ACLU - Friend or Foe to America?

[Storm]

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.

They're not being denied anything except their former special rights. They can still utilize the public facilities, they just don't get them for $1 per... what was it, a year? Anyway, they just have to pay fair instead of getting a sweetheart rate.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

Smoke was right. They should be called the Mormon Scouts of America.

The sad part is, back in the day, the BSA was a very good, very functional organization.

 

[Smoke]

Per request of Storm:

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

Case decided June 28, 2000.

Did not find, as you claimed it did, that the BSA didn't discriminate. On the contrary, the court found that as a private organization the BSA had a right to discriminate.

 

[rojse]

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.

The people who belong to private groups also pay fees to belong to said group. The group has the rights to use whatever facilities they purchase the rights to use with the use of their own funding.

They can certainly use facilities which their taxes pay for. Just not with a group that discriminates in it's membership, because public places are allowed to be used by all members of the public.

 

[Father Heathen]

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.

I don't want my tax money to support an anti-gay group.
Would you want your tax money to support a pro-gay group?

 

[The Voice of Reason]

It's been almost 24 hours. Do you think that the people at the clinic are limiting RomCat's access to the internet, while the medication works it's way through his system?

 

[linwood]

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.

Yes the BOA has every right to admit anyone it wishes into it`s organization according to whatever standards it wishes to use.

However, the standards the BOA use to make this determination discriminate against a substantial percentage of US citizens precludes them from any government aid or privilege.

They often do indeed receive substantial government aid and privilege.

This is what the fight against the BOA is about and it is just.

 

[Smoke]

Smoke was right. They should be called the Mormon Scouts of America.

The sad part is, back in the day, the BSA was a very good, very functional organization.

The Mormons have had an effect on the BSA that is comparable to the effect Evangelicals have had on the Republican Party.

 

[Autodidact]

They don't support Christian rights.
Ask the Boy Scouts in San Diego. The ACLU
got them kicked out of Balboa Park. Their
crime? Reading a prayer during their outdoor
meetings.
Need I go on?

What is your position regarding the Constitution, especially the Bill of Rights--for or against?

You're mistaken. The boy scouts aren't kicked out, they just have to pay. And it's not because they read a prayer, it's because they discriminate on the basis of religion and sexual orientation.

Yes, do go on, but this time find out the facts first. In fact, here's a novel concept: find out the facts before forming an opinion.

 

[Autodidact]

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.

No, that's not what the court ruled. The court ruled that they do discriminate, and they have the right to discriminate if they want. They don't have the right to get money from the government and discriminate both; they have to pick one or the other. Do you understand the distinction?

 

[Autodidact]

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

Boy Scouts v. Dale. But the court did not rule that they do not discriminate; the court ruled that they have the right to discriminate, as a private organization.

 

[Autodidact]

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.

No. What the court (not the ACLU and not Storm but the court) held is that if you want to use public facilities, you have to comply with the state's laws, including non-discrimination laws.

You don't know much about the law, do you? You're allowed to discriminate for some reasons, and not for others. You can discriminate on the basis of whether or not you enjoy croquet, but not on the basis of race. So croquet-players can reserve a public park, but if the White Croquet Players of America wants to reserve the park, and a black croquet player wants to enter, they have to let him. A private, issue-oriented group can discriminate, but not if they want to use government facilities. The NAACP could discriminate against white people if they want, but they don't. But if they want to use Balboa Park and not pay for it, they have to let white people in. They do not have to let racist people in, or the KKK. The court ruled correctly (although it was a close case) that the Boy Scouts are such an issue-oriented group, so they can discriminate if they want. They just can't use a park that belongs to you and me, straight people and gay people, without paying for it. Get it?

 

[Autodidact]

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.

Well, look at it this way. Suppose the Boy Scouts did not allow Catholic boys or men to join. They want to use the harbor without paying for it. Should they be allowed to?

 

[Autodidact]

RomCat: You now have an opportunity to either build or destroy your credibility here at RF. Your assertions were mistaken. That's O.K., we're human; we all make mistakes. What shows your character is how you respond. You can do the tough thing and admit you were mistaken. If you did that and went further and indicated an intention to be more careful in future, you would enhance your credibility. If you fail to acknowledge your error, or try to hide it behind further confusion, you will destroy your credibility here for a long time. Credibility is hard to build, and easy to lose, so consider your options carefully.

 

[Autodidact]

Right, dignity more important than credibility. Good to know.

 

[.lava]

is ACLU a department in USA government?


.

 

[McBell]

is ACLU a department in USA government?


.

No.

Here is their About Us page:
American Civil Liberties Union : About Us

 

[themadhair]

is ACLU a department in USA government?

No. They are a non-profit group committed to defending the principles, rights and civil liberties specified in the US constitution. They have being involved in countless lawsuits against the US government campaigning for civil liberties.

They are a top group.

 

[Al Bundy]

friend

 

[RomCat]

There is good discrimination and there is
evil discrimination. The BSA practices good
discrimination as has been determined
numerous times by the Courts.