A federal jury has given the Boy Scouts a major victory: ruling that Philadelphia cannot evict the organization under a non-discrimination law. I have written about this case previously, including a column on the tension between non-discrimination laws and free association.
The city is exploring new possible ways to evict the Scouts, including an appeal.
In this case, the scouts had sought an injunction barring the city from evicting them, or charging $200,000 a year in rent, on their stately headquarters building near Logan Square. Notably, however, U.S. District Judge Ronald Buckwalter did not immediately issue an injunction.
The role of the jury in such a case is a bit novel. Usually, this type of question is left to judges as largely legal matters. Putting the issue before a jury was a key advantage for the Boy Scouts.
They were informed that either they had to drop their discrimination against homosexuals or they had to move out of the grand, Beaux-Arts building. They have rented the building from the city for $1 a year since 1928.
The Boy Scouts have long adopted a clearly discriminatory policy against homosexuals. They have argued that the policy is based on their moral teachings and are therefore protected under the Constitution. They are right in my view and I agreed with the Supreme Court decision protecting their association on that basis. In Boy Scouts of America et al. v. Dale, 530 U.S. 640 (2000), Chief Justice Rehnquist overturned the New Jersey Supreme Court’s application of the New Jersey public accommodations law. That law was used to force the Boy Scouts of America to readmit assistant Scoutmaster James Dale. The Court held that the lower court’s decision unconstitutionally violated the rights of BSA, specifically the freedom of association. For a prior column on Dale, click here
Source: ABC
Sorry, Bill
As a property issue, it can be argued that the City has encumbered the property with future interest that violates the common law rule against perpetuities and therefore impairs the asset to the detriment of the city and taxpayers by creating a cloud on the title that impairs the ability to transfer title. Under the cy-pres doctrine, all it would take is an offer of sale and a bona fide buyer willing to pay market value for the property to have sufficient standing to bring suit to have the interest of the BSA nullified. Not all perpetuities are legal.
Can a contract be held In Perpetuity without legal recourse to dissolving the same contract? Can’t eminent domain clauses be utilized to reclaim and repay property builders on same property to allow reuse? Can’t the city bankruptcy laws be used to invalidate old contracts and have new ones drawn up?
I don’t see how a private club that has a city land contract for a lease “In Perpetuity” could get away with discriminating against African-Americans, Jews, etc. today, without the howls of public outcry.
Let’s not forget, previous SCOTUS ruled to uphold slavery laws.
They certainly aren’t infallible by a long shot.
@Jimm- The fact is that the city of Philadelphia, back in 1928 wrote a city ordinance and signed a contract with the BSA to rent the city property to the BSA for 1$ per year IN PERPETUITY. (That means FOREVER!) The BSA spent millions of dollars building the building on that land as a result of that agreement… this was not taxpayer’s money used here. The city has no right to “reneg” on their contract no matter what the BSA Leadership Standards are and they certainly have no right to start charging rent on a building that the BSA built and paid for. The BSA is a private club and has the right under the constitution of the US to define who they want to have leading their programs, AND THE US SUPREME COURT SIDED WITH THE BSA on that very issue. The City is clearly wrong in this case no matter where one stands on the issue of homosexuality… PERIOD.
Providing the BSA with a prime piece of Philadelphia real estate for $1 a year is certainly using tax dollars to promote discrimination, if in a roundabout way.
Then again, 44 states (including PA) mandate discrimination against over 5 million adopted persons so discrimination is not absolutely illegal nor particularly rare in the US.
The BSA’s discrimination against atheists and agnostics should prevent them from receiving government subsidies.
So far I agree with everyone with emphasis on mespo and rcampbell … i know, I know
What mespo and W=c said.
“They certainly have a right to their views -outmoded though they may be — but must the City subsidize their anti-public policy position with a $1.00 per year rent? Charge ‘em the going rate. That’s not an infringemnt of their right to associate or to free speech, that’s just treating them like any other tenant.”
Yes, I have to agree, the non-biased position would not be to subsidize the Scouts who are exclusionary. The thing that gets me though is that boy scouts are kiddidles, it is a time that they could be exposed to tolerance not exclusionary ‘rites’ if the leaders were capable of doing so…instead, in this organization, truth will be subverted and these kids will grow up with a sanctioned idea of ‘other’ twisting their little hearts and minds and putting them at risk of being molested.
I think a ‘homo-badge’ is in order here…
The City’s position really sucks. But then again this blows either way you look at it.
The Boy Scouts have long adopted a clearly discriminatory policy against homosexuals. They have argued that the policy is based on their moral teachings and are therefore protected under the Constitution. They are right in my view and I agreed with the Supreme Court decision protecting their association on that basis.
*********************
They certainly have a right to their views -outmoded though they may be — but must the City subsidize their anti-public policy position with a $1.00 per year rent? Charge ’em the going rate. That’s not an infringemnt of their right to associate or to free speech, that’s just treating them like any other tenant.
So, discrimination is their god’s will and that’s okay in the court because their god told them so regardless of whether they live in the United States?
Rand Paul must be happy this morning. Yippee, there are still ways to legally discriminate against our fellow citzens!! We can still find it in our legal system to justify treating Americans as second class citizens. Aren’t we an advanced society?