Berkeley marina case tests Scouts' anti-gay stance

SAN FRANCISCO -- The California Supreme Court announced Wednesday it will step into a case that's being viewed as the next major legal test of the Boy Scouts' stand against homosexuality. By a bare majority, the justices said they'll review lower court decisions that let Berkeley rescind half-century-old free-berthing privileges at the city marina to the local Sea Scouts chapter. The city acted in 1997, after the chapter refused to renounce the anti-gay position of its parent Boy Scouts.

(Brad Dacus' agendized Pacific Justice Friends are involved... and that makes it look bad for the Scouts.)

His group is called Pacific LEGAL Foundation, by the way. They're strong property-rights supporters and defenders of Prop. 209 and English education. I think they've won at the US Supreme Court in the past, so why do say it "looks bad" that he's involved?

While I generally agree with the points you are making, I do have one comment. Quite a bit can be lumped into the very broad term "non-discrimination", where does society draw the line as to what kind of discrimination is acceptable? For instance, should the sea scouts have to allow admitted pedophiles into their organization? If not, they are discriminating against pedophiles. What about nudists? Same thing.

At some point, society as a whole is going to decide that not all discrimination is bad. Some types of discrimination make sense. For instance, I don't personnally believe women should serve in the military. There are arguments that can be made both ways, but if society decided women shouldn't serve in the military, I don't believe such would be "bad" discrimination.

In the same vein, I don't believe that racial profiling is necessarilly evil, depending upon how it is used. For instance, should security at airports be focused mostly on middle eastern looking men? I believe they should.

BAck to the case at hand, I don't have a problem with this type of discrimination, but believe that each locality and state should be able to determine on its own whether to make this type of discrimination "Illegal". Here, Berekely has apparently done so, and your points above make sense.

That was a long rant to agree with you.

- Brownie

So, according to the Supreme Court, it is illegal to discriminate against homosexuals? Please refer me to that case. Also refer me to the case that makes it illegal to discriminate against known pedophiles.

You are an idiot. Only certain basis for discrimination are defined in the Constitution (Homosexuality is not one of them). Therefore, the power to define what types of discrimination society will or will not accept is left to the states. Try to get some education.

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.