Scouts to appeal bias ruling to Supreme Court


SUMMARY: Berkeley Sea Scouts will ask the U.S. Supreme Court to review a Calif. ruling upholding the city's right to deny them free dock space over their biased views.


A Berkeley-based Sea Scouts troop will ask the U.S. Supreme Court to review a decision by California's high court that upheld the city's right to deny them free rent at a city marina over their biased views.


The Berkeley City Council required the Sea Scouts to pledge not to discriminate on the basis of a host of factors, including sexual orientation. When the Scouts declined to make a clear statement to this effect, the city revoked their free marina privileges in May 1998, and obliged them to pay for the docks.


The Sea Scouts are an independent arm of the Boy Scouts of America, a huge enterprise that proudly discriminates against gays and atheists and has even gone to the U.S. Supreme Court to defend the right to hold this view.


In 2000, the high court agreed that the Boy Scouts have the First Amendment right to exclude gay members. But since then, more and more local governments have taken a stand similar to Berkeley's: The Scouts may discriminate all they like, but they will lose city perks and subsidies as a result.


In the marina case, the Sea Scouts insisted they had no plans to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, which they claimed was a "private matter." Yet they declined to add sexual orientation to a list of nondiscrimination standards that included "sex, race, color, national origin, political affiliation, religious preference, marital status, physical handicap or mental condition." Testimony later indicated that the Boy Scouts organization had refused to give permission for the Sea Scouts to pledge compliance with Berkeley's anti-discrimination laws.


The Sea Scouts sued Berkeley, losing in three courts. Last March, the state's high court rejected the idea that Berkeley's denial of a public subsidy interfered with the Sea Scout's First Amendment rights of freedom of speech and expressive association.


The Sea Scouts were free to hold whatever view they pleased, wrote the unanimous court. But Berkeley, in turn, was free to require organizations that received free marina space to adhere to generally applicable city discrimination standards.


The U.S. Supreme Court accepts only a tiny fraction of petitions for review.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/po/20060713/...tosupremecourt

There is no bias. They are a private organization and they can whatever requirements they want. If you don't like it, then don't join or start your own club. But Nooooooooooo, you can't do that. You want to FORCE your beliefs on everyone else. If I were the Sea Scouts, I would tell Berkeley to kiss my ass. This should be interesting. I think the real discrimination here is Berkeley and if the USSC has any balls it will see that also.

You definitely didn't read it thoroughly enough. They can do what they want. What they can't do is expect free marina space. They shouldn't piss and moan about it either since the City Council clearly set the necessary requirement for the Sea Scouts to get free marina space.

No beliefs are being forced on anyone here. There is no discrimination here.

The city is not going to give free marina space to organizations that will not meet their standards in non-discrimination statements. They told the Sea Scouts this. The non-discrimination standards are generally applicapable.

They want to exclude gays and also get free dock space. The city said if you exclude gays, you have to pay for the docks since all organizations have to meet this generally applicapable standard. Go home and cry about it or cough up the money for the docks. You can't always get what you want.


P.S.- uh once again, why is a news story involving homosexuals or homosexuality in some way in the Gay Marraige forum? People should put news stories where they belong or ridin should just make a Gay Forum.

I understand it perfectly. In order to get the free Marina space, they have to bend to big brother's rules. I'd tell them to kiss my ass and pay for it. I wouldn't give in to the assholes.

1) Saying "There is no bias" is just plain a stupid lie.
The Boy Scouts discriminate against gays and atheists.
"Bias" exists.
To claim otherwise is just plain ridiculous.

2) Yes. They are private organization and they can have whatever requirements they want.
That isn't the question.
The question is whether or not the government can ENDORSE groups that discriminate. Endorse in a very serious manner.
Did you look at the article?
Did you see how much their "rent" was???
Oh wait. It was FREE.
Not giving somebody FREE rent is not "force".

3) There is no "force" here. How the heck do you see "force"?
It's just plain and simple. If the Boy Scouts want to use the facilities, they have to pay regular price. Not a ridiculously discounted price.

Next time, try figuring out what the issue is before you open your mouth.
(Silly me. Futile request...)

If only they would follow your advice...

Instead, the pansies insist on discriminating and trying to get free rent.

You can't expect tax-payers who are EXCLUDED from a group to help pay the rent for the group that excludes them.

Well, they clearly do not see it the same way. You at least are noble enough to say kiss my ass and pony up the fees for the docks.

The Sea Scouts are telling the City Council to kiss its ass by not "giving in" to the Counci's requests, but instead of doing that with dignity, they are filing lawsuits because they don't want to pay the fees. They have a little conflict of interest here. Stand by the organization's creed or pay the fees.

They can discriminate all they want. They are a private organization. As for me. I'd tell them to kiss my ass and pay it. Didn't you read that in my post? I know what the issue is.

Gee. That's funny.
A minute ago you were LYING and claiming they weren't discriminating at all.
Remember ???


Didn't you read my reply?

If only they would follow your advice...

Instead, the pansies insist on discriminating and trying to get free rent.

You can't expect tax-payers who are EXCLUDED from a group to help pay the rent for the group that excludes them.


If you knew what the issue was, you wouldn't be claiming that there was no bias from the Boy Scouts.
You wouldn't be LYING in claiming that they were trying to "force" the Boy Scouts into something.

Sounds fair to me.

The Scouts DO INDEED have the RIGHT to deny homosexuals entrance into the organization.

And the Marina DOES INDEED have the RIGHT to deny the Scouts free use of the marina.


What's the problem here?