Originally posted by: FettsBabe
"The high court disagrees. "
There has to be some legal wording that is causing this ruling. I would like to read it. I bet it was just a discount for the BSA and NOT a GROUP DISCOUNT.
They can't NOT give the BSA a discount if they give Group Discounts to everyone else because that in turn causes them to discriminate. I don't see sexual orientation as a discrimination issue per the gov. that doesn't even recognize same sex marriage. They discriminate themselves.
If you are going to refer to it, please post the ruling and all facts about it. You shouldn't say the "high court disagrees" unless you post proof of this and statements and facts from the court itself. A court transcript will suffice.
You can tell the HIGH COURT that until they recognize same sex marriage and tell the courts that it is an American right that they cannot discriminate against the Boy Scouts who say they can't be a member. Tell the high court to put their beliefs into action. Until then the gov. you are supporting is doing the same thing.
pdf link to court rulling
link ot article that explains it in laymens terms.
"Berkeley had let the Sea Scouts -- which teach sailing and related skills -- use city-owned berths free of charge for decades, but passed a 1997 ordinance banning subsidies for groups that discriminate. There have been no specific discrimination allegations against the Sea Scouts, but since refusing to disavow the BSA's policy, they have had to pay for their berth. The state Court of Appeal in 2002 upheld an Alameda County Superior Court judge's ruling that the Sea Scouts had no case against the city.
Plaintiffs' attorney Jonathan Gordon of Pleasant Hill, who argued the case to the state Supreme Court in January, couldn't be reached for comment Thursday.
He had argued that the Sea Scouts have been punished for something they haven't done just because they're tied to a group the city doesn't like. But "(t)hat Berkeley officials were unaware of any past discrimination by the Sea Scouts does not mean none would occur in the future," Werdegar wrote Thursday.
The justices agreed with Berkeley that a government "may constitutionally require a recipient of funding or subsidy to provide written, unambiguous assurances of compliance with a generally applicable nondiscrimination policy. We further agree Berkeley reasonably concluded the Sea Scouts did not and could not provide satisfactory assurances because of their required adherence to BSA's discriminatory policies."
"
berkely has a ordinace saying that if you discriminate you do not get a subsidery (they were getting it free when everyone else has to pay).
shrug i think it is the right ruleing. you discrimante you do not get a goverment subsidery in any way, shape or form (this goes for any group not just the BSA).
I am not saying the BSA needs to be disbanded or that people should nto give to them. I am saying that taxpayers should nto be helping in any way.