PDA

View Full Version : doesn't the aclu have anything better to do?



cheapie
08-01-2003, 08:40 PM
Scouts' Balboa Park lease ruled unconstitutional (http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/uniontrib/fri/news/news_1n1scouts.html)

By Ray Huard and Marisa Taylor
STAFF WRITERS

August 1, 2003

The Boy Scouts' lease of public land in Balboa Park violates constitutional separation of church and state, a federal judge ruled yesterday.

U.S. District Judge Napoleon Jones Jr. said the city gave preferential treatment to the Scouts when it leased the 18-acre Camp Balboa, even though there is "overwhelming and uncontradicted evidence" showing that the Boy Scouts are a religious organization.

"The city handpicked as the preferred lessee an organization that describes religious belief and practice as fundamental to the services it provides," Jones wrote.

The American Civil Liberties Union sued the city and the Boy Scouts of America over the lease in August 2000 on behalf of a lesbian couple and an agnostic couple. Each couple has a son.

It was unclear what the immediate impact of the ruling would be because the city and the Scouts could appeal.

The city and the Boy Scouts have defended the lease, saying other groups are allowed to use the camp.

Deputy City Attorney John Mullen said the City Attorney's Office will seek direction from the City Council, which is to review the ruling in a closed session Tuesday.

The Scouts have used the park since 1920 and have been on their current site, at the northwest corner of the park near the San Diego Zoo, since 1940. They have had a lease since 1957.

Jordan Budd, legal director for the ACLU's San Diego office, said the City Council should cancel its lease with the Scouts. The only other solution, Budd said, is for the Scouts to change their policies barring homosexuals and requiring members to express a belief in God.

"We believe it is long past time for the City Council to end its affiliation with this discriminatory organization and to keep open this public park land for the use of all citizens of San Diego on a fair and equal basis and not just those citizens preferred by the Boy Scouts," he said.

Jones' ruling comes three years after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that, under the First Amendment, the Boy Scouts have a constitutionally protected right of "expressive association," which allows the organization to exclude gay members.

The dispute over the lease was "predictable fallout" from the high court's decision, Jones said.

"Those protected, private viewpoints include an anti-homosexual, anti-agnostic and anti-atheist stance," he wrote. "After (the Supreme Court ruling), it is clear that the Boy Scouts of America's strongly held private, discriminatory beliefs are at odds with values requiring tolerance and inclusion in the public realm."

Jesse Choper, a professor with UC Berkeley's Boalt Hall School of Law, said Jones' decision demonstrates that organizations like the Boy Scouts are "entitled to express their views and associate in any way they wish, but they're not entitled to preference."

Other legal experts were surprised by Jones' conclusion that the Scouts are a religious organization because they require members to profess a belief in God.

"It's not to say that it's wrong. There must have been a factual record that supported the ruling," said Vik Amar, a constitutional law professor with Hastings College of the Law in San Francisco. "But it does sound like something that a lot of people would disagree with."

The decision is the city's second constitutional loss involving a dispute with the ACLU in less than a year.

In April, city officials lost their bid to argue the Mount Soledad cross case before the U.S. Supreme Court. The high court let stand an earlier decision by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that the sale of land under the cross to a veterans group violated the article of the California Constitution that prohibits governments from financing religion.

The Boy Scouts' 50-year, $1-a-year lease expires in 2007. The City Council in December renewed the lease at the Scouts' request for 25 years, with the city having the option to extend the lease an additional 15 years.

Under terms of the lease, the Scouts must spend $1.7 million over the next seven years to upgrade Camp Balboa. The Scouts also are required to pay the city an annual administrative fee initially set at $2,500.

The Desert Pacific Council, which represents Scouts in San Diego and Imperial counties, said in a news release they are disappointed with the judge's ruling. Boy Scouts representative Thyme Osborne declined to elaborate.

"We're not doing any interviews," Osborne said.

Mayor Dick Murphy also declined to discuss the ruling.

In a statement issued by his deputy press secretary, David Hicks, Murphy said: "Having been a Boy Scout as a child, I've always supported the Boy Scouts here in San Diego. However, because this is pending litigation, all questions should be referred to the City Attorney."

Councilwoman Toni Atkins, whose district includes Balboa Park, said the city should cancel its park lease with the Boy Scouts unless the Scouts change their policies.

"It's time for the city to get on the right side of this discussion and work to abolish discrimination wherever it can," said Atkins, who is lesbian.

The land the Boy Scouts use "should be turned over to an organization that allows everyone use of public land – and I know there are enough good groups out there," she said.

The city also gives the Scouts free use of a half-acre for an aquatic center on Fiesta Island in Mission Bay. That lease expires in 2012 and has not been extended.

Jones refused to rule on the Fiesta Island lease, saying he hadn't seen enough evidence to make a ruling.

Budd said the dispute over the Fiesta lease could be heard by Jones before any appeal is decided on the park lease. The Scouts' news release said the Desert Pacific Council spent $2 million to build the aquatic center on an unused landfill.

A practical issue that remains unresolved is what will happen to the facilities the Scouts have built in Balboa Park.

Osborne said the Scouts have made extensive improvements at the park, planting trees, installing water and power lines, and building nine campsites. Also added were a swimming pool, a parking lot, restrooms and showers, a residence and office for a camp ranger, and meeting rooms.

Budd said the fate of those facilities could be decided in a final court order, which typically would include requirements the city must meet to comply.

"The fact that they've invested a substantial amount of money in the park is not a justification for them to occupy park land for free," Budd said. " . . . If they want a public subsidy and free access for years upon years to public park land, they have to do what virtually every other youth organization has done. The Girl Scouts, the Campfire Girls, the YMCA, the YWCA – every other youth organization has abandoned exclusive membership policies."

sbp
08-01-2003, 09:06 PM
Another one of these idiot judges.

InfiniteNothing
08-01-2003, 09:14 PM
Originally posted by Yossarian
anywhere i can e-mail the get-a-clue idiots? jezz they are freakin' stupid

Why do you say they aren't religious. From what I can tell Religion is built into their code



On my honor, I will do my best
To do my duty to God and my country and to obey the Scout Law;
To help other people at all times;
To keep myself physically strong, mentally awake and morally straight.

InfiniteNothing
08-01-2003, 09:59 PM
I'm pretty sure the ACLU did bitch about the pledge. I'm glad that it wasn't as strict in your troupe but I belive that varies from troupe to troupe and in some troupes religeon is intergral. If in fact the boy scouts aren't religeous then they won't have any problem conforming to the ACLU's demands.

sbp
08-01-2003, 10:23 PM
Originally posted by InfiniteNothing
I'm pretty sure the ACLU did bitch about the pledge. I'm glad that it wasn't as strict in your troupe but I belive that varies from troupe to troupe and in some troupes religeon is intergral. If in fact the boy scouts aren't religeous then they won't have any problem conforming to the ACLU's demands. Why should people conform to the ACLU's demands? Who put those radicals in charge of everything? Screw 'em.

"doesn't the aclu have anything better to do?" Nope. They don't have anything better to do and need to get a life. Maybe they can find a deal on the deals page for one. http://home.earthlink.net/~sbp777/smilies/evilrin2.jpg

TofuNinja
08-01-2003, 10:29 PM
The Boy Scouts are Religeous. One of two things will get your kicked out. Being Gay or not worshiping a higher power. In fact, I believe that the gay ban comes not due to religion but due to the fact that they believe it is not moral to be gay.

Being an Eagle Scout and still involved with Scouting I hate to see this battle going on. It tears me in two different directions because I can see it from both sides. The Scouts are privately funded, and the supreme court upheld the fact that they can keep gays and athiesis (sp) out.

The ironic part for me is when these Eagle scouts stand up and speak out about the BSA's policies they get black listed. To stand up and fight for what you believe in is what the Scouts teach.

But anyway to each their own, and I am sure as worthless as it sounds, ACLU and PETA and groups like them believe in what they are fighting for.

But yeah I think there are better things to do, but then again I am not in groups like PETA and the ACLU

InfiniteNothing
08-02-2003, 12:28 AM
Originally posted by sbp
Why should people conform to the ACLU's demands? Who put those radicals in charge of everything? Screw 'em.


I think you took me a little out of context. I wasn't saying they should conform, I was saying that if what Yoss said was true the boyscouts would be 1/2 way there to conforming. I probably should have worded it differently.

Cantacuzene
08-02-2003, 09:17 AM
Well I see how you dont like the ACLU now but when the Patriot Act II comes into effect you'll be happy the ACLU is there fighting against it.

Markel
08-02-2003, 09:51 AM
The ACLU wants to force the religion of atheism on everyone.

Regarding the BSA lease, the SCOTUS has repeatedly upheld that the government is not to be anti-religion - rather, it is not to show preference based on religion. There is a BIG difference, but the ACLU "geniuses" don't seem to realize it (or likely ignore the difference so they can try to propagate their bias).

kimchicowboy
08-02-2003, 10:12 AM
hey infinite, what's wrong with being morally straight and how is that religious? just curious.

InfiniteNothing
08-02-2003, 10:35 AM
Originally posted by Markel
The ACLU wants to force the religion of atheism on everyone.

Regarding the BSA lease, the SCOTUS has repeatedly upheld that the government is not to be anti-religion - rather, it is not to show preference based on religion. There is a BIG difference, but the ACLU "geniuses" don't seem to realize it (or likely ignore the difference so they can try to propagate their bias).

I don't think they want to force atheism on everyone. Though I don't think it would be the worst idea in the wold.

I think everyone would be happy if the boy scouts showed no preference of religion but they do: Christianity. Even if you could argue that they weren't Christian I'd argue that given the code, the gov. would clearly be showing preference to religions that endorse God and obviously some religions do not worship God.

Kimchicowboy: I'm not 100% sure. It depends on how people interpret it. I don't really understand what the line means but I think it's danger is that it could be interpreted to mean heterosexual or morally strait according to the bible.

nickel
08-02-2003, 10:54 AM
the ACLU forced our community to take down it's navity scene that was put up in our public square at Christmastime for YEARS. i say f*** them! they have done more to take rights away than they have to protect rights.

molecularfire
08-02-2003, 11:01 AM
Regarding the BSA lease, the SCOTUS has repeatedly upheld that the government is not to be anti-religion - rather, it is not to show preference based on religion. There is a BIG difference, but the ACLU "geniuses" don't seem to realize it (or likely ignore the difference so they can try to propagate their bias).
Actually, in this case, didn't the govt. admit that they gave preferential treatment to the Boy Scouts? I thought that that was what the lawsuit was over.

InfiniteNothing
08-02-2003, 06:22 PM
Originally posted by nickelback
i say f*** them! they have done more to take rights away than they have to protect rights.

Now I'm not an ACLU member but nickelback, was the nativity scene on public land? Now a nativity scene doesn't bother me and I'm not sure I would sue(if I were the ACLU) but if it was on public land then you have to think about the importance of separation of church and state.

Now I ask this honestly because I don't know but what have they done to take away anyones rights?

Sir_Froggy
08-02-2003, 06:32 PM
well if they made Nickle's community take down their nativity scene, wouldn't that be not allowing them to worship freely?

InfiniteNothing
08-02-2003, 06:42 PM
Maybe. I don't know what the circumstances were. Because if it was on private property or if everyone had a chance to lease the land...yes that would be taking away one's freedom of worship.

Apex
08-03-2003, 01:19 AM
Originally posted by cheapbast@rd
doesn't the aclu have anything better to do?

no.

blueindian
08-03-2003, 05:39 AM
what they were arguing for here is the basic seperation of church and state. while this particular issues doesn't appear to have a very large impact on anyone, we still have a need to enforce that seperation at even very basic levels. same goes for nickle's nativity set. do i care about the lease or the manger? no. but...

if it is not enforced for small things, we could begin to experience a gradual erosion of that seperation. the idea of seperation of church and state is part of the core of the country's foundation. i, for one, wish it to remain firmly in place.

nickel
08-03-2003, 07:33 AM
Originally posted by InfiniteNothing


Now I'm not an ACLU member but nickelback, was the nativity scene on public land? Now a nativity scene doesn't bother me and I'm not sure I would sue(if I were the ACLU) but if it was on public land then you have to think about the importance of separation of church and state.

Now I ask this honestly because I don't know but what have they done to take away anyones rights?
umm, yeah a "public square" is public land, owned by the city. it is a little piece of land with road encircling it.
everyone falls back on separation of church and state, well i'm not for it. wasn't one reason our forefathers and foremothers left England because of religious persecution? i feel i have been persecuted and prosecuted in that respect. the public square, as they call it where i live, is open for any denomination to put up Christmas scenes or sights, but because only the nativity set was there alone the ACLU forced it to be taken down. it's bullsh*t, and i wrote the fine ACLU lawyer who paid our town a visit and pressed this issue a letter stating my opinion on the matter. and cowardly so, i received NO response.
separation of church and state? look at the our currency - In God We Trust. sometimes we the people take things too far and forget why we settled America in the first place.

topane
08-03-2003, 07:34 AM
The ACLU just doesn't run around filing lawsuits on their own, their help is sought by someone looking to file one. Unfortunately, the only time anyone hears about the ACLU is when they're involved in something like this. A couple of years ago, they filed a friend of the court brief(or something like that - can't remember what it's called) on behalf of Jerry Falwell because the local gov't was not letting him build a bigger church. Odd how you never hear about those. They do seem to take just about any case which comes their way which is pretty bad - they could be more selective.

nickel
08-03-2003, 07:37 AM
Originally posted by topane
The ACLU just doesn't run around filing lawsuits on their own, their help is sought by someone looking to file one. Unfortunately, the only time anyone hears about the ACLU is when they're involved in something like this. A couple of years ago, they filed a friend of the court brief(or something like that - can't remember what it's called) on behalf of Jerry Falwell because the local gov't was not letting him build a bigger church. Odd how you never hear about those. They do seem to take just about any case which comes their way which is pretty bad - they could be more selective.
no sh*t Dick Tracy i realize someone complained to the ACLU to get them here on the nativity set deal :P
and i also realize that the ACLU was created with good intentions and has done some good things, but come on they have become the PETA of human rights.

Markel
08-03-2003, 02:20 PM
Originally posted by nickelback
...but come on they have become the PETA of human rights.
:heh: :stupid:

johnnymk
08-03-2003, 02:52 PM
Originally posted by nickelback

no sh*t Dick Tracy i realize someone complained to the ACLU to get them here on the nativity set deal :P
and i also realize that the ACLU was created with good intentions and has done some good things, but come on they have become the PETA of human rights.

Very good analogy!!

Sir_Froggy
08-03-2003, 09:44 PM
I wonder if the ACLU's lawyers get paid a lot, that might be a reason they do every case they ever get....