After the Supreme Court denied cert in the Sea Scouts case, I knew it was only a matter of time before Hans Zeiger, the Worldnutdaily's boy wonder, would chime in with outrage and illogical arguments. And so he has. The Sea Scouts case, for those who don't recall, involved the question of whether the city of Berkeley could restrict a policy giving free slips at their city marina to non-profit groups by limiting it only to groups that do not engage in discrimination (the Sea Scouts, like the Boy Scouts, do not allow gays or atheists to join or be in positions of leadership).
As the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2000, the Boy Scouts and other private organizations have the right to limit their membership to those they choose.
And indeed they do, regardless of the outcome of this case. Conservatives are always telling us that lack of taxpayer funding for something does not diminish the right to do it. When it comes to NEA funding, for example, they say, "Just because Mapplethorpe has the right to take his filthy pictures doesn't mean the government has to subsidize them." And they're right. But suddenly their logic flies right out the window when applied to government funding for things they support, then suddenly the lack of taxpayer support threatens the right itself. Consistency, thou are a fickle muse.
The Scouts remain a private organization, just as other nonprofit groups to whom the Berkeley Marina awards free docking are private. It would not be unjust for the city of Berkeley to tell the Scouts to pay rent if it were a uniform policy, if the same policy were enforced for all nonprofit groups who have free docking at the marina (even so, it would be bad policy). But in this case, the city's decision was based on the internal policies, protected under the First Amendment, of one private organization.
But Hans, the same policy is enforced for all non-profit groups: they don't get free docking at the marina unless they agree not to engage in discrimination. The Sea Scouts refuse to agree to that, so they don't get free docking. They're still free to dock their boats there, they just have to pay for it, like any other private group that engages in discrimination. I know Zeiger is a young guy, but his ability to reason coherently hasn't improved any in the last couple years.
- Log in to post comments
The only conclusion I can reach is that these right-wing, anti-gay types want to be MORE equal, which is to say superior. Legally superior, because having the so-called 'moral high ground' just isn't enough.
The really sad thing is that Zeiger is right, the Scouts undoubtedly do a lot of good for the community, which is exactly why James Dale sued over their membership policies - as a non-profit community group, he argued they were a public accommodation, and therefore subject to anti-discrimination laws. The Scouts chose to argue they were a private organization, like any other closed club (country clubs, the Elks, etc.) and not subject to anti-discrimination laws. Now, when that stance comes back to bite them on the proverbial ass, they want it both ways - and that does not cut it in America. After all, August National is free to limit its membership to men, but they cannot expect breaks on their property taxes, just like the Sea Scouts cannot expect free rent.
It is also interesting that these same groups that complain about how the Scouts are being oppressed by the government or "gay activists" (meaning, basically, any out-of-the-closet gay) do not see any problem with, say, "Repent America" going to Gay Pride celebrations and using a megaphone to condemn gay people and tell them they are going to hell, in an attempt to interrupt the celebration. Yet no gay groups are outside Boy Scout den meetings with megaphones, or pamphleting cars in church parking lots to convert from their immoral religious lifestyle choices (I actually had a neighbor a few years ago who would routinely leave anti-gay tracts on my car).
I'm gong to very consistant here:
Mapplethorpe shouldn't be taxapayer funded... and neither should any other artist.
Nobody should be getting a free slip, either.
BUt, I guess asking the People's Republic of Berkeley to move the government out of something they don't need to do is asking a bit much, isn't it?
I'd like to look at the "non-profit" groups that *do* get free docking there. I'll bet that some of them engage in "discrimination". It's just discrimination that PRB *likes*.
How much older will Hans have to get before his Boy Scout obsession is just plain creepy?
bud-
1. If you have to put sneer quotes around it, it probably isn't discrimination.
2. People's Republic of Berkeley? Have you ever even been to the city of Berkeley? or are you just trying to smear the city based on what you imagine it to be like?
3. This isn't the time or place to debate the merits of the government sponsoring things that serve a public interest but are unable to support themselves through the private sector.
Please don't act like a troll. It isn't flattering.
Bud said -
I'd like to look at the "non-profit" groups that *do* get free docking there. I'll bet that some of them engage in "discrimination". It's just discrimination that PRB *likes*.
Then do so, find out what you are talking about, then let folks know about any discriminatory behavior on the part of these other non-profits. If and when you find it, you will have a legitemate point that you should forward to the Sea Scout lawyers - it might be grounds for an appeal - it would also be a point relevant to this post.
If you really take issue with the city of Berkley giving free slip space to non-profits, then move there and vote against it. Convince your new neighbors there that they too, should vote against it too. That's how democracy works.
I think it is about time that someone has taken a stand against the Scouts receiving special privileges based solely upon their self-proclaimed status. The whole Scouts agenda needs to be exposed for what it is, etc.
Bud wrote:
Do you really imagine that the attorneys for the Sea Scouts didn't think of this? If they could have shown that other non-profits are allowed to discriminate in other ways and still get the free boat slip, it would almost certainly have resulted in the opposite ruling. No such thing was shown. But if you have evidence to the contrary, please offer it.
Do you really imagine that the attorneys for the Sea Scouts didn't think of this?
To imply that Butt^h^hd imagined anything of the sort does him far too much credit. Butt^h^hd is a troll, and like any other troll he is a short circuit: the route he takes to an opinion will always bypass reason.
He's an Eagle Scout, don't you know! I'd never heard of the guy before, but looked him up just out of curiosity, and this is just plain creepy enough.
I should point out that the Berkeley policy on no discrimination is only the first hurdle that non-profits have to go through to get either free or subsidized slips. The city only has a limited number of slips so the organizations have to show that they will be serving the city's population in some way. Only a handful of organizations are approved. The current set includes one with boats outfitted for people with disabilities that can be used by people with (or without) disabilities, another provides on the water programs for youth, another lessons and low-cost rental boats for adults.