Posted on 02/28/2003 2:36:31 PM PST by laureldrive
Edited on 04/14/2004 10:05:53 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
That just isn't true. The Boy Scout policy that you - and Berkeley don't like - is a form of free belief and free speech, so recognized by the Supreme Court. Berkeley can't discriminate against the Scouts because of what the Scouts believe and what they say.
So the fact that other groups believe differently, and therefore get the subsidy, while the Scouts are denied the subsidy because of their beliefs, is discrimination that violates the First Amendment.
Berkeley could cut off all subsidies to everybody - - that would be fine, since it doesn't have an obligation to provide subsidies. But it can't withhold subsidies selectively because this or that group holds beliefs, and policies based on those beliefs, that differ with Berkeley's official beliefs as expressed in its antidiscrimination rule.
Good morning.
Puh-leeze, one or two ships? Berkeley intended the policy to impress on people everywhere they need to accede to their politically correct agenda of "gay brotherhood". It's not about one boat, it's about thousands of Scouts and their parents.
The timing of the events is more than a "speck" of evidence, it's a truckload.
This has nothing to do with their ideology or “moral outlook;” it’s all about money.
This cannot be a serious contention - it's too weak on the face of it. The only "money" aspect of this is the people of Berkeley who see leftists using their tax money immorally over and over. They see hundreds of Scouts shafted on a political correctness issue: Scouts whose parents pay many, many tens of thousands in taxes. They see those tens of thousands being used to support every kind of leftist claptrap the town clowns can dream up.
If it was about money and wasn't about "moral outlook" why wouldn't the BSA be out recruiting gay leaders? After all, they have a higher average income, right?
Clearly it's a moral issue, and they're simply trying to protect young boys from influences they consider undesirable. And because the leftists have no morals, and don't believe in live and let live (unless it's in total conformance with their rules) they punish them.
What you cite is a statement by a lawyer justifying the Sea Scouts position in a legal document. Have any Sea Scout leaders or parents said anything like this? "Gee, we'd really love to have gay leaders take our boys on overnight boat rides, but that nasty insurance cost is keeping us from broadening their horizons."
Lawyers'd throw in anything including the kitchen sink if they thought it would help them win the case. "If the glove don't fit, you must acquit."
It's a moral issue. People want to protect their children from unwanted influences.
I can vividly recall a 5th grade parents meeting on sex ed, attended by nearly all of the class parents. Among them were a lesbian couple, who were concerned that the (Lutheran) school might be offering unwelcome viewpoints. Having heard of some of the propagandizing being done in schools today, I was concerned too - although for an opposite reason, as some of the school employees were rabid leftists. Fortunately the presenters satisfied all of us that the class would be strictly on basic body mechanics (with techniques like fisting left out), and that the moral lessons would be left to home.
But Berkeley wants to punish people who want to protect their children. Godlike, they know what's good for everyone. Everyone must be accepted. Everyone's sexual practices are "OK", no matter what. Everyone must think the same or they'll be punished.
Despicable.
Oh, my stars ! To think that an attorney would ever stretch a point, or add something his or her client didn't explicitly authorize !
C'mon, get real.
Appellants did agree to a modified version of a "don't ask, don't tell" program, in which appellants stated that they considered such matters as sexual orientation to be a private matter, which they would not ask anyone to divulge, and appellants agreed to obey any laws actually forbidding them from engaging in any illegal discrimination.
If it is not made obvious by overt action or vocalization, how in hell are they supposed to know who's homosexual? Is it tattooed on their foreheads? Are they really interested in sworn statements by eighteen witnesses signed in blood that the person in question has been under constant observation for the last X years and there's absolutely no chance they're homosexual? Should they be requiring lie detector tests under truth serum?
madg, most people don't care. They don't want to know about it. It is the homosexual activists who demand to be simultaneously flaming and beloved. Who demand that everyone approve of their stridency and constant advocacy.
Sea Scouts are interested in scouting. A boy or girl who kept their pants zipped and their mouth shut about subjects unrelated to scouting would likely be welcomed. There's no need to call for a sexual Torquemada to insure heterosexuality. Don't ask, don't tell makes good sense.
Homosexual activists are interested in homosexuality, see sex in everything, and wouldn't be able to get past that. They also wouldn't be able to live without constantly throwing it in the faces of everyone else, whether thay want to hear about it or not. And demanding (not seeking, mind you) approval.
That doesn't answer my point. My point is that the city is treating them DIFFERENTLY - with DISCRIMINATION -- because they're exercising their beliefs. You can't do that under the First Amendment.
Perjury was your term, not mine. I haven't read the entire court record, but your point was that it was "all about money". Mine is that it was not.
The rest of your message is amusingly ironic. Here I am, a gay guy, going on and on in this thread without saying anything about sex… and there YOU are, talking about keeping pants zipped and the like… yet you claim that it’s the GAY people that can’t refrain from talking about sex!
Pardon me if I resort to colloquialisms in trying to bring the conversation back from the "it's all about money" direction you were trying to take it. It's not about money, and the point is clear - it's about morality. I could have said "avoid overt expressions of sexual behavior" but I think you know clearly what I meant.
"Don't ask, don't tell" is a reasonable policy. You were criticizing the Scouts because they'd offered that. The original BSA suit was about a guy who had to run around advertising his "preference" and make a big deal about it. I know it's against the current PC rules today to be gay and not announce it in the first five seconds after meeting somebody, but that's the very behavior that was deemed undesirable.
"You have to love me and approve of me and make me feel good - and by the way, I pick my nose in public and eat it."
C'mon.
Thanks… I needed a good chuckle this morning! ;-)
We always try to please.
sure they are - - they have to pay a fee; others don't. It's true that the SAME RULE is applied to everybody -- ie, don't discriminate, or associate with the BSA, or you'll have to pay a fee -- but that's an unfair rule, that punishes free expression and freedom of association.
What if a rule said, DON'T engage in gay conduct, or you'll pay a fee to use the city parking lot. You could say, nobody's being treated different because the same rule applied to everybody, but in fact people are having a fee imposed on them because they're gay.
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.