Boy Scouts of America v. Dale

[Q]

Boy Scouts of America v. Dale

[Emsworth]

Constitutionally sound.

The Bill of Rights deserves a broad interpretation rather than a narrow one. Therefore, I would strongly disagree with any attempt to restrict the effect of the free speech clause to mere speaking or writing. The words "freedom of speech" have a far more expansive scope.

In particular, the free speech clause protects the right to associate with other persons for the purpose of communicating opinions. As the Supreme Court acknowledged in Roberts v. United Jaycees (1984), the clause encompasses the "right to associate with others in pursuit of a wide variety of political, social, economic, educational, religious, and cultural ends." Hence, for instance, forming or joining a political party constitutes an expressive action entitled to First Amendment protection. This freedom is abridged when the government compels a group to admit members that it does not desire to include.

Accordingly, the New Jersey law, by compelling the Boy Scouts to include homosexuals, violated the First Amendment.

[A18]

Sound. The Boy Scouts have as much right to exclude homosexuals as the Ku Klux Klan does blacks, and the NAACP Clarence Thomas.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Extremely sound.  I don't even see how the New Jersey courts even saw fit to try any bypass the provision in their public accomodations law,

You must be logged in to read this quote.

  If the BSA don't meet that test, who does?

[7,052,770]

I definitely don't agree with it, but it's our right to exclude them if that's what we decide.

[minionofmidas]

I would think this is about Freedom of Association though, not Freedom of Speech, and thence the Jersey Law violated the IXth Amendment, not the Ist. But that's just me, I guess.

[Q]

I would think this is about Freedom of Association though, not Freedom of Speech

Yes, this is what both the ruling and the dissent said.  The dissent continued that the BSA's freedom of association was not violated because BSA was not harmed in the carrying out of its perscribed mission by being forced to have this individual in their group.

I know this is a bad summary, but I'm tired, so give me a break.

[minionofmidas]

I'm tired, so give me a break.

Here you are:

[Virginian87]

Completely Sound.  I'm an Eagle Scout and I agree with it as well.  The Scout Oath is a promise that you will, as a Scout, be "mentally awake and morally straight," among other things.  That alone is rationale to exclude homosexuals.

[Q]

The Scout Oath is a promise that you will, as a Scout, be "mentally awake and morally straight," among other things.  That alone is rationale to exclude homosexuals.

Regardless of the legal issues in this case, I must ask, simply, what the hell?

[Q]

I'm tired, so give me a break.

Here you are:
[comical image]

Thanks, Lewis! I needed that.

[Virginian87]

The Scout Oath is a promise that you will, as a Scout, be "mentally awake and morally straight," among other things.  That alone is rationale to exclude homosexuals.

Regardless of the legal issues in this case, I must ask, simply, what the hell?

I'm not a homophobe, but I do believe as a Christian that homosexuality is inherently wrong.  That does not mean that I think that gays are automatically going to hell.  I just believe the presence of gays, particularly gay troop leaders, in a wholesome organization like the Boy Scouts would be very unsettling to many kids, especially if the gays were adults, which was what the ruling concerned in the first place.

[nini2287]

It's unfortunate, but constitutionally very sound.

[??????????]

The Scout Oath is a promise that you will, as a Scout, be "mentally awake and morally straight," among other things.  That alone is rationale to exclude homosexuals.

Regardless of the legal issues in this case, I must ask, simply, what the hell?

I'm not a homophobe, but I do believe as a Christian that homosexuality is inherently wrong.  That does not mean that I think that gays are automatically going to hell.  I just believe the presence of gays, particularly gay troop leaders, in a wholesome organization like the Boy Scouts would be very unsettling to many kids, especially if the gays were adults, which was what the ruling concerned in the first place.

Amen to that.

[opebo]

The Scout Oath is a promise that you will, as a Scout, be "mentally awake and morally straight," among other things.  That alone is rationale to exclude homosexuals.

I'm not a homophobe, but I do believe as a Christian that homosexuality is inherently wrong.  That does not mean that I think that gays are automatically going to hell.  I just believe the presence of gays, particularly gay troop leaders, in a wholesome organization like the Boy Scouts would be very unsettling to many kids, especially if the gays were adults, which was what the ruling concerned in the first place.

Amen to that.

Listen, you two religious intolerants, this thread is about the constitutionality of the decision (I admit a boring topic), not about your hatred of homosexuals.  Keep that crap to yourselves, no one cares who dumbs hate.

[minionofmidas]

Anyone thinking that Boy Scouts are a wholesome organization better go to hell fast.

[??????????]

Anyone thinking that Boy Scouts are a wholesome organization better go to hell fast.

Then I'm on the fast track!

[J. J.]

I think private organization can admit whomever the want.  Sound.

[Virginian87]

I think private organization can admit whomever the want.  Sound.

That goes for country clubs like Augusta National too.

[True Democrat]

I'm a Boy Scout, and even though I'm leaning towards Constitutionally sound, excluding homosexuals is completely wrong.  If women are allowed to be Scout leaders, I don't know why homosexual men aren't.

[Alcon]

Anyone thinking that Boy Scouts are a wholesome organization better go to hell fast.

Then I'm on the fast track!

You probably also think the YMCA is, then.