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

Skip to comments.

Boy Scouts sue Phila. to stay in headquarters
The Philadelphia Inquirer ^ | 5/27/08 | Joseph A. Slobodzian

Posted on 05/27/2008 11:00:52 AM PDT by Dawnsblood

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-61 last
To: Non-Sequitur

no because the city is saying the $1 a year deal would be allow IF the scouts complied with the city’s view of recreational sex.

It is NOT equal treatment because another pro-homosexual group would get the enhanced benefit.

It is UNequal treatment based on the scout’s conscience.

If the city wanted to go with clean hands they would have to charge EVERYONE exactly the same. They are not. You can get preferential treatment if you agree that one man playing with another man’s genitals is somehow “normal”.

That torpedoes the argument the city is putting forth.


51 posted on 05/27/2008 1:28:03 PM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Dawnsblood

star scout bump


52 posted on 05/27/2008 1:28:56 PM PDT by markman46 (engage brain before using keyboard!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory
no because the city is saying the $1 a year deal would be allow IF the scouts complied with the city’s view of recreational sex.

That's one way of putting it I suppose. But the Scouts are free to say 'No' to the city and there is nothing the city can do to force the Scouts to admit homosexuals. At the same time there is nothing the Scouts can do to force the city to subsidize their headquarters, either.

It is NOT equal treatment because another pro-homosexual group would get the enhanced benefit.

And what group would that be?

It is UNequal treatment based on the scout’s conscience.

If the Scouts can show that other organizations with similar exclusive membership policies have been allowed to use city property then they would probably win their case.

If the city wanted to go with clean hands they would have to charge EVERYONE exactly the same. They are not. You can get preferential treatment if you agree that one man playing with another man’s genitals is somehow “normal”.

So you say.

That torpedoes the argument the city is putting forth.

Somehow I don't think so.

53 posted on 05/27/2008 1:35:05 PM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur

The city apparently has other groups that have such favorable rent agreements BECAUSE they comply with the thought control rules of the city manager.

In addition the city has said IF the scouts comply with teh thought control rule then they can keep the building otherwise they have to pay a “penalty” to stay.

IOW, in another world “if you are a catholic you have to pay double because you will not convert to anglican and reject the pope.”


54 posted on 05/27/2008 1:55:41 PM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: True Republican Patriot

LOL!


55 posted on 05/27/2008 3:29:33 PM PDT by contemplator (Capitalism gets no Rock Concerts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory
The city apparently has other groups that have such favorable rent agreements BECAUSE they comply with the thought control rules of the city manager.

If you can show where the city holds them to different standards than those they're holding the Scouts to then you have a case.

56 posted on 05/27/2008 3:31:39 PM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: Stark_GOP
No. The fact is that the city owns the dirt under the building.

I hate to be a stickler but several folks have called me out on this point. According to http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2007/dec/07121107.html

The famous Beaux Arts style building was built and paid for by the Scouts, and turned over to the city

I would like to see the agreement where they turned it over to the city. If they did it based solely on the 1928 ordinance without a seperate agreement spelling out the terms then they might not have a lot to stand on.

Those were much more innocent times. Today no one would dream of turning over their property to a city government without an air-tight contract spelling out all of the terms and allowing stipulations for the person or nonprofit to get their property back. At the very least since it sits on city land, they should have stipulated that they have option to sell it to the city for fair market value. If the rent for just the land is $200k a year, then it is very valuable property indeed.
57 posted on 05/27/2008 3:55:43 PM PDT by contemplator (Capitalism gets no Rock Concerts)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

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

58 posted on 05/27/2008 4:06:32 PM PDT by SandRat (Duty, Honor, Country! What else needs said?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
Philadelphia is violating the Scout’s constitutional right to association which the SOTUS already established. Philly officials should go to jail.
Not at all. The Scouts are free to continue restricting their membership. Philly is saying that they just need to do it in another building.
That's fair enough, if the city owns the property free and clear. It doesn't; the city is contractually obligated to rent the property to the Boy Scouts for $1 per year. I'm sure the Boy Scouts could be compensated for the abrogation of that contract. How much? The city has stipulated how much rent the building is worth; if the city wants out of the contract, the price for doing so is obviously that annual rent figure - divided by the interest rate the scouts can obtain at zero risk, in perpetuity.

59 posted on 05/27/2008 6:16:38 PM PDT by conservatism_IS_compassion (The conceit of journalistic objectivity is profoundly subversive of democratic principle.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: conservatism_IS_compassion
That's fair enough, if the city owns the property free and clear. It doesn't; the city is contractually obligated to rent the property to the Boy Scouts for $1 per year.

The city does own the property and if there was a contrct with the Boy Scouts then we wouldn't be having this discussion. There was, apparently, an informal agreement which the city has chosen to void.

60 posted on 05/28/2008 3:58:19 AM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
There was, apparently, an informal agreement which the city has chosen to void.
I would want a link before I took for granted that just because the transaction between the Boy Scouts and the city took place a couple of generations ago it follows that everything was done on a handshake basis. There were lawyers, even back then - and it would have been a serious undertaking for the Scouts to build their - repeat, their - building. If they hadn't considered it their building, why did they build it?

61 posted on 05/28/2008 5:40:54 AM PDT by conservatism_IS_compassion (The conceit of journalistic objectivity is profoundly subversive of democratic principle.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-61 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