Berkeley Marina Debacle Continue - Sea Scouts Take Case To Supreme Court
The City of Berkeley is being taken to the US Supreme Court after denying a free marina berth to a local Sea Scouts troop. This is a story the CalStuff and Beetle have been following for some time now. From the press release:
Pacific Legal Foundation announced today that it has appealed to the United States Supreme Court to review and reverse the California Supreme Court’s decision allowing the City of Berkeley to discriminate against the Berkeley Sea Scouts because of their affiliation with the Boy Scouts of America.
A Berkeley program allows nonprofits free use of the Berkeley Marina. However, Berkeley excludes the Berkeley Sea Scouts, because they are affiliated with the Boy Scouts and Berkeley officials object to Boy Scout values and membership policies.
In a March decision, the California Supreme Court upheld Berkeley’s exclusion of the Sea Scouts from the berthing program for nonprofits.
Representing the Berkeley Sea Scouts’ skipper, Pacific Legal Foundation attorneys have appealed the California Supreme Court’s ruling to the United States Supreme Court.
“Berkeley is penalizing the Sea Scouts for exercising their First Amendment right of association in ways that city officials don’t like,” said PLF attorney, Harold Johnson, co-counsel in the case. “May government punish you, or fine you, or subject you to second class treatment if you don’t pass a politically correct litmus test? That’s the question here — and it deserves to be heard by the United States Supreme Court.”
The Berkeley Sea Scouts is a multi-ethnic group with members from all economic backgrounds. Berkeley’s exclusion of the Sea Scouts has imposed financial hardships. The monthly berth fee of more than $500 has led to cutbacks in programs and less financial assistance for kids from poor families.
“Berkeley is punishing kids in the Sea Scouts program to make a political statement, and that’s a real tragedy,” Johnson said.
I’ll be honest - it’s hard for me to be objective about this situation. I am an Eagle Scout, and I have seen how bad some of the Boy Scout and Sea Scout troops can be. But, these troops that have given Scouting such a public black eye are those that are religiously based. Thousands of troops, like mine, were secularly based out of schools, community centers, and so on.
The largest problem is that while the national offices of Boy Scouts of America do spout off radical right-wing propaganda, the local units are in no way held to these policies. The local units are more of a confederation of groups than organized in a hierarchy to preach the word of Scout Jesus. And, many of these troops have actively queer members, and many of them don’t. Each unit needs to be treated individually, not in the context of the organization as a whole.
In the end, these teenagers are being punished for another half-baked Berkeley political statement.
It’s this kind of pressure that leads to the national organization making changes. The City of Berkeley is doing the right thing.
Comment by a — July 12, 2006 @ 11:50 am
I doubt however that the National Boy Scouts are going to make a change based on discrimination of the Sea Scouts by the City of Berkeley. At the very least, the National Boy Scouts subsidize the costs in a good PR move and look like they’re helping the local diverse kids out in face of a stalwart public government. Slightly ironic, but good photo op.
Comment by jlmay — July 12, 2006 @ 12:00 pm
I too am not impressed with the idioticy of Berkeley’s city officials making useless political statements that do more harm than good (ahem $10,000 to put the impeachment of W on the ballot?). Leftyism isn’t an excuse to not practice pragmatism (or to be a douche, for that matter).
However, the Sea Scouts aren’t going to be getting certiorari for this case, so tough luck for them.
Comment by Eddy Crochetiere — July 12, 2006 @ 12:18 pm
If the City of Berkeley is really pushing this policy for the purpose of leading the national organization to make changes, they might want to reconsider their priorities. It seems like it shouldn’t be their job to achieve ideological purity in all private(ish) organizations.
I’m more sympathetic to the goal of not funding discriminatory groups, but there has been nothing to suggest that this group is discriminating.
Comment by Beetle — July 12, 2006 @ 1:10 pm
if “Each unit needs to be treated individually, not in the context of the organization as a whole” then why have a national organization? seems like you are missing the point.
for once, the berkeley city govt is actually taking a meaningful stand. if the national org was spouting a bunch of nazi shit, instead of antigay rhetoric, would you be running around saying, “its cool, some of the local chapters have jewish members and are totally cool with them.” no, youd be running around (hopefully) telling jews to quit the scouts and telling city government not to subsidize their operations.
which brings up the point that berkeley is not forbidding the scouts from operating. all they are saying is pay your own berthing fees. berkeley doesnt OWE this organization anything, and it has every right to decide whether to subsidize its berth based on the views of its citizenry. in case you were wondering, cuz americans sometimes feel entitled to be insulated from consequences: “do people suffer for the shitty decisions of their leadership?” people do.
Comment by mano — July 12, 2006 @ 2:35 pm
besides its only 500$. surely you can find some stupid rich bigot out there who is willing to pay that to keep the sea scouts “straight”? chet, perhaps? and isnt bret manley loaded? where does the patriot get its cash?
Comment by mano — July 12, 2006 @ 2:39 pm
I’m curious whether this scout troupe is actually based out of a church or not… If so, then I tend to agree with the decision.
Of course, my view is very biased. As a (Jewish) child I was heavily descriminated against by the local Mormon cub scout troupe. My dad would have put me in a different one if there had been any others around. I eventually quit because I couldn’t take the harassment anymore. This was a local group targetting a Jew, not a queer.
Comment by J — July 12, 2006 @ 2:51 pm
The Patriot gets its funding from small donors who pay like 40-100 dollars to support it.
Comment by RepBast1984 — July 12, 2006 @ 2:59 pm
If they want to be treated like other non-discriminating non-profits, then they need to disassociate with the Boy Scouts of America. A bigoted organization with more lenient chapters is still a bigoted organization. Providing the Sea Scouts with special privileges ultimately funds a group that actively targets gays and atheists, and tax funds shouldn’t go to that end.
Comment by Donald — July 12, 2006 @ 3:53 pm
The Boy Scouts of America is not a “bigoted” organization. The bigots are the people trying to use the coercive powers of government to stop others from observing traditional moral and religious beliefs. This is really about leftwing neo-fascisom, and the inability of liberals to tolerate anyone who deviates from their dictums.
Comment by chet (CEO) — July 12, 2006 @ 4:00 pm
Ben, you are an eagle scout? Nice.
I too was in a troop based out of a community of public schools. I don’t remember any religious or sexual intolerance — in fact, I only remember Korean kids saying their parents don’t like white people lol.
Comment by bobby gregg — July 12, 2006 @ 4:22 pm
chet, by your logic then, it is also bigoted that the city of berkeley doesn’t also give a free marina berth to the berkeley college republicans, or to SJP. oh, the cruel, coercive powers of government, how deeply they cut.
you feeding tube.
Comment by mano — July 12, 2006 @ 5:05 pm
right, because BCR and SJP own boats. and teaching kids to sail is one of the fundamental purposes of their existence. and they’ve been sailing/boating for decades without causing any problems. nice try.
Comment by chet (CEO) — July 12, 2006 @ 5:17 pm
HAHAHAHA mano with the feeding tube joke! I tell you it’s funnier every time!!!!! hahahaha
Comment by grand ayatollah anonymous — July 12, 2006 @ 5:25 pm
i take it back, chet, you are totally right. getting the city of berkeley’s sponsorship for your sailing program is the goddamn motherfucking right of every god-fearing, fag-hating american.
Comment by mano — July 12, 2006 @ 5:31 pm
What do you mean when you say radical right wing belief? If you mean believing that homosexuality is wrong, that belief is adopted by much of the nation and motivated constitutional amendments in state after state. Radical beliefs, by definition, are not prescribed to by so many. In this case, they win elections.
Comment by Paul — July 13, 2006 @ 4:06 am
Oh - and in case you mean belief in God as a radical right wind belief, even more people in the nation adopt that belief. The radical belief, by definition, is that there is no God. And, in case you mean a particular God, the majority of the nation believes in that, particular God.
In contrast, the belief that homosexuality is as clean as apple pie and there is no God exist on the margin only.
Comment by Paul — July 13, 2006 @ 4:09 am
I guess those kids can find new hobbies. They can mug mano as he’s biking from the store with his beanie weenies and bottle of jack daniels.
Comment by some dude SD — July 13, 2006 @ 6:49 am
“The Boy Scouts of America is not a “bigoted” organization.”
bigot: (courtesy of dictionary.com)
One who is strongly partial to one’s own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ
The Boy Scouts of America bars homosexuals and atheists from its organization, because it is intolerant of their lifestyle/point of view.
“The bigots are the people trying to use the coercive powers of government to stop others from observing traditional moral and religious beliefs.”
Nobody is doing that. The Boy Scouts of America are ALLOWED to discriminate all they want. They could ban gays, atheists, black people, or whomever else, and I would not intervene. What they can’t expect is public subsidies if they insist on discriminating against minorities. You want the government to fund them, thus creating state-sponsored discrimination. I cannot accept that.
“This is really about leftwing neo-fascisom, and the inability of liberals to tolerate anyone who deviates from their dictums.”
That’s silly. I haven’t read a single opinion piece that advocates the banning of the Boy Scouts or forcing them to change their ways. I just don’t want to see a group that actively campaigns for intolerance to get government funding. That’s not “leftwing neo-fascisom”. It could be argued that a piece of “neo-fascisom” would involve the state-funding of bigoted and vaguely militaristic organizations, but I’ll keep the hyperbole out if you do.
Comment by Donald — July 13, 2006 @ 8:04 am
“In contrast, the belief that homosexuality is as clean as apple pie and there is no God exist on the margin only.”
Bigotry doesn’t stop being bigotry with majority approval. By that logic, the Nazi state wasn’t bigoted, nor was the American slavery regime. You’re making a nonsensical point.
Comment by Donald — July 13, 2006 @ 8:08 am
Bigotry is being strongly partial to your own beliefs, and intolerant of those whoe differ? Gee, that sounds exactly like the Berkeley city council, thanks for proving my point.
Comment by chet (CEO) — July 13, 2006 @ 8:21 am
16: yes, you retard, i look forward to being mugged by 11 year old sea scouts who are angry because the city of berkeley wont kick down 500$ for their fag-hating sailing school.
Comment by mano — July 13, 2006 @ 10:57 am
stupid censor monkey comment guard. ben, language filters suck.
Comment by mano — July 13, 2006 @ 10:59 am
i worry more about getting bit by an SJP supporter than mugged by a sea scout.
Comment by chet (CEO) — July 13, 2006 @ 11:49 am
berkeley city officials are freaking lunatics.
Comment by Anonymous — July 13, 2006 @ 12:18 pm
“Bigotry is being strongly partial to your own beliefs, and intolerant of those whoe differ? Gee, that sounds exactly like the Berkeley city council, thanks for proving my point.”
No. Declining to fund a discriminatory organization is not the same thing as intolerance toward said organization. The Boy Scouts of America and its affiliates is allowed to exist within Berkeley’s borders. The government can (and should) refrain from funding groups that actively discriminate against minority groups, as such funding is inconsistent with the government’s interest in promoting civil rights. Simple as that. I would be equally opposed to state-subsidies going to organizations that ban straight people, Christians, or Republicans, and I suspect you’d be up in arms if such an organization actually received funding from the Berkeley City Council.
At least you’ve abandoned the bulk of your initial post…
Comment by Donald — July 13, 2006 @ 12:26 pm
Mano, sailing is too much of an Boston Brahmin activity. They should just join gangs!
(Trash talking 11 year olds on blogs. No shame.)
Comment by some dude SD — July 13, 2006 @ 12:53 pm
btw my comment was 18 not 16
and I never specified their age, I’m sure you’ll be doing the same thing when they become adults.
Comment by some dude SD — July 13, 2006 @ 1:16 pm
somedude: what, riding my bike and drinking? i sure hope so. and what about you? will you still be a homophobic retard?
Comment by mano — July 13, 2006 @ 1:30 pm
drinking and biking is to be recommended. It’s unlikely to mow anyone down.
I heart Kriss Worthington
Comment by it — July 13, 2006 @ 2:07 pm
mano, stick with your feeding tube material. “somedude” made no homophobic remarks.
by the way, comparing the boy scouts to moronic campus groups like the SJP or BCR, who do no good for the local community, is ridiculous. if youre opposed to the boy scouts, you likely hate yourself, and should seek counseling for all the anger youre carrying around. grow up.
Comment by tom — July 13, 2006 @ 2:38 pm
The Mountain Lions are Back! This time in Colorado.
Comment by Old Reader — July 13, 2006 @ 4:14 pm
Anybody know what was up with all the city cops on southside earlier today? There were at least 30 of them all stationed between Ellesworth and Dana and Channing and Dwight.
Comment by jlmay — July 13, 2006 @ 5:10 pm
hmm… I used to live right there a couple months ago. I hope it involves our schizophrenic neighbor on Haste and Dana who would send threatening postcards in all capital letters to the guy downstairs who works at Zellerbach. He needed help.
One way to check what happened between one day and 30 days ago is to check Berkeley PDs PDF listing of crimes… oh wait, it looks like they got rid of that and have a map tool. It is sort of slow. There are tons of auto crimes
http://www.ci.berkeley.ca.us./cvc/wizard.asp
Comment by cp — July 13, 2006 @ 6:40 pm
Thanks for the link. I live at dwight and ellsworth and they were just everywhere around 1:00 today.
Comment by jlmay — July 13, 2006 @ 6:54 pm
Chet, the post starting off with the definition in no way proves your point. The Berkeley City Council does not want to fund an organization that they rightly considered bigoted. That in no way makes them bigoted. I am sure you can find many points in the larger picture which would show them to be bigoted, but in this case, how can you possibly consider the city council to be bigoted?
Comment by James McBride — July 13, 2006 @ 8:37 pm
Being bigoted against bigoted peopel makes you bigoted. durrrrr
Comment by Anonymity — July 13, 2006 @ 8:44 pm
Ok now it’s time for Berkeley to kick out churches in Berkeley that disagree with homosexuality. Or ban the Republican party because it disagrees with its stances. Or not sell houses to white people because white people in the past have stolen native american land.
Comment by Anonymity — July 13, 2006 @ 8:46 pm
The one problem with all of those suggestions in post 38 is that Berkeley isn’t giving any of those groups anything free. Like a free marina berth. So, more made up reasons to disagree with this move. The main argument against it, and really only valid one I have seen after all of the comments, is the one presented in the initial post by Ben.
Comment by James McBride — July 13, 2006 @ 11:07 pm
Donald - you missed my argument. The word bigot did not appear in my piece. But, on bigotry, do you strongly believe in your position and that of other liberals? Doesn’t your intolerance motivate your desire to punish those who disagree with you (BSA)? Bigotry by such a definition is nearly universal.
My comments went to “radical.” If most people adopt a position, that is a meanstream position. The foils of the Boy Scouts are the outliers.
Comment by Paul — July 14, 2006 @ 3:29 am
So…, you just said that someone who supports a political position is, by definition, intolerant of the contrasting position.
Intolerance is bad, because bigots are intolerant. Liberals are intolerant bigots who need to stop arguing positions.
That’s infallible logic. A similar claim is made in many issues of the Cal Patriot
Comment by cp — July 14, 2006 @ 6:59 am
Paul: Fair enough. You knew better than to try and refute the obvious bigotry at hand. Instead, you presented a different tangent to the conversation.
By your geographic-centered definition of “radical”, you of course realize that definitions change depending on how broad or narrow you want to be. Per national standards, a majority (a shrinking majority, but majority nevertheless), irrationally opposes gay rights. That’s true. Per your definition, I suppose gay rights nationally is a “radical” position. In California, slightly less than half oppose marriage and a majority support marriage or civil unions. Hence, it could be argued that it is “radical” in California to oppose gay rights, as the Boy Scouts of America does. In Berkeley specifically, it is very “radical” to oppose gay rights. The BSA is well outside of the mainstream in that regard. I don’t see what any of this has to do with civil rights protections (as they don’t require majority approval), but there you have it.
You make the definition lose all meaning if you define dislike of bigotry to be itself bigotry. That’s a “radical” attempt at circular logic. BSA is not being “punished”. Nobody is banning them or fining them. They are having their quasi-city-sponsorship revoked because they (as a national organization anyway) insist on actively discriminating against gays and atheists. They are not entitled to special treatment.
That the city gives special access to non-profits is admirable, but it has every right (and I would argue it is the city’s duty) to place restrictions on that special access to ensure that the city is not endorsing discrimination. If the KKK had a non-profit kitten shelter, and that kitten shelter only gave kittens to white people in most places but allowed all people to adopt kittens in Berkeley, I would be opposed to giving them special access too. Even though the Berkeley shelter didn’t discriminate, and even though perfectly innocent kittens would be harmed in the process, the national shelter system shouldn’t expect special treatment by a government that gives lip service to civil rights.
Comment by Donald — July 14, 2006 @ 9:08 am
James, just for accuracy, thats not entirely true. Churches, for ex, have special tax status, which is basically a giveaway.
Although i don’t agree with the gay bashing sea scouts, its not like they dont have argument to take to court here… theres a reason SCOTUS would hear this case, which is whether city governments can extend benefits to a class such as “nonprofit” groups but also cherry pick them based on local concerns. It seems to me that Berkeley should win, because the category of “nonprofit” is defined based on economics not protected in the same way that the category of “religion” is. For the same reason, a city could have a program for community service grants to people earning less than 40,000 but not award it to say, fred phelps to use promoting pickets of military funerals, even if he earns less than 40,000. Phelps would sue saying he didnt get the grant because of his beliefs, and, duh, of course.
Smells like conservative entitlement to me, but it will be an intersting fight.
Comment by mano — July 14, 2006 @ 10:19 am
Much of this logic falls apart because words like “intolerant” and “bigot” have such broad definitions that they make nearly everyone intolerant and biggoted. If everybody is intolerant and biggoted, then the words are meaningless. They pretty much already are meaningless. Rather than debate the merits of the ideas, people just insult the speaker and accomplish nothing. Well done!
Donald: a prior speaker tried to marginalize the Boy Scouts by calling them radical. I would assign radical to a position adopted by a narrow band of a population - much less than a minority alone. If a substantial enough chunk of the population believe in a position, it cannot be radical. It could still be wrong though.
Bottom line: the Boy Scouts do not represent radical beliefs but those adhered to by most of America. The beliefs WIN ELECTIONS. Whether you agree or not, America adopts those beliefs democratically. Even California did in 2000. I voted in that election. The beliefs won in 2000 and in 2004.
By all means, let people that believe in the opposite run on that and see what happens. Liberals resort to the courts because they can’t win elections.
Comment by Paul — July 14, 2006 @ 10:33 am
no Paul, Donald’s point is right on. noone is claiming that society is homophilic. it isn’t. the interesting thing about society is that it changes. and people whose beliefs are “radical” one day, like the idea of racial equality, are completely mainstream the next. gay marriage may be radical or threatening, but society is taking pretty significant strides against homophobia, so your confidence may be a little premature…
also, intolerant and bigoted are very different words from “radical”. the original post used “radical” to define the national org of the boy scouts, but none of us commenters (aside from you) has used that term.
Comment by mano — July 14, 2006 @ 12:23 pm
What is clearly not intolerant is the simple act of being gay or being an atheist. What is clearly intolerant is banning gays and atheists from your organization. If you want to play a game of semantics, in which intolerance of intolerance (which isn’t even what’s at play here since the City of Berkeley isn’t banning the BSA while BSA is banning gays and atheists) is the same thing as the original intolerance, then that’s your business, but it’s a silly discussion. Calling a group bigoted is a criticism or insult, of course, but if it’s accurate, it’s not inappropriate.
They DO NOT represent beliefs held by most Californians. Anti-gay bigotry will lose statewide elections in California now, and would make you lose elections in Berkeley for quite some time. Prop 22 would be very close if it were on the ballot today, and any bill designed to revoke civil unions would lose comfortably. Anti-gay bigotry is on the decline statewide and nationwide. It worked in 2004. It may even work in 2006 and 2008. Ultimately, gay equality in America is inevitable, as our generation isn’t steeped in the prejudice of our ancestors and increasingly sees gay people in day-to-day life. Until that day comes, our government is obligated to protect the rights of all American citizens. This means that the BSA should be allowed to discriminate as it sees fit. This also means that the BSA should not receive state-endorsement and state-funding to achieve bigoted ends.
Comment by Donald — July 14, 2006 @ 3:05 pm
mano, you are correct, and I thought about mentioning it, but tax-exempt status for churches is more of a federal thing as I recall (correct me if I am wrong, because I don’t pay too much attention to it), and had I brought it up that would open up a completely different discussion. Your other point is valid as well, but no one had brought that up, and since the people on the Sea Scout side seemed to have enough difficulty understanding the point Donald made, I saw no reason to bring in a different argument and confuse things further.
Comment by James McBride — July 14, 2006 @ 3:38 pm
leftwing fascists.
Comment by chet (CEO) — July 14, 2006 @ 4:30 pm
When Donald wrote, that “Prop 22 would be very close if it were on the ballot today,” he seems to have meant in Berkeley. If, indeed that is what he meant, he is underestimating. Prop 22 lost in Alameda County when it was on the ballot in 2000 by 55.6% (No) to 44.4% (Yes). Berkeley is always more liberal than the county, so I imagine that the margin was even wider here.
The state and county results for the propositions in that election are posted at:
http://primary2000.ss.ca.gov/returns/prop/01.htm
Comment by sideliner — July 14, 2006 @ 5:40 pm
james i was referring to property tax exemption, which is a local thing, but i think its pretty universal that municipalities dont tax em…
Comment by mano — July 14, 2006 @ 6:26 pm
sideliner: No, no. I meant Prop 22 would be close statewide. Recent polls tend to show California public opinion on gay marriage to be around 46 yes, 50 no. By the time an anti-gay marriage bill comes on the ballot (probably 2008 if ever), I would expect that we’d be at a point with slightly majority support, though getting the younger vote out would be the real challenge.
I’m actually surprised Alameda was as close as it was.
Comment by Donald — July 14, 2006 @ 6:53 pm
Providing useful insight as always. Hyperbole much?
[Improper use of “fascist” alert]Where’s RepBlast when you need him?[/Improper use of “fascist” alert]
Comment by Donald — July 14, 2006 @ 6:56 pm
Bottom line. If you are going to punish the local chapter for part of their national policy, then you should consider the opinion of the nation and not just CA or Berkeley.
The city spends money freezing shopping carts for homeless people. Yet in clear conscience they undermine an extra curricular program for kids that costs virtually nothing.
You people are loony!
Comment by some dude (SD) — July 14, 2006 @ 7:31 pm
Would you say the same thing for a KKK Kitten Shelter (assume for a moment you care for kittens and consider that a legitimate government activity) that didn’t discriminate in Berkeley but did elsewhere, circa 1910? Would Berkeley have been “loony” to buck the trend and stand on the principle that discrimination should not be funded by the government?
Comment by Donald — July 14, 2006 @ 7:43 pm
the berkeley city council really doesn’t care if black kids from west berkeley grow up to be gang banger thugs because they have no constructive extracurricular activities. as long as they get to make their pointless and vapid political statement. besides it’s the white man’s fault anyways.
Comment by commodore anonymous — July 15, 2006 @ 9:11 am
Screw the kids!
We have our politics!
Comment by some dude (SD) — July 15, 2006 @ 6:50 pm
You could fill your KKK Kitten shelter with these guys: http://www.catsthatlooklikehitler.com
Comment by Kitler — July 15, 2006 @ 9:12 pm
Because of course they are forbidding the group to congregate inside the city limits of Berkeley, and because of course other than the BSA, there is absolutely nothing constructive those kids can instead take interest in.
Comment by Anonymous — July 16, 2006 @ 1:25 am