Posted on 05/27/2008 11:00:52 AM PDT by Dawnsblood
“......As an organization the Girl Scouts have chosen not to exclude people from membership or leadership based on sexual orientation.”
Can heterosexual boys join the GS? Transexuals? Can released pedophiles be den moms?
How about the Red Cross who exclude HIV positive blood donors?
Girls Scouts don't exclude people based on sexual orientation. But if the Scouts could locate a group with restrictive membership that does use public facilities then that would go a long way towards knocking the legs out from under the city's case. If I were them I'd check out any country clubs or private clubs in the city,or the rowing clubs along the Schuylkill River.
The BSA should just move the entire building out of the city. Here’s an outfit that can do that for them:
Regards,
Fine. No contract, no lease, the original agreement should be null and void. They city should “give” the bldg back to the Scouts to do with as they see fit.
A link to COLBSA’s page on it:
http://www.colbsa.org/openrosters/ViewOrgPageLink.asp?LinkKey=12731&orgkey=1853
actually I get the implression that Girl Scouts have gone way over to the dark side and are prety much endorsing homesexual conduct.
no the city of philly is saying that the scouts first amendment freedom of association must comply with teh religions and “conscience” precepts of the government religion.
You must believe as the government mandates or you may not have the benefits of a governemtn that honors its contracts.
Only if the Scouts want to use city property. It's their choice.
You must believe as the government mandates or you may not have the benefits of a governemtn that honors its contracts.
You would be wrong.
I wouldn't know.
Please ping your Scouting list.
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.
star scout bump
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.
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.”
LOL!
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.
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.Philadelphia is violating the Scout’s constitutional right to association which the SOTUS already established. Philly officials should go to jail.
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.
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.
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.