Boy Scouts Case is Pot. Kettle. Black.

Anakha1

Banned
Boy Scouts Case is Pot. Kettle. Black.

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court refused Monday to hear an appeal from the Boy Scouts over what the organizations claims is discrimination because of its policy against hiring gays.

The case revisited the *** rights fight surrounding the high court's ruling four years ago that the Boy Scouts have the right to ban openly homosexual scout leaders. This time, the question was whether states may treat the Scouts differently than other organizations because of that policy.

The Scouts asked the justices to hear a case from Connecticut, where officials dropped the group from a list of charities that receive donations through a state employee payroll deduction plan.

That's unconstitutional discrimination, the Boy Scouts argued.

"To exclude the Boy Scouts from a forum based on their values they hold and the conduct they require of their members is to exclude Boy Scouts based on viewpoint and identity," lawyers for the Scouts argued in their Supreme Court appeal.

The Scouts took in about $10,000 annually from the employee charity campaign, the filing said.

The Boy Scouts are pursuing a similar court fight in San Diego, where city officials want to evict the group from a park where the organization runs a youth aquatic center. The Bush administration sided with the Scouts in that case last week.

Connecticut officials also raised the issue of discrimination to explain why the Scouts were dropped from the State Employee Campaign Committee in 2000.

A state human rights commission had found that including the Boy Scouts of America in the employee donation program would violate Connecticut's *** rights law, state Connecticut attorney General Richard Blumenthal argued to the high court.

The *** rights law prohibits the state from "becoming a party to any agreement, arrangement or plan which has the effect of sanctioning discrimination," the state's legal filing said.

A federal appeals court ruled last year that Connecticut did not violate the Scouts' First Amendment rights. The Connecticut policy was intended more to protect gays than to silence the views of groups like the Scouts, the court said in upholding then ruling of a lower federal judge.

The American Legion, Campus Crusade for Christ and numerous other organizations filed friend-of-the-court briefs supporting the Boy Scouts.

"Permitting this decision to stand would open the door for other governmental action that seeks to advance a political agenda by forcing those who oppose it to relinquish their constitutionally protected views, beliefs and practices in exchange for a government benefit that was otherwise available," lawyers a Catholic public interest law firm, the Thomas More Law Center, argued.

The case is Boy Scouts of America v. Wyman, 03-956.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/03/08/scotus.boyscouts.ap/index.html

Anyone else see a lot of hypocracy in their arguments?
 

Painman

Diabloii.Net Member
Anakha1 said:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/03/08/scotus.boyscouts.ap/index.html

Anyone else see a lot of hypocracy in their arguments?
The BSA is unapologetic in its discriminatory practices. I don't support the governmental funding of moral advocacy groups (which the BSA has made itself into, IMO) even if I agree with the position. No one is violating their right to Free Speech by refusing to fund it. Don't the Girl Scouts sell cookies to raise money?
 

Anakha1

Banned
Amra said:
Nope. None at all.


:scratch:

They discriminate against homsexuals and say its their right as a private organization. Then they say they're being discriminated against by not receiving funding because they discriminate against other people... They can be as predjudiced and discriminatory as they like. It's their civil right as a private organization, but that doesn't give them the right, and in fact by law excludes them, to federal funding. If they take such opinions publicly they have to be prepared for the consequences.

Unless you were being sarcastic... I don't know if that was what the :scratch: was for...
 

Amra

Diabloii.Net Member
Question: were you a Boy Scout?

Did you go camping and such? Do you understand male bonding?
 

SuggestiveName

Diabloii.Net Member
I was a boy scout, Life rank actually, the second highest. Then I quit because all the guys in the troop sucked at life. So I killed them in the face.

I don't regret it. Friggin militaristic butt******s.

EDIT: Oh wow I discovered a new censored word. I'll give you a hint: It rhymes with ******s....hahahaha!!

EDIT2: Oh, and it starts with W not F.
 

Anakha1

Banned
Amra said:
Question: were you a Boy Scout?

Did you go camping and such? Do you understand male bonding?

I was a boy scout, yes. I've also been in the military for over 4 years. I think it's safe to say I understand male bonding. And as Durf points out, that has nothing to do with whether it receives money from the government. They can discriminate all they want against people they don't want in their organization. But they should realize that by doing so exempts them from federal funding. They shouldn't be whining about having the same thing done to them as they're doing to others.
 

Amra

Diabloii.Net Member
DurfBarian said:
Amra: What does male bonding have to do with public funding?

"employee payroll deductions"


Sounds private to me.


My questions stands.
 

Anakha1

Banned
Amra said:
"employee payroll deductions"


Sounds private to me.


My questions stands.

And I answered it. What does male bonding have to do with federal funding? The fact that they have admitted to discriminating against homosexuals in their organization legally omits them from charitable funding from the government. They should have thought about that before they decided to be predjudiced morons.

Edit: The payroll deduction plan is still a federally run charitable donation. Hence, it's done by the government and the government can have no affiliation with discriminatory organizations.
 

DurfBarian

Diabloii.Net Member
If you know more about the Connecticut deductions scheme, out with it.

If the funds are taken from paychecks and then distributed to a set of groups chosen by the administering body (the state), the Scouts need to be removed from the set.

If the funds are earmarked specifically for each individual group by the workers whose pay we're divvying up, then the state is still spending money on the job of administering those funds. The workers can still donate that exact same amount to the Scouts if they see fit to do so, and no state intervention is required.

What kind of deductions scheme is in place in Connecticut? And more importantly, does it matter?
 

Anakha1

Banned
Amra said:
How does people giving their own money equal federal funding??

I'm still not hearing about how male bonding has anything to do with it.

If it's deducted from federal salaries, then the federal gov't has a link to the organization that it cannot afford. If those people want to take money from their paycheques and individually donate whatever they want to the BSA, they're free to do so. But as of now it's a federally run charity and the BSA has no place on that list since their recent statement of policy.
 

Amra

Diabloii.Net Member
DurfBarian said:
If the funds are taken from paychecks and then distributed to a set of groups chosen by the administering body (the state), the Scouts need to be removed from the set.

"Chosen by... the state."

Is anyone else worried?

That is so wrong.
 

Painman

Diabloii.Net Member
It matters if these deductions are pre- or post-tax. If pre- then I have a problem. If post- then it's not so bad, but still, if the state is employing people to divvy it up...
 

Anakha1

Banned
Amra said:
"Chosen by... the state."

Is anyone else worried?

That is so wrong.

No. The government has always funded charitable organizations. But there are stipulations on what qualifies for federal funding. The BSA broke the rules so it lost funding. Case closed.
 

DurfBarian

Diabloii.Net Member
And it's worrying because . . . ? Because the people need to be the ones in charge of picking the recipients of their money? Fine! They can do this. They can--and should--do it without tying up public resources (the accounting departments who handle collection and disbursement of funds).

If people want to support the BSA they can do so. All it takes is a fifty-cent Bic pen and a checkbook.

If the money comes from the hands of the state--no matter whose money it was in the first place--it has to be distributed in line with state antidiscrimination rules.
 

Amra

Diabloii.Net Member
Anakha1 said:
I'm still not hearing about how male bonding has anything to do with it.
Would you support an adult female sleeping in the same quarters with boys or young men? Meaning a 21 year old woman with an 18 year old boy?

Edit: or other age differences?
 
Top