Boy Scouts win right to remain in building they built

[del]

Thank you for proving my point with a link. Does this mean you agree the BSA should pay their way if they want the benefits of a private organization or are you still in Liberal Land where you want them to use the city owned property for free while practicing discrimination?

Liberal land? HAHAHAHHAHAHA - No I want the city to uphold their end of the lease agreement, $1 per year as long as the BSA upholds their end and keeps the building maintained. Notice that nowhere in there is the city given the right to determine the BSA's membership rules. I would equally defend a group of homosexuals who had a signed lease if the city was trying to define their membership or kick them out.

So Equal Rights Laws are not applicable because of an older contract? Do you know how many businesses had city contracts who had to desegregate because of the ERA? The City has been trying to hold up it's end of the Lease but the BSA wants to discriminate which violates the City's law.

(Many people here defending the BSA are often bitching about "States Rights" on other issues but suddenly......the Feds are Cream Puff Gods!!!!)

no, i don't. would you please tell me how many businesses had to desegregate because of the ERA?


dope

 

[CurveLight]

It's not an issue of taxpayers subsidizing the Boy Scouts, but one of upholding a valid contract. The Boys Scouts have a lease "in perpetuity" dating back to the late 1920s. We are either a nation which respects the Rule of Law and the validity of binding contracts - or we are a nation of thugs. It's clear that the current Federal Government is favors the latter position, as we have seen repeatedly with their interference in private business arrangements. The BSA situation in Philadelphia is philosophically congruent with that thuggery.

The contract violates the City's law about non-profit groups using City owned property for free on the condition they don't discriminate. Rule of Law my ass. You're digging a hole for hypocrisy. Don't worry.....there are plenty of other shovelers in this thread working right beside you.

The Federal Jury are fucking idiots for voting to allow free use of government property by a group that actively discriminates. SCOTUS was correct in ruling the BSA have a right to discriminate based on the standing of being a "Private" organization but RULE OF LAW states Private organizations cannot violate public discrimination laws if they are publicly subsidized and the BSA clearly fit that category.

they don't use it for free; they pay the rent specified in their lease agreement.

it must suck to be perpetually self righteous and stupid.

Holy shit you keep proving to be one dumb ****. The City's Lease amount is based on the rules of a Non-Profit organization. By excludling gays the BSA is violating the terms of the Lease thus they should pay full rent and stop wanting the benefits of a Private organization without paying for it. Can you not comprehend such a simple point you dumbfucking bitch?

 

[ConHog]

It's not an issue of taxpayers subsidizing the Boy Scouts, but one of upholding a valid contract. The Boys Scouts have a lease "in perpetuity" dating back to the late 1920s. We are either a nation which respects the Rule of Law and the validity of binding contracts - or we are a nation of thugs. It's clear that the current Federal Government is favors the latter position, as we have seen repeatedly with their interference in private business arrangements. The BSA situation in Philadelphia is philosophically congruent with that thuggery.

The contract violates the City's law about non-profit groups using City owned property for free on the condition they don't discriminate. Rule of Law my ass. You're digging a hole for hypocrisy. Don't worry.....there are plenty of other shovelers in this thread working right beside you.

The Federal Jury are fucking idiots for voting to allow free use of government property by a group that actively discriminates. SCOTUS was correct in ruling the BSA have a right to discriminate based on the standing of being a "Private" organization but RULE OF LAW states Private organizations cannot violate public discrimination laws if they are publicly subsidized and the BSA clearly fit that category.

RULE OF LAW as you call it NEVER trumps the Bill of Rights. NEVER. What if the city passed a law that said curvedlight can't be gay. RULE OF LAW says you're committing a crime if you're homosexual, but I would absolutely say that law wrong. Just as the Court has ruled that THIS law is wrong in some cases.

 

[boedicca]

It's not an issue of taxpayers subsidizing the Boy Scouts, but one of upholding a valid contract. The Boys Scouts have a lease "in perpetuity" dating back to the late 1920s. We are either a nation which respects the Rule of Law and the validity of binding contracts - or we are a nation of thugs. It's clear that the current Federal Government is favors the latter position, as we have seen repeatedly with their interference in private business arrangements. The BSA situation in Philadelphia is philosophically congruent with that thuggery.

The contract violates the City's law about non-profit groups using City owned property for free on the condition they don't discriminate. Rule of Law my ass. You're digging a hole for hypocrisy. Don't worry.....there are plenty of other shovelers in this thread working right beside you.

The Federal Jury are fucking idiots for voting to allow free use of government property by a group that actively discriminates. SCOTUS was correct in ruling the BSA have a right to discriminate based on the standing of being a "Private" organization but RULE OF LAW states Private organizations cannot violate public discrimination laws if they are publicly subsidized and the BSA clearly fit that category.

The contract predates the city laws, and is in perpetuity. So what you are defending is yet more Ex Post Facto Laws to defraud people of their legal rights under a valid contract.

 

[ConHog]

The contract violates the City's law about non-profit groups using City owned property for free on the condition they don't discriminate. Rule of Law my ass. You're digging a hole for hypocrisy. Don't worry.....there are plenty of other shovelers in this thread working right beside you.

The Federal Jury are fucking idiots for voting to allow free use of government property by a group that actively discriminates. SCOTUS was correct in ruling the BSA have a right to discriminate based on the standing of being a "Private" organization but RULE OF LAW states Private organizations cannot violate public discrimination laws if they are publicly subsidized and the BSA clearly fit that category.

they don't use it for free; they pay the rent specified in their lease agreement.

it must suck to be perpetually self righteous and stupid.

Holy shit you keep proving to be one dumb ****. The City's Lease amount is based on the rules of a Non-Profit organization. By excludling gays the BSA is violating the terms of the Lease thus they should pay full rent and stop wanting the benefits of a Private organization without paying for it. Can you not comprehend such a simple point you dumbfucking bitch?

violating the terms of the lease? You've read the lease? Because I seriously doubt the BSA signed a lease which stated that they couldn't exclude anyone.

 

[boedicca]

Holy shit you keep proving to be one dumb ****. The City's Lease amount is based on the rules of a Non-Profit organization. By excludling gays the BSA is violating the terms of the Lease thus they should pay full rent and stop wanting the benefits of a Private organization without paying for it. Can you not comprehend such a simple point you dumbfucking bitch?

I call Shenanigans. Please provide evidence that the city had such rules governing Non-Profits in 1928.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

They should not have to pay rent since they did pay for the building, but the lesson the boy scouts are teaching the children is wrong. My son will never be in the Boy Scouts.

What bad lesson are the scouts teaching? After reading the article, I see that they are attempting to find a compromise between two seemingly contradictory positions that benefits everyone involved, but some people will accept nothing less than their views being the only ones allowed to prevail. Which side is being intolerant here?

 

[CurveLight]

Liberal land? HAHAHAHHAHAHA - No I want the city to uphold their end of the lease agreement, $1 per year as long as the BSA upholds their end and keeps the building maintained. Notice that nowhere in there is the city given the right to determine the BSA's membership rules. I would equally defend a group of homosexuals who had a signed lease if the city was trying to define their membership or kick them out.

So Equal Rights Laws are not applicable because of an older contract? Do you know how many businesses had city contracts who had to desegregate because of the ERA? The City has been trying to hold up it's end of the Lease but the BSA wants to discriminate which violates the City's law.

(Many people here defending the BSA are often bitching about "States Rights" on other issues but suddenly......the Feds are Cream Puff Gods!!!!)

no, i don't. would you please tell me how many businesses had to desegregate because of the ERA?


dope

The BSA have been staying there rent free you dumb twat. When you learn the facts of this case maybe we can move on to larger areas.

Trial To Open In Boy Scout-Philadelphia Dispute : NPR

 

[del]

The contract violates the City's law about non-profit groups using City owned property for free on the condition they don't discriminate. Rule of Law my ass. You're digging a hole for hypocrisy. Don't worry.....there are plenty of other shovelers in this thread working right beside you.

The Federal Jury are fucking idiots for voting to allow free use of government property by a group that actively discriminates. SCOTUS was correct in ruling the BSA have a right to discriminate based on the standing of being a "Private" organization but RULE OF LAW states Private organizations cannot violate public discrimination laws if they are publicly subsidized and the BSA clearly fit that category.

they don't use it for free; they pay the rent specified in their lease agreement.

it must suck to be perpetually self righteous and stupid.

Holy shit you keep proving to be one dumb ****. The City's Lease amount is based on the rules of a Non-Profit organization. By excludling gays the BSA is violating the terms of the Lease thus they should pay full rent and stop wanting the benefits of a Private organization without paying for it. Can you not comprehend such a simple point you dumbfucking bitch?

i guess those pesky jurors disagree with you, brainiac. of course, since they actually heard the evidence in the case they are in no way as well qualified to make a judgment as an anonymous, dimwitted blowhard on the intertoobs.

fuckknuckle

 

[boedicca]

Clearly the Progressives who insist on the annihilation of anyone who doesn't agree with them are the Epitome of Peace, Love, Understanding, and Universal Tolerance & Acceptance.

 

[del]

So Equal Rights Laws are not applicable because of an older contract? Do you know how many businesses had city contracts who had to desegregate because of the ERA? The City has been trying to hold up it's end of the Lease but the BSA wants to discriminate which violates the City's law.

(Many people here defending the BSA are often bitching about "States Rights" on other issues but suddenly......the Feds are Cream Puff Gods!!!!)

no, i don't. would you please tell me how many businesses had to desegregate because of the ERA?


dope

The BSA have been staying there rent free you dumb twat. When you learn the facts of this case maybe we can move on to larger areas.

Trial To Open In Boy Scout-Philadelphia Dispute : NPR

a dollar ain't free, stupid.

i'm still waiting for those numbers on the ERA, goatboy.

chop chop

 

[boedicca]

So Equal Rights Laws are not applicable because of an older contract? Do you know how many businesses had city contracts who had to desegregate because of the ERA? The City has been trying to hold up it's end of the Lease but the BSA wants to discriminate which violates the City's law.

(Many people here defending the BSA are often bitching about "States Rights" on other issues but suddenly......the Feds are Cream Puff Gods!!!!)

no, i don't. would you please tell me how many businesses had to desegregate because of the ERA?


dope

The BSA have been staying there rent free you dumb twat. When you learn the facts of this case maybe we can move on to larger areas.

Trial To Open In Boy Scout-Philadelphia Dispute : NPR

You pathetic little nincompoop. They have a valid lease and pay a token amount of rent for the land. They also paid for and maintain the improvements on the property. They have a contract In Perpetuity for this arrangement. It's the deal the city made with them, and it is legally valid. Just because you don't like the terms of the deal does not void it.

 

[RadiomanATL]

Holy shit you keep proving to be one dumb ****. The City's Lease amount is based on the rules of a Non-Profit organization. By excludling gays the BSA is violating the terms of the Lease thus they should pay full rent and stop wanting the benefits of a Private organization without paying for it. Can you not comprehend such a simple point you dumbfucking bitch?

I call Shenanigans. Please provide evidence that the city had such rules governing Non-Profits in 1928.

His argument is that the Boy Scouts are violating the rules set forth by the state and feds for a non-profit organization. That if an organization discriminates, they lose their non-profit status.

He's wrong, of course. Forget the homosexual aspect. If a organization discriminates, do they lose their non-profit status? No. Hint: BOY scouts. GIRL scouts.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

A Philadelphia jury has ruled in favor of the Boy Scouts, meaning they will not be evicted from their home or forced to pay rent, at least for now.

Outside the courthouse, a lawyer for the Boy Scouts, Jason Gosselin, told Fox News the Scouts won on the most important issue, that of First Amendment rights. The jury found the city posed an unconstitutional condition on the organization by asking it to pay $200,000 annual rent on property it was leasing for a dollar a year, in a building the Scouts built and paid for themselves, all because the city felt the Scouts were in violation of Philadelphia's anti-discrimination laws.

Boy Scouts Win Battle in Court Liveshots

Common sense and decency prevails in Philadelphia. At least today.

I'm not sure I agree, chanel. It's a bit disturbing to me that the Boy Scouts discriminates against gay youth as well as adults. I'm not at all sympathetic to the homophobic rejection of would-be gay scout troop leaders, but I can live with it. I wasn't aware, however, that the organization was asking children about their sexual orientation and rejecting those it deems "gay".

That seems terribly cruel to me.

The BSA does not prohibit any children from joining because of their sexual orientation. It might kick some out for their sexual activities though, since having sex with children is illegal even if the partner is a child.

 

[ConHog]

So Equal Rights Laws are not applicable because of an older contract? Do you know how many businesses had city contracts who had to desegregate because of the ERA? The City has been trying to hold up it's end of the Lease but the BSA wants to discriminate which violates the City's law.

(Many people here defending the BSA are often bitching about "States Rights" on other issues but suddenly......the Feds are Cream Puff Gods!!!!)

no, i don't. would you please tell me how many businesses had to desegregate because of the ERA?


dope

The BSA have been staying there rent free you dumb twat. When you learn the facts of this case maybe we can move on to larger areas.

Trial To Open In Boy Scout-Philadelphia Dispute : NPR

uh NOT rent free. They pay $1 a year as specified in their lease. They also maintain a building which is owned by the city. no telling how much they spend yearly on the upkeep of an 80 y/o building.

 

[boedicca]

Holy shit you keep proving to be one dumb ****. The City's Lease amount is based on the rules of a Non-Profit organization. By excludling gays the BSA is violating the terms of the Lease thus they should pay full rent and stop wanting the benefits of a Private organization without paying for it. Can you not comprehend such a simple point you dumbfucking bitch?

I call Shenanigans. Please provide evidence that the city had such rules governing Non-Profits in 1928.

His argument is that the Boy Scouts are violating the rules set forth by the state and feds for a non-profit organization. That if an organization discriminates, they lose their non-profit status.

He's wrong, of course. Forget the homosexual aspect. If a organization discriminates, do they lose their non-profit status? No. Hint: BOY scouts. GIRL scouts.

They have a lease. I'd like to see him to prove that the lease depends upon them complying with whatever subsequent definition of Non-Profit the government choose to make up.

 

[ConHog]

Holy shit you keep proving to be one dumb ****. The City's Lease amount is based on the rules of a Non-Profit organization. By excludling gays the BSA is violating the terms of the Lease thus they should pay full rent and stop wanting the benefits of a Private organization without paying for it. Can you not comprehend such a simple point you dumbfucking bitch?

I call Shenanigans. Please provide evidence that the city had such rules governing Non-Profits in 1928.

His argument is that the Boy Scouts are violating the rules set forth by the state and feds for a non-profit organization. That if an organization discriminates, they lose their non-profit status.

He's wrong, of course. Forget the homosexual aspect. If a organization discriminates, do they lose their non-profit status? No. Hint: BOY scouts. GIRL scouts.

I don't understand why they don't just start the Homosexual Scouts of America. Exclude heterosexuals, and have fun.. Lots of valuable life lessons to be learned there I'm sure.

 

[RadiomanATL]

I call Shenanigans. Please provide evidence that the city had such rules governing Non-Profits in 1928.

His argument is that the Boy Scouts are violating the rules set forth by the state and feds for a non-profit organization. That if an organization discriminates, they lose their non-profit status.

He's wrong, of course. Forget the homosexual aspect. If a organization discriminates, do they lose their non-profit status? No. Hint: BOY scouts. GIRL scouts.

I don't understand why they don't just start the Homosexual Scouts of America. Exclude heterosexuals, and have fun.. Lots of valuable life lessons to be learned there I'm sure.

Curvey would be the first to sign up, I'm sure.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Interesting take on all this. Let's see - just exactly what is it the Boy Scouts are doing that is causing the city to attempt to evict them the building? It wouldn't have anything to do with excluding gay members from the otherwise "pure" ranks of the Scouts, now would it?

Golly, I sure hope not - because if that were the case, then that would put the Scouts in the position of being the big bully who is pushing others around, now wouldn't it?

The city does not have the legal right to punish a PRIVATE Organization because they disagree with them. Pretty simple concept.

Which, of course, begs the question regarding whether the BSA is on solid ground when it excludes gays.

SCOTUS seems to think it is.

 

[boedicca]

I call Shenanigans. Please provide evidence that the city had such rules governing Non-Profits in 1928.

His argument is that the Boy Scouts are violating the rules set forth by the state and feds for a non-profit organization. That if an organization discriminates, they lose their non-profit status.

He's wrong, of course. Forget the homosexual aspect. If a organization discriminates, do they lose their non-profit status? No. Hint: BOY scouts. GIRL scouts.

I don't understand why they don't just start the Homosexual Scouts of America. Exclude heterosexuals, and have fun.. Lots of valuable life lessons to be learned there I'm sure.

The Nymphs of NAMBLA probably already exists.