Former Denver Post editor Al Knight loses his mind.
The ACLU, in a rational world, might well have been expected to champion the First Amendment rights of an organization like the Boy Scouts. After all, the First Amendment to the Constitution (so dear to the ACLU) protects both speech and the right to associate.
The U.S. Supreme Court in 2000 upheld the right of the Boy Scouts to select members and leaders without regard to state laws that bar discrimination based on sexual orientation.
That ruling hasn't stopped the ACLU. It has simply shifted tactics away from the courts and focused its energies on local and often mean-spirited campaigns to deny the Scouts places to meet and the ability to raise funds.
No, Al. Let's review, shall we?
In 2000, the Boy Scouts, in order to refuse James Dale a position of Boy Scout leader, a position for which no one argues he was not eminently qualified other than being gay, argued that it was a private club and therefore entitled to refuse and fire him from his position as an assistant scout master. The Supreme Court of the United States, in 2000, agreed. End of story. Only, apparently not. Apparently choices have consequences. Who knew?
Knight goes on to say,
Sadly, the campaign appears to be working. Earlier this year, the Philadelphia City Council caved to pressure from the ACLU and gay and lesbian groups to end a 75-year-old, $1-a-year lease on the Boy Scouts headquarters. The lease was originally granted to run "in perpetuity."
So, not just any private club, eh? Let's see .. 75 years times 200,000 dollars in today's dollars is a net benefit of 15 million dollars over time.
Let me get this straight, Al, if you don't mind the wording: You are asserting that the City of Philidelphia is obligated to continue a 15 million dollar benefit to a private club where the club's membership criteria is clearly antithetical to the values of the city?
In every case, it appears the Boy Scouts has absolute rights and makes choices. Does the City of Philadelphia have no rights?
And, how is the City of Philadelphia denying the scouts places to meet and raise funds, simply by no longer providing them the building they are currently using for free?
The Scouts won the battle to exclude not only gays, but atheists from its ranks on the basis of its poorly stated membership criteria from the U.S. Supreme Court in 2000. That was a choice, Al, a choice the Boy Scouts of America rigorously defends and exercises to this day.
Knight says,
The youth of Philadelphia need the Boy Scouts as much as ever, but the City Council is too cowardly to stand up to the unreasonable and vindictive demands of special interest groups.
But, apparently only the heterosexual and religious youth of Philadelphia need the Boy Scouts?
Let's do a thought experiment. Let us suppose that the gay and atheist boys of Philadelphia decide to form their own private club, a club that excludes all others from its membership and benefits. Are you saying, Al, that they, too, should be granted a 15 million dollar lease for a city-owned headquarters as a symbol of their "right" to "meet and raise funds"?
No one is stopping the BSA from meeting anyplace they like, and continue to fundraise. They can pay, like anyone else, or even convince a private group to donate them a new headquarters. As for the charge of "vindictiveness", no, Al. Like I said, the Boy Scout defined itself as a private club in order to exercise its vindictiveness in order to expel nonreligious and gay members. Now that that vindictiveness, which is not that of special interest groups but the Boy Scouts itself, has come full circle, the Boy Scouts is crying foul?
And, as always, isn't it interesting that the conservatives of this country, who piously proclaim themselves the "people of personal responsibility" are once again denying that responsibility when the choices of a group with which they are personally fond leads to them suffering costly consequences.
Finally, the Knight of common sense ejaculates this particularly loathsome piece of nonsense:
Today, the Boy Scouts may be the target, but tomorrow the same shabby tactics could be aimed at the Rotary Club or any other private civic group.
Whose shabby tactics are we talking about, Knight? Private clubs have no inherent right to use city owned properties or resources, and as you conservatives are so fond of pointing out, entities -- yes, even a government entity like the City of Philadelphia have what you like to call "property rights".
And, once again, the Denver Post is providing newspaper space to this small, bitter little man to spew his vitriol.
Shame on you, Denver Post.