Seems bigotry is a running theme with me these days, or it's in the news more, I don't know which. Anyway, it seems the Boy Scouts of Philadelphia have been enjoying a rent-free ride from the city for close on a hundred years now, but the city isn't happy about the Boy Scouts' policy of excluding gays and lesbians from its ranks and is demanding rent from the organization.
Apparently the Philadelphia chapter has tried to change its rules, contacting the BSA main office, but the big boys in little blue suits were having none of it, so now the local chapter is exercising another option: Litigation for violation of its First Amendment rights.
Usually I hear about bigotry -- especially institutionalized bigotry -- and find myself landing squarely on the other side of the argument, but I find myself conflicted about this one. It is wrong for anyone to unfairly discriminate, but the Boy Scouts' agreement with the city (I assume, given when it was drawn up) had no codicil concerning homosexuals. So what this comes down to is the city strong-arming the Boy Scouts, the Scouts attempting to comply but being refused, and the chapter left in an untenable situation.
Thoughts?
I don't know anything really other than what you put in this post, but here's how I see it. Yes, it is bullying. However, I think the city did the right thing. Maybe the BSA has the right to exclude people from its organization, but that doesn't mean that the city has to support that by providing a rent-free building for them to use. Just because there has been a precedent of the city supporting them in the past is no reason for the city to continue to subsidize discrimination.
Cradle of Liberty is what that chapter calls itself. Really? Stand up to those who are actually harming the liberty of others rather than those who would call you out on your hypocrisy. Or maybe start paying rent. Or find another building.
Posted by: cro | June 14, 2010 at 11:02 AM
Also, by forcing the matter, the city is protecting itself from a valid suit by third parties who could claim that the city is liable for allowing discrimination on public property.
Posted by: cro | June 14, 2010 at 11:28 AM
So to sum up the issues:
1. the boy-scouts are getting access to public resources for free whereas they are a religious organization. That goes against separation of state and church and should be stopped, right?
2. the boy-scouts are discriminating against gays and lesbians. Isn't that illegal? What? It's not? Wow.
3. The city decided to use fixing 1 as leverage to fix 2, which they can't directly fix?
What I think is that 2 not being illegal is the real problem to fix. Using one legal problem as a way to exert pressure to extort resolution of another completely unrelated problem? That does sound wrong. And the chances of it to work and result in the Boy Scouts welcoming homosexuals are exactly zero. So this sounds like hypocrisy and the real goal here is to evict them, but without saying it out loud.
On the other hand, when a private organization is using public resources, it should be subject to the same rules that public organizations are.
Posted by: Bertrand Le Roy | June 14, 2010 at 12:02 PM
CRo -- I agree with everything you said, unless there is a written contract, which the city would be violating. Ethically, I think the city is doing the right thing. Legally, I'm not sure.
Bertrand -- I think the BSA is exempt from discrimination laws because it is a private "club." Having a "club" designation protects organizations like the KKK under the "right to gather" under the First Amendment. (At least, that's how I understand it.) Should we make every private group or organization accept anyone who wanted to be a member of it? I don't know. That could be considered unconstitutional. (Let's not get into the "sacred document" discussion again, though!)
I think CRo hit the heart of the matter with her second comment though; the city probably is at risk by tacitly endorsing such discrimination. While their tactics may be underhanded, the ends may justify the means in this case.
Posted by: alejo699 | June 15, 2010 at 09:22 AM
Yeah, sure, I understand. The constitutional point you make is quite convincing. I'd like to point out anyways that this is also a cultural thing that might be worth raising awareness on and fighting for: in France for example, such a thing is just not possible as even private "clubs" are forbidden from discriminating on race and a few other criteria that include sexual orientation. Does it limit your right to gather? Sure does (and actually there are quite a few other limitations to that right under French law). But consider this: is it OK for a private golf club to refuse black people? Also, if something is OK for a private club, is it also OK for a private firm?
It's one more case where there is a conflict between two fundamental rights and you get to pick. Maybe a way to resolve that conflict is to consider the essence of each of those rights and whether that essence is really threatened.
I may be misunderstanding the spirit of the right to gather but the way I understand it is that it guarantees citizens the right to protest and resist a potentially abusive government, and to form associations freely. Is this right threatened here? I don't think the first part is, maybe the second is. But consider this: here, the right to gather is being used explicitly to prevent people from gathering with you. On the other hand, should groups be compelled to accept CIA agents or policemen? Clearly not. So where do you draw the line?
The discrimination problem is pretty clear and there are clear criteria to determine what's discrimination and what's not: stuff that's not the result of free will should not be discriminated against in any way. Sex, race, handicaps and sexual orientation (no matter what religious nuts say) all enter this category, religion or political affiliation does not. I think it would be reasonable to ask any organization, public or private, to not discriminate on such criteria.
Posted by: Bertrand Le Roy | June 15, 2010 at 11:13 AM
I agree with you, Bertrand. Its kind of crazy ... the First Amendment is one sentence long already, and the part pertaining to this issue is simply, the right of the people peaceably to assemble. From that, the SCOTUS has interpreted all kinds of meaning, including the idea that groups can choose who they do (or dont) associate with. I think the answer here is a different interpretation, where the right applies to individual rather than an organization -- in other words, you have the right to avoid black or gay people yourself, but you dont have the right to bar them from an organization. As you say, we should not be punished for traits we do not choose to have.
Oof. We have a long way to go.
Posted by: alejo699 | June 15, 2010 at 11:29 AM