Boy Scouts vs. Philly – Round III
May 28th, 2008 at 8:00 am by CrankyNow it goes to court.
Here are the particulars:
The Law Department concluded that the Boy Scouts’ membership policies violated the city’s 1982 Fair Practices ordinance, which bans discrimination based on sexual orientation and other grounds.
The local group subsequently adopted a nondiscrimination statement in January 2004 in which it opposed “any form of unlawful discrimination.”
After that, the city agreed that it wouldn’t try to evict the local chapter from its headquarters, the suit said.
Then, in 2005, the city asked the local chapter to “clarify” unlawful discrimination, the suit said. The city wanted to know whether that included discrimination based on sexual orientation, the suit said.
The suit said that a year-and-a- half later, in July 2006, the city solicitor wrote to Cradle of Liberty and said that it either had to abandon the anti-gay-membership policy or, alternatively, pay the city “fair-market rent.”
Smith said that a 2007 appraisal of the property put the fair-market rental value at $200,000.
The suit said that the local chapter has spent $60,000 a year to maintain the building and another $1.5 million in renovations in 1994.
Gays I don’t mind. Gay activists, well…
Thanks to Stop the ACLU.
May 28th, 2008 at 11:29 am
“Gays I don’t mind. Gay activists, well…”
WELL PUT!
May 30th, 2008 at 1:50 pm
Um, what’s so activist about a segment of the public that doesn’t want their tax money subsidizing an organization that excludes that segment of the public? If a private organization rented a public building from Philadelphia for $1/year and they excluded Jews, don’t you think Jews (and maybe even other people) would object to subsidizing such an organization with a public subsidy? Especially if there is a longstanding law that does not allow such a subsidy?
May 30th, 2008 at 2:14 pm
Thanks for writing Brian.
Here are the facts:
1. The Cradle of Liberty branch does not enforce the national organization’s policy.
2. Given the possibility that you are envisioning Boy Scouts as little white boys in blue uniforms, know that this organization helps 1000s of minority children in the city of Philadelphia. Just the group that Liberals claim to love.
3. If we’re talking about tax money going to where we don’t want it to go, I’d like to defund abortion providers. Go and have an abortion, by not on MY DIME.
4. The $200,000 annual rent they city is imposing is actually punitive and not “fair rent”.
5. It doesn’t really cost the city except for the lost rental income. The Cradle of Liberty funds all the improvements and maintenance.
Gays agitating for “equal rights” shouldn’t equate to stirring up problems for organizations doing good.
May 30th, 2008 at 2:52 pm
Going down your list:
1. The C of L council cannot overrule the national BSA’s membership policies; if national finds out about a gay or atheist member in the C of L, *national* can (and will) kick them out of the BSA. While it’s true that the C of L council objects to the BSA policy and can try to ignore it to some extent, they can’t negate it. They are, legally, an organization that excludes gays and atheists.
2. I know the BSA helps lots of minority kids (at least the ones that are straight and have “acceptable” religious views). This doesn’t mean city officials should ignore the law for the BSA’s benefit.
3. You can certainly lobby to have all such funds cut off, and even pass a law (similar to Philly’s) that would make it unlawful for the city to subsidize an abortion provider by leasing them public property for $1/year. And you’d want the city to actually FOLLOW such a law, wouldn’t you? Or do you think Philly should ignore their own laws in some cases, and not others?
4. The C of L says they spend about $60,000 each year in maintenance for the building, so $200,000 in rent doesn’t seem outlandish. In any case, if the asking price IS too high, the city will presumably lower the amount until they find a tenant, which could be the C of L council again. What the city hopes to rent the building for is irrelevant to whether evicting the BSA is legal or not in any case.
5. This is also irrelevant. The city can’t subsidize an organization that excludes gays and atheists. The BSA can pay market rates or move.
I disagree that what the BSA is doing is “doing good.” They even continued to have public schools practice their discrimination until the ACLU threatened to sue any school that chartered a BSA unit.
May 31st, 2008 at 11:40 am
Brian,
It seems that the bottom line in your argument is that the Boy Scouts discriminate and, as such, should not be subsidized by the government. Period.
I cannot totally disagree with you on that point.
My point about abortion providers and federal funding is that the Boy Scouts are unfairly singled out. There are many, many programs that both you and I find objectionable. For you it may be Churches receiving moneys to run Gospel soup kitchens and for me, tax dollars being available to San Francisco city employees for gender re-assignment operations.
Back to the C of L. It also seems we have a fundamental disagreement about what “good” they provide. They do stress a moral code which seems to be passe by about four decades. Within the moral code, there is the contentious question of homosexuality. I personally think it is wrong, but I’m not so certain that I would support laws against it. Call it the Libertarian in me, but what you do with your man-yams is your business.
Likewise, the “gay activist” I’m railing against cannot abide by that.
You believe that they shouldn’t have to; I think they should use their energies not tearing down institutions with which they don’t agree.
Respectfully,
Gordon
May 31st, 2008 at 2:51 pm
I disagree that by insisting that the government treat the BSA the same as anyone else, instead of subsidizing them, that that constitutes tearing down the BSA. The BSA decided that they wanted to be a private club that discriminates.
May 31st, 2008 at 3:10 pm
This thread is full of disagreement but no vitriol, namecalling or hate speech. I’m disappointed in both of you.
May 31st, 2008 at 4:26 pm
I know Pres., I need to cleanse my nasty palate with a stupid Photoshop.
Brian, I’m not sure you would agree with these groups either, but Philadelphia also has subsidized-rent agreements with the following groups with “exclusive” membership requirements:
The federal suit filed Friday accuses the city of censorship for targeting the Scouts but maintaining free or nominal leases with other groups that limit membership, such as Baptist and Roman Catholic church groups and The Colonial Dames of America.
From http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24843065/
May 31st, 2008 at 8:17 pm
I know; I’ve read the BSA’s complaint. Of the examples in their complaint that I could find, they all appeared to be for buildings open to the public, such as historic buildings as museums. The BSA’s building is for their private headquarters where they refuse to hire gays or atheists. City officials have also stated that any complaints about any other tenants who may be in violation of city requirements for subsidized rent will be investigated, which is, of course, the proper thing to do. All the BSA is doing here is pointing to other groups that may be in violation and saying “They’re doing it too!” — the proper response is NOT to allow the BSA to continue, but to end any other improper leases.
June 1st, 2008 at 6:52 pm
We have a similar issue here in San Diego.
And liberals like BW like to use the discrimination angle. To which I say…Bullshit.
This is the BOY SCOUTS. Human sexuality of any kind should not be an issue. The Boy Scouts never discriminated against anyone based on their sexuality until a gay activist decided to try to join as “openly gay”.
And why? Because he truly wanted to be a part of an organization that has been helping kids for 100 years?
No. He did it as part of his gay “activism”. You know, to make a point. To show how oppressed and discriminated against he is.
(BTW, I’m talking about the San Diego BSA issue here…I am not as well-briefed on your Philly BSA issue).
The Boy Scouts would be against ANYONE bringing sexuality into their organization. Maybe it’s kind of like “don’t ask, don’t tell”…but when it comes to kids, why make your sexuality an issue?
June 1st, 2008 at 7:32 pm
So civil rights are now an “angle”? I agree that human sexuality should not be an issue, but the BSA decided they would. And you’re wrong, James Dale did not try to join as “openly gay”, he was a longtime member who was part of a gay rights group in college, and someone from the BSA saw him in a newspaper story about it, so they kicked him out. Dale didn’t even know that the BSA didn’t allow gays, because the BSA still doesn’t have anything about it on their membership forms.
The San Diego situation is another case of a public subsidy, $1/year to rent 18 acres of public land.
June 1st, 2008 at 9:01 pm
Again, I don’t know anything about Dale and the Philly issue…
Whose civil rights are you talking about, BW? I guess in your mind, the right of one gay scout leader is more important than the rights and well-being of hundreds of kids.
Regarding the San Diego lease…true, it is $1 for the land. What you aren’t disclosing is that the BSA has put over ONE MILLION DOLLARS into the property to improve it.
Instead of attacking an organization that clearly does good for kids, why not create another organization for gay kids? The city would have to offer similar lease terms?
And what about the gay pride parade that the city spends half a million dollars on every year in police, cleanup and other services? Why cater to the homosexual special interests while putting the wood to the Boy Scouts?
June 2nd, 2008 at 6:39 pm
In this case, I’m talking about the civil rights of atheists; religious discrimination can’t be supported by the government by subsidizing rent of private organizations that exclude atheists.
As far as the San Diego lease, what you aren’t disclosing is that the BSA admitted that they control who uses the land, and only Scouts get to use it during the peak summer months. The BSA admitted in court filings that they book it with their own members 100% during the summer and 80% overall.
As far as parades, cities have to treat groups equally there, too. If some groups get to hold parades without being charged for police, cleanup, etc, ALL similarly situated parades get the same deal, regardless of whether city officials agree or disagree with the parade’s message. If city officials aren’t doing that, I’d consider a lawsuit. Sometimes you have to sue to get equal treatment.
June 3rd, 2008 at 8:36 am
Brian, I appreciate your perspective and your points are solid. I think we’ll have to agree to disagree.
Let’s talk about something we both agree on; how excellent Firesign Theater is, for example.
June 4th, 2008 at 2:38 pm
But I paid for the full half-hour argument…
June 4th, 2008 at 4:34 pm
No you didn’t!