ACLU - Friend or Foe to America?

[Father Heathen]

The ACLU is the foe of a just and civilized America.
They seek to impose their Godlessness on the whole
of society.

How does defending the values and virtues of America, such as rights and liberty, make it a foe of America? That doesn't even make sense, unless of course you happen to be one of those nutty fundamentalists who think burning The Constitution and installing a theocratic dictatorship would be the American thing to do.

 

[Storm]

My dear friends:
The Supreme Court ruled in June of 2000 that the
Boy Scouts Of America do NOT discriminate against
homosexuals or athiests. But that they have the right
to set the rules as to who will be chosen as leaders and
role models.
This ruling falls under the banner of "freedom of speech"
and "right of association."
Also, The BOA has been sued many times over this issue
and(as far as I know) successfully defended itself every
time.

Sorry, but I don't trust you not to misrepresent this as well. Cite the case, please.

 

[Smoke]

Sorry, but I don't trust you not to misrepresent this as well. Cite the case, please.

Not without reason. The Supreme Court did not, of course, rule that the Mormon Scouts -- er, Boy Scouts -- don't discriminate against gay people, agnostics, and atheists. You'd have to be a moron to think that they don't.

Courts (not the Supreme Court) have generally held that the BSA can set whatever membership requirements it wants, and that public entities are not required to give the BSA any special privileges. A big part of the controversy revolves around the fact that the BSA expects to get privileged use of public lands and public money while maintaining its restrictive membership policies.

 

[Smoke]

The ACLU is the foe of a just and civilized America.
They seek to impose their Godlessness on the whole
of society.

No, they seek to prevent you from imposing your ideas of godliness on the whole of society. Good thing, too.

 

[Storm]

Not without reason. The Supreme Court did not, of course, rule that the Mormon Scouts -- er, Boy Scouts -- don't discriminate against gay people, agnostics, and atheists. You'd have to be a moron to think that they don't.

Courts (not the Supreme Court) have generally held that the BSA can set whatever membership requirements it wants, and that public entities are not required to give the BSA any special privileges. A big part of the controversy revolves around the fact that the BSA expects to get privileged use of public lands and public money while maintaining its restrictive membership policies.

Thought so.

 

[RomCat]

Per request of Storm:

Boy Scouts Of America Vs. Dale
530 US 640(2000)

Case decided June 28, 2000.

 

[Storm]

I'll google it myself, but for future reference, it's much more polite to provide your own links.

 

[Storm]

From Wiki: BSA v Dale:

The Supreme Court held that the lower court's decision unconstitutionally violated the rights of BSA, specifically the freedom of association, which allows a private organization to exclude whomever it wishes.
​

No surprise, Smoke was right on the money. The court did not find that BSA doesn't discriminate, it found that they have the right to discriminate. I agree.

Which is also the grounds of the first case you misrepresented: as a discriminatory, private organization, BSA should not be given preferential treatment and promotion by the government.

Can't have your cake and eat it, too.

 

[McBell]

From Wiki: BSA v Dale:

The Supreme Court held that the lower court's decision unconstitutionally violated the rights of BSA, specifically the freedom of association, which allows a private organization to exclude whomever it wishes.
​

No surprise, Smoke was right on the money. The court did not find that BSA doesn't discriminate, it found that they have the right to discriminate. I agree.

Which is also the grounds of the first case you misrepresented: as a discriminatory, private organization, BSA should not be given preferential treatment and promotion by the government.

Can't have your cake and eat it, too.

Just in case someone wants to whine about the Wiki link:

BOY SCOUTS OF AMERICA V. DALE
​

 

[Storm]

Just in case someone wants to whine about the Wiki link:

BOY SCOUTS OF AMERICA V. DALE
​

Thanks!

 

[McBell]

Only if you want to look like an even bigger fool than you already do.

Guess the ball is in your court now...

See, I DID warn him.....

 

[RomCat]

Storm:
What you are saying is that every private organization in the country
can never be allowed to use public facilities(parks, school gyms, etc.)
because you can find that every one of these groups discriminates in
some way against somebody.
Private groups could not exist if they could not discriminate in who
may join or who may be leaders.
What if the NAACP could not keep members of the Klu Klux Clan from
joining. The Klan could have so many members in the group that soon
the NAACP would totally lose its identity and its reason to be.
That is why the US Supreme Court ruled correctly on June 28th, 2000.

 

[Storm]

Storm:
What you are saying is that every private organization in the country
can never be allowed to use public facilities(parks, school gyms, etc.)
because you can find that every one of these groups discriminates in
some way against somebody.

Strawman. I didn't say private groups shouldn't be allowed to use public facilities.

 

[McBell]

Storm:
What you are saying is that every private organization in the country
can never be allowed to use public facilities(parks, school gyms, etc.)
because you can find that every one of these groups discriminates in
some way against somebody.

No, what is being said is that private organizations that blatantly discriminate, you know, like the Boy Scouts of America, should not be getting special privileges over public land.

Private groups could not exist if they could not discriminate in who
may join or who may be leaders.

I agree.
However they have to follow certain rules to recieve certain governmental benefits.
For some reason the Boy Scouts of America seem to think that the rules should not apply to them.

What if the NAACP could not keep members of the Klu Klux Clan from
joining. The Klan could have so many members in the group that soon
the NAACP would totally lose its identity and its reason to be.

Relevance?

That is why the US Supreme Court ruled correctly on June 28th, 2000.

I agree.
The Boy Scouts of America are free to discriminate against whomever they like.
However, because of said discrimination, they lose certain governmental benefits.
Specifically, the benefits that require no discrimination.

Seems you are trying to change the subject.
No one is saying that the Boy Scouts of America are not to be allowed to discriminate.
They are saying that their discrimination should prevent them from getting the benefits that are denied to other groups that discriminate.

 

[RomCat]

Why should they lose public benefits?
The people who belong to private groups
pay taxes. The parents of children in
private groups pay taxes. Are they to be
denied the use of public facillities that they
help pay for? That is unfair and discriminatory.
Again, all private groups and associations dis-
criminate in someway against somebody.

 

[McBell]

Why should they lose public benefits?
The people who belong to private groups
pay taxes. The parents of children in
private groups pay taxes. Are they to be
denied the use of public facillities that they
help pay for? That is unfair and discriminatory.
Again, all private groups and associations dis-
criminate in someway against somebody.

You seem to have problems with reading comprehension.

 

[themadhair]

Why should they lose public benefits?

The government of the US is bound by the US constitution and anti-discrimination laws. For them to fund or provide resources to groups who participate in discrimination is an act of discrimination under those laws.

If you want to avail of government funding/resources then you have to abide by the same constitutional bounds the US government does. It really is quite simple and I don’t know why you aren’t getting it.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

What if the NAACP could not keep members of the Klu Klux Clan from
joining. The Klan could have so many members in the group that soon the NAACP would totally lose its identity and its reason to be.

Just out of curiousity, could you show me the membership form for the NAACP, and point out exactly where that group excludes members of the KKK?

 

[The Voice of Reason]

You know, RomCat probably has a point.

I'm pretty sure that Mensa is discriminating against him, and as we all know - that's just not fair to RomCat.

 

[Daemon Sophic]

The ACLU is definitively a FRIEND of the U.S.A.

Just for a little light reading....
-- Top 10 Pros and Cons - ACLU - ProCon.org I like the ACLU for these PRO reasons, and even for most of the CON reasons, particularly considering the 'quality' of those making the opposition. (see #4 and #8).
-- Landmark Supreme Court Cases - ACLU - ProCon.org What's not to love and feel patriotic about? Seriously.