quote:Following the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Boy Scouts of America v. Dale, various state and local governments have excluded the Boy Scouts of America from public facilities, forums, and programs that are open to a variety of other youth or community organizations solely because of the Boy Scouts’ exercise of its constitutional rights.
Like the Boy Scouts of America Equal Access Act, 20 U.S.C. § 7905, the Support Our Scouts Act of 2005 authorizes denying federal HUD funding to state or local government entities that deny the Boy Scouts equal access to government facilities, forums, or programs. The Equal Access Act has been very successful in convincing school districts to provide the Boy Scouts with equal access to school facilities, without the need for costly litigation. The Support Our Scouts Act should prove equally effective in dealing with exclusions outside the school context.
The Support Our Scouts Act does not create a new right for the Boy Scouts; the United States Constitution already protects the Boy Scouts’ rights to be treated the same as other youth and community organizations. Nor does the act create a new remedy; it simply allows the Scouts to use a remedy that already exists in the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1974. Without this legislation, the Boy Scouts would have had to continue defending itself against constant attempts to exclude the organization from the public realm, which is a significant distraction from the Boy Scouts’ mission to improve the lives of youth nationwide.
The Support Our Scouts Act of 2005 also removes any doubt that federal agencies may welcome Scouts to hold meetings and go camping on federal property. In addition, it provides that federal law does not compel a federal agency from providing less support to the Scouts than the agency has in the past, such as hosting the national jamboree every four years at Fort A.P. Hill, Virginia. The national jamboree is an incomparable opportunity for training our military, and it would be a detriment to our armed services and the Boy Scouts for frivolous lawsuits to jeopardize it.
There's definitely a spin to that summary, but the basic facts seem to be accurate.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hm. If I recall, Scouts were excluded from recruiting in schools because they're a religious organization. This is by their own statement. So frankly, I'd say it's pretty different from other community youth groups.
I left the Boy Scouts when I started to realize I was gay. Heard people talking, realized if I came out I wouldn't be wanted there, and so I left. Not to satisfy anyone, but simply because if someone tries to exclude me for those reasons I don't have time for them.
~Joldo avoiding his landmarkPosts: 767 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Glad to hear they have it all straightened out and showing the constitutionality of it, Kat.
There are many start-up CHURCHES that meet in school facilities around here (during weekends) -- and there is no question about whether or not they can do so, nor is there any inquisition as to the religious beliefs of the church if they are simply renting/using the facility.
There is no valid reason Boy Scouts should have ever been denied any facility anymore than any other organization.
posted
If there are laws against discrimination, it's completely legitimate to bar groups who violate those laws. It's a shame that the federal government decided, once more, to override local laws in this way.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Except, as I recall, the courts have found that it's perfectly constitutional to bar Scouts from access to government property, as the Scouts are by their own definition a discriminatory organization. Which is what necessitated this piece of crappy legislation in the first place.
My question, then, becomes this: what would the Scouts have to do TO be barred from government property? If they advocated the violent overthrow of the government and bit off the heads of live chickens, would schools be permitted to refuse them access? In states in which homosexuals are listed as a protected class, should it be assumed that the Scouts can also ban blacks and Jews without fear of reprisal?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Most churches bar membership to people who aren't Christian, do you think they shouldn't be allowed to meet in schools during nonschool hours?
Posts: 4655 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:as I recall, the courts have found that it's perfectly constitutional to bar Scouts from access to government property, as the Scouts are by their own definition a discriminatory organization.
The solution is equal access for all law abiding groups.
Simple.
I don't like the deferential treatment the Scouts receive; but I'm not concerned that this will lead to a theocracy in America, or that my sacred tax dollars are going to support E V I L.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Incidentally, does anyone know of a law abiding group that has been denied access to a public building because of their membership ideology?
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Incidentally, does anyone know of a law abiding group that has been denied access to a public building because of their membership ideology?
We were denied access to the magazine layout and printing facilities at UVA because of our ideology and had to go to court to get vindicated. Not really a public building, but a publicly-owned building.
We were also denied non-profit rates at a city facility because we were religious.
quote:Except, as I recall, the courts have found that it's perfectly constitutional to bar Scouts from access to government property, as the Scouts are by their own definition a discriminatory organization. Which is what necessitated this piece of crappy legislation in the first place.
And when the Court screws up in protecting constitutional rights of association, the federal government is perfectly justified in stepping in.
The justification used by localities is that they don't want to provide support for discriminatory groups. Fine. The federal government no longer wants to provide support to discriminatory gov't facilities.
If the one is acceptable, then so is the other.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, growing up, there was a local Satanist club that DID get denied access to school property, even though they were never found guilty of any crimes.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Hrm. When it comes to schools, should the government be able to make a few exceptions in the interest of protecting the children?
Are you talking school facilities after hours? If so, no such exceptions are needed.
Access to schools when children are there is not strictly speaking access to public facilities, at least I was using it. It's access to the children, and requires very different standards.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Define "after hours," please. I'm inclined to count any time that school-sponsored extra-curricular activities are happening or students might be staying after school either as punishment or to work on projects as time when the "child access" rules would be in force.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
I mean renting the facility as one would rent a hall, which was NEVER allowed at my school when students were there as part of school-sponsored anything.
If we had a basketball game, they wouldn't rent out the auditorium, even though they were at opposite ends of the school.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
We do rent out the auditorium, and some classrooms, in the evenings, and very often there is basketball/volleyball/wrestling going on elsewhere in the school.
But then, "child access" rules aren't enforced during the game: anybody who pays can come in and watch, and nobody gets fingerprinted, or has their background checked. So it would seem absurdly excessive to not rent out the facilities simply because there's a game on campus.
posted
As a former boy scout, I am not sure that I feel comfortable with this legislation. Free speech guarantees the right for the Boy Scouts to exist, but it does not require the government to give them a place to meet. That implies approval, and the name of this act state approval. Free speech allows for homophobia, but not state-sanctantioned homophobia.
Posts: 1332 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Free speech also allows for misuse of language.
What do I think...I think it is a stamp of approval, which is troubling, but I also think that the Boy Scouts are worth approving.
It also saves all the money for legislation that was going out. The money for lawyers wasn't coming from corporate profits - it was from the ten dollars the Cub Scouts apiece pay to participate. While I'm glad for how the vote went, I'm more glad that it's settled. Lawsuits are such a huge waste of money.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm okay with it. Boy Scouts have just as much right as the local book club, the KKK, the Young Democrats, etc. to meet in a public place, regardless of their ideology. Someone will always be pissed off, so I just try not to worry about it.
Posts: 4089 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
didn't the ACLU make a fuss a few years ago when the KKK wanted to host some kind of event in a public park? Public property is public, even if you disagree with them. I detest the KKK, but Free Speech is Free Speech.
Which is NOT the same as Free Action. The KKK has as much right to lynch black people as the Boy Scouts have to lynch gay people.
Posts: 4089 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Maybe I'm remembering something wrong, but didn't the SC case bar the scouts from receiving preferential treatment, rather then deny them access?
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
When I was a scout leader, we didn't rent the space when we met at a school.
In fact, we didn't rent any space, except for Boy Scout camp.
In fact, I've never heard of a scout troop renting a space. They usually meet in a space provided by the chartering organization. And if the chartering organization doesn't provide them space, it's pretty easy to find someone who will give it to the Boy Scouts for free. After all, they are the Boy Scouts.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm fairly sure the ACLU has supported the KKK's right to assemble in court several times in the past. Maybe someone else would have reall support for that.
Posts: 4655 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
