep the docket as clear as possible, so they can get down to the main issue that the conservatives want to tackle: abortion. They are saving the big guns for that, and they're willing trading the small evils in order to go for the big one.
>> How many years did we hear that Sandra Day O'Connor was the "swing vote"? <<
Never. We always knew we needed two votes. Besides, an anti-activist court would tend to allow states' courts and democractically enacted laws stand. What the Boy Scouts are pleading for, here, is to receive the same judicial activism which has been granted in the past to other groups. Whether injustice applied evenhandedly constitutes better justice is a legitimate issue for disagreement among conservatives.
It is very likely that the USSC justices chose to avoid this dilemma:
If they rule FOR the scouts, they enshrine the liberal principles they oppose, but apply them evenly.
If they rule AGAINST the scouts, they create precedents for more local governments to abuse the scouts.
Uh, this sounds like a perfect case for SCOTUS. I don't understand why they wouldn't hear it.
Curious as to why you agree that SCOTUS should not hear this case (unless you are saying you agree with the original ruling, in which case, I'd like to understand the 'why' of that as well).
There were TWO swing votes.
We need one more for it to be a conservative court.
If you had paid attention, you would have realized we still don't have a conservative majority.
I think it has soemthing to do with a goevernment entity giving free boat slips to boy/sea scouts. Let 'em pay, and also pay for meeting space, unless another non-profit wants to loan them the space. We're giving too much away as it is.
The headline is misleading. Looks like this was CALIFORNIA'S Supreme Court, not SCOTUS.
Oops, my bad. On re-read, you're right. It WAS SCOTUS.
Very surprising. I wouldn't expect this ruling from Roberts, Scalia, Alito, and Thomas.
"It is, in fact, discriminating against the scouts ...."
....who are discriminating against non-theistic kids. Oh, the irony.
"It looks like we still have a liberal Supreme Court."
It's "liberal" because it didn't interfere is a state matter? They didn't pull a "nanny" and come to the boy scouts aid so you call them "liberal"? They recognize their limits and you call them "liberal".
This is just a case of you not getting what you wanted, which is an activist court.
The boy scouts have the right to discriminate and the city has the right to pass non-discrimination policies. That's just the way it goes. If the people of that city don't like it, they can vote in ploiticians to change it. It is none of the USSC's business.
Thanks John, for the refresher. I've learned from Rita Cosby not to jump on a few words in anything handed down by SCOTUS and conclude that I know what it means...
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.