Boy Scouts being discriminated against?

[TexasTiger 12,965]

Think. Real hard.

I'd be happy if you would at least think a little bit.

[AFTiger 282]

Think. Real hard.

I'd be happy if you would at least think a little bit.

Start with these and work your way up. Maybe you will understand.

[TexasTiger 12,965]

Think. Real hard.

I'd be happy if you would at least think a little bit.

Start with these and work your way up. Maybe you will understand.

I understand that your mind works in a very odd fashion.

You are an example of the worst stereotype of an "entitlement liberal". The BSA loses their government handout-- nothing more-- you hysterically claim that they aren't welcome.

[TitanTiger 20,499]

There's an interesting footnote that has been overlooked, IMO, so far on this story. While the land belonged to the City of Philadelphia, it was the Boy Scouts that paid for and built the building that's on the land:

Municipal officials drew the line at the Beaux Arts building because the city owns the half-acre of land where the building stands. The Boy Scouts erected the ornate building and since 1928 have leased the land from the city for a token sum of $1 a year. City officials said the market value for renting the building was about $200,000 a year, and they invited the Boy Scouts to remain as full-paying tenants.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/06/us/06sco...agewanted=print

Now, how is it that the Scouts don't have equal claim to the use of this land, or at least should require that the city of Philadelphia pay them for the market value of the building? It appears the Scouts will begin pursuing this now that they've lost the case, but why wasn't this something the city acknowledged from the get-go and either worked out a reasonable and affordable rent in exchange for the Scouts not demanding payment for the building and improvements, or offered them the market value of the building and their improvements so they could go purchase land themselves and build a new facility?

[Tigermike 3,041]

There's an interesting footnote that has been overlooked, IMO, so far on this story. While the land belonged to the City of Philadelphia, it was the Boy Scouts that paid for and built the building that's on the land:

Municipal officials drew the line at the Beaux Arts building because the city owns the half-acre of land where the building stands. The Boy Scouts erected the ornate building and since 1928 have leased the land from the city for a token sum of $1 a year. City officials said the market value for renting the building was about $200,000 a year, and they invited the Boy Scouts to remain as full-paying tenants.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/06/us/06sco...agewanted=print

Now, how is it that the Scouts don't have equal claim to the use of this land, or at least should require that the city of Philadelphia pay them for the market value of the building? It appears the Scouts will begin pursuing this now that they've lost the case, but why wasn't this something the city acknowledged from the get-go and either worked out a reasonable and affordable rent in exchange for the Scouts not demanding payment for the building and improvements, or offered them the market value of the building and their improvements so they could go purchase land themselves and build a new facility?

Titan, you are bringing in facts that have nothing to do with the gay agenda and the PC bunch running Philadelphia.

[Tiger Al 0]

There's an interesting footnote that has been overlooked, IMO, so far on this story. While the land belonged to the City of Philadelphia, it was the Boy Scouts that paid for and built the building that's on the land:

Municipal officials drew the line at the Beaux Arts building because the city owns the half-acre of land where the building stands. The Boy Scouts erected the ornate building and since 1928 have leased the land from the city for a token sum of $1 a year. City officials said the market value for renting the building was about $200,000 a year, and they invited the Boy Scouts to remain as full-paying tenants.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/06/us/06sco...agewanted=print

Now, how is it that the Scouts don't have equal claim to the use of this land, or at least should require that the city of Philadelphia pay them for the market value of the building? It appears the Scouts will begin pursuing this now that they've lost the case, but why wasn't this something the city acknowledged from the get-go and either worked out a reasonable and affordable rent in exchange for the Scouts not demanding payment for the building and improvements, or offered them the market value of the building and their improvements so they could go purchase land themselves and build a new facility?

Because the building has belonged to the city since 1928.

[TitanTiger 20,499]

There's an interesting footnote that has been overlooked, IMO, so far on this story. While the land belonged to the City of Philadelphia, it was the Boy Scouts that paid for and built the building that's on the land:

Municipal officials drew the line at the Beaux Arts building because the city owns the half-acre of land where the building stands. The Boy Scouts erected the ornate building and since 1928 have leased the land from the city for a token sum of $1 a year. City officials said the market value for renting the building was about $200,000 a year, and they invited the Boy Scouts to remain as full-paying tenants.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/06/us/06sco...agewanted=print

Now, how is it that the Scouts don't have equal claim to the use of this land, or at least should require that the city of Philadelphia pay them for the market value of the building? It appears the Scouts will begin pursuing this now that they've lost the case, but why wasn't this something the city acknowledged from the get-go and either worked out a reasonable and affordable rent in exchange for the Scouts not demanding payment for the building and improvements, or offered them the market value of the building and their improvements so they could go purchase land themselves and build a new facility?

Because the building has belonged to the city since 1928.

So, the city donates the land, the Boy Scouts donate the building, then give it to the city and the city gives them $1 a year rent. But now that the city disagrees with the Scouts on homosexuality, they should be able to essentially kick the BSA out (or make them pay $200k a year) and the BSA gets nothing for it's contributions to the site?

Seems fair.

[Tigermike 3,041]

There's an interesting footnote that has been overlooked, IMO, so far on this story. While the land belonged to the City of Philadelphia, it was the Boy Scouts that paid for and built the building that's on the land:

Municipal officials drew the line at the Beaux Arts building because the city owns the half-acre of land where the building stands. The Boy Scouts erected the ornate building and since 1928 have leased the land from the city for a token sum of $1 a year. City officials said the market value for renting the building was about $200,000 a year, and they invited the Boy Scouts to remain as full-paying tenants.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/06/us/06sco...agewanted=print

Now, how is it that the Scouts don't have equal claim to the use of this land, or at least should require that the city of Philadelphia pay them for the market value of the building? It appears the Scouts will begin pursuing this now that they've lost the case, but why wasn't this something the city acknowledged from the get-go and either worked out a reasonable and affordable rent in exchange for the Scouts not demanding payment for the building and improvements, or offered them the market value of the building and their improvements so they could go purchase land themselves and build a new facility?

Because the building has belonged to the city since 1928.

So, the city donates the land, the Boy Scouts donate the building, then give it to the city and the city gives them $1 a year rent. But now that the city disagrees with the Scouts on homosexuality, they should be able to essentially kick the BSA out (or make them pay $200k a year) and the BSA gets nothing for it's contributions to the site?

Seems fair.

Now you understand the dims.

[TitanTiger 20,499]

"Thank you Boy Scouts of America for building this beautiful ornate building on our undeveloped property that has increased greatly in value over the decades. Now pay us $200,000 a year or get out.

"Love ya! Mean it!"

[TexasTiger 12,965]

We don't have many details here regarding the original agreement, but it is not unusual for a landowner to lease land to a tenant that erects improvements, i.e. structures, that become the property of the landowner at the end of a lengthly land lease.

I suspect that the original agreement is inadequate to appropriately address this situation, i.e. they never anticipated a scenario in which they would be faced with a law that forbade them from continuing to lease to the Boy Scouts for one dollar.

It is important to note, however, they have not insisted on evicting the Scouts, only that they pay the "fair market value" of the property. Up to now, I haven't seen where the Boy Scouts are disputing whether that figure is actually the FMV.

There's an interesting footnote that has been overlooked, IMO, so far on this story. While the land belonged to the City of Philadelphia, it was the Boy Scouts that paid for and built the building that's on the land:

Municipal officials drew the line at the Beaux Arts building because the city owns the half-acre of land where the building stands. The Boy Scouts erected the ornate building and since 1928 have leased the land from the city for a token sum of $1 a year. City officials said the market value for renting the building was about $200,000 a year, and they invited the Boy Scouts to remain as full-paying tenants.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/06/us/06sco...agewanted=print

Now, how is it that the Scouts don't have equal claim to the use of this land, or at least should require that the city of Philadelphia pay them for the market value of the building? It appears the Scouts will begin pursuing this now that they've lost the case, but why wasn't this something the city acknowledged from the get-go and either worked out a reasonable and affordable rent in exchange for the Scouts not demanding payment for the building and improvements, or offered them the market value of the building and their improvements so they could go purchase land themselves and build a new facility?

[TitanTiger 20,499]

We don't have many details here regarding the original agreement, but I doubt they can force the land owner to buy the property. It may be possible that they could sell the building to another owner subject to the ground lease requirements, but it is not unusual for a landowner to lease land to a tenant that erects improvements, i.e. structures, that become the property of the landowner at the end of a lengthly land lease.

I suspect that the original agreement is inadequate to appropriately address this situation, i.e. they never anticipated a scenario in which they would be faced with a law that forbade them from continuing to lease to the Boy Scouts for one dollar.

It is important to note, however, they have not insisted on evicting the Scouts, only that they pay the "fair market value" of the property. Up to now, I haven't seen where the Boy Scouts are disputing whether that figure is actually the FMV.

The point is, the city and the Scouts had a fair arrangement for years. The Scouts had built a very nice building the city didn't have to pay for and the city let them rent it cheap because of the good things the Scouts contributed to the community. It was a fair deal between reasonable parties.

But the city, in its zeal to enforce homosexual acceptance under the guise of nondiscrimination laws decided they no longer need to be fair or reasonable because those things would require that if they are going to demand market value rent, then they should pay for the building and improvement the Scouts did to the property.

[TexasTiger 12,965]

We don't have many details here regarding the original agreement, but I doubt they can force the land owner to buy the property. It may be possible that they could sell the building to another owner subject to the ground lease requirements, but it is not unusual for a landowner to lease land to a tenant that erects improvements, i.e. structures, that become the property of the landowner at the end of a lengthly land lease.

I suspect that the original agreement is inadequate to appropriately address this situation, i.e. they never anticipated a scenario in which they would be faced with a law that forbade them from continuing to lease to the Boy Scouts for one dollar.

It is important to note, however, they have not insisted on evicting the Scouts, only that they pay the "fair market value" of the property. Up to now, I haven't seen where the Boy Scouts are disputing whether that figure is actually the FMV.

The point is, the city and the Scouts had a fair arrangement for years. The Scouts had built a very nice building the city didn't have to pay for and the city let them rent it cheap because of the good things the Scouts contributed to the community. It was a fair deal between reasonable parties.

But the city, in its zeal to enforce homosexual acceptance under the guise of nondiscrimination laws decided they no longer need to be fair or reasonable because those things would require that if they are going to demand market value rent, then they should pay for the building and improvement the Scouts did to the property.

Not really. The Scouts had a great deal for 80 years. You seem to discount that. And they don't have to accept homosexuality. They just need to not discriminate against those who are homosexuals from joining. They can maintain the position that homosexuality is wrong. They can teach that. Your church may have that position, but does it forbid gays from joining?

[TitanTiger 20,499]

Not really. The Scouts had a great deal for 80 years. You seem to discount that.

I don't discount it. There was a mutual thing going on. What's being discounted here is the value that the Scouts gave the city when they built a beautifully ornate building the city is now taking over for free if the Scouts don't cough up $200k a year.

And they don't have to accept homosexuality. They just need to not discriminate against those who are homosexuals from joining. They can maintain the position that homosexuality is wrong. They can teach that. Your church may have that position, but does it forbid gays from joining?

Attending? No. Joining as a member? Yes, just as they would a heterosexual that they knew to be in living in a state of unrepentant serious sin. Assuming positions of leadership such as elder/deacon/presbyter/vestry member or pastor or bishop? Yes.

All I'm saying is, if the city was as concerned about fairness as they say they are by enforcing this rule, then they would offer to pay the Scouts for the market value of the building and improvements, allow them to sell it to someone else if the city doesn't want it or drop the whole thing since both sides are essentially giving something to the arrangement.

[TexasTiger 12,965]

All I'm saying is, if the city was as concerned about fairness as they say they are by enforcing this rule, then they would offer to pay the Scouts for the market value of the building and improvements, allow them to sell it to someone else if the city doesn't want it

Perhaps. I wish I knew more details about the original arrangement.

or drop the whole thing since both sides are essentially giving something to the arrangement.

Not a possibility under the law. If the good folks of Philly are convinced that the Scouts bring that much value, however, they can pass a different ordinance.

[TitanTiger 20,499]

Not a possibility under the law. If the good folks of Philly are convinced that the Scouts bring that much value, however, they can pass a different ordinance.

The "good" people of Philly could have prevented this ordinance from going through to begin with, so they aren't likely to make things right when they can just hit the lottery by forcing out the Scouts (who can't afford that kind of rent and do the things that pertain to their mission) AND getting a nice free building with improvements over the decade that they can use to attract a tenant. Bonus for them!

[TexasTiger 12,965]

Not a possibility under the law. If the good folks of Philly are convinced that the Scouts bring that much value, however, they can pass a different ordinance.

The "good" people of Philly could have prevented this ordinance from going through to begin with, so they aren't likely to make things right when they can just hit the lottery by forcing out the Scouts (who can't afford that kind of rent and do the things that pertain to their mission) AND getting a nice free building with improvements over the decade that they can use to attract a tenant. Bonus for them!

Well, don't you think the taxpayers of Philly are in a better position to judge the value of the Scouts' contribution to that city than you or I?

the city let them rent it cheap because of the good things the Scouts contributed to the community.

[TitanTiger 20,499]

Well, don't you think the taxpayers of Philly are in a better position to judge the value of the Scouts' contribution to that city than you or I?

Their contributions to that community has never been in doubt or assailed. They simply committed the cardinal sin of not accepting homosexual scout leaders and the city reneged on a lease agreement. The original agreement was that in exchange for the BSA constructing the building at their own expense, the city would lease it to them in perpetuity for $1 a year. The actual term of the lease was 100 years...which wouldn't expire until 2028. The city broke the agreement and I truly hope the Scouts are able to make them pay back the present value of the building and improvements since that is part of the agreement as well. If the city isn't going to live up to the lease agreement, then they should pay the Scouts for the building.

The city wasn't forced to do this. They could have lived up to the original agreement they made with the Scouts and simply refused to renew the lease then. But they wanted to make a political point. I hope it bites them in the a**.

[autiger4life 3]

Ms. Sobel said the city required that any organization that rented property from it agree to nondiscriminatory language in its lease. The Boy Scouts skirted the requirement by never having had to sign a lease because they were given use of the building by city ordinance in the 1920s.

Where is this info you are getting that says the lease was for 100 years, because according to this there is no lease and if there was a lease it would have something in it saying that no group could be there if they were discriminatory, thus making the lease void.

[TitanTiger 20,499]

Ms. Sobel said the city required that any organization that rented property from it agree to nondiscriminatory language in its lease. The Boy Scouts skirted the requirement by never having had to sign a lease because they were given use of the building by city ordinance in the 1920s.

Where is this info you are getting that says the lease was for 100 years, because according to this there is no lease and if there was a lease it would have something in it saying that no group could be there if they were discriminatory, thus making the lease void.

You're right. It was a city ordinance the codified the agreement. The ordinance gave them rent at $1 for 100 years in exchange for the Scouts building the structure on their own dime and being responsible for all maintenance and improvements. Instead of living up to their end of the bargain, the city decided to revoke the ordinance and not offer to pay the Scouts anything in return for breaking it.

[TexasTiger 12,965]

Ms. Sobel said the city required that any organization that rented property from it agree to nondiscriminatory language in its lease. The Boy Scouts skirted the requirement by never having had to sign a lease because they were given use of the building by city ordinance in the 1920s.

Where is this info you are getting that says the lease was for 100 years, because according to this there is no lease and if there was a lease it would have something in it saying that no group could be there if they were discriminatory, thus making the lease void.

You're right. It was a city ordinance the codified the agreement. The ordinance gave them rent at $1 for 100 years in exchange for the Scouts building the structure on their own dime and being responsible for all maintenance and improvements. Instead of living up to their end of the bargain, the city decided to revoke the ordinance and not offer to pay the Scouts anything in return for breaking it.

Could you provide the link to this information? I'm not doubting you, I just haven't been able to find it.

[autiger4life 3]

You're right. It was a city ordinance the codified the agreement. The ordinance gave them rent at $1 for 100 years in exchange for the Scouts building the structure on their own dime and being responsible for all maintenance and improvements. Instead of living up to their end of the bargain, the city decided to revoke the ordinance and not offer to pay the Scouts anything in return for breaking it.

If that is the case then the city should honor the agreement or make it right through monetary ways. If the statue was not in place at the time of the agreement, then the scouts should be held responsible until after the agreement is up. That is what I think is right. However, doesn't the city have the right to change a city ordinance? So once again, if its true, still legal, but possibly not right.

[TexasTiger 12,965]

Ms. Sobel said the city required that any organization that rented property from it agree to nondiscriminatory language in its lease. The Boy Scouts skirted the requirement by never having had to sign a lease because they were given use of the building by city ordinance in the 1920s.

Where is this info you are getting that says the lease was for 100 years, because according to this there is no lease and if there was a lease it would have something in it saying that no group could be there if they were discriminatory, thus making the lease void.

You're right. It was a city ordinance the codified the agreement. The ordinance gave them rent at $1 for 100 years in exchange for the Scouts building the structure on their own dime and being responsible for all maintenance and improvements. Instead of living up to their end of the bargain, the city decided to revoke the ordinance and not offer to pay the Scouts anything in return for breaking it.

Could you provide the link to this information? I'm not doubting you, I just haven't been able to find it.

Okay, now I'm doubting you.

[TitanTiger 20,499]

Ms. Sobel said the city required that any organization that rented property from it agree to nondiscriminatory language in its lease. The Boy Scouts skirted the requirement by never having had to sign a lease because they were given use of the building by city ordinance in the 1920s.

Where is this info you are getting that says the lease was for 100 years, because according to this there is no lease and if there was a lease it would have something in it saying that no group could be there if they were discriminatory, thus making the lease void.

You're right. It was a city ordinance the codified the agreement. The ordinance gave them rent at $1 for 100 years in exchange for the Scouts building the structure on their own dime and being responsible for all maintenance and improvements. Instead of living up to their end of the bargain, the city decided to revoke the ordinance and not offer to pay the Scouts anything in return for breaking it.

Could you provide the link to this information? I'm not doubting you, I just haven't been able to find it.

Okay, now I'm doubting you.

Sorry, yesterday was kinda busy. I was finishing the honey-do list before leaving for some training classes at work the next few days. I'll have to go back and look at all the places I read about this story. It was mentioned multiple places. Maybe tonight once I get to the hotel I can find it.

[AFTiger 282]

Boy Scouts' banishment threatens Catholic Church

Philly precedent could be used against museums, radio station

By Bob Unruh

© 2007 WorldNetDaily.com

The headquarters building for the Cradle of Liberty Boy Scouts in Philadelphia

Pro-homosexual Philadelphia officials' campaign to evict the Boy Scouts of America from their long-held regional headquarters on city-owned ground will create a precedent that could endanger dozens of other groups in the city, including the Catholic Church, as well as museums and a public radio station.

The issue: The City Council has decided the Boy Scouts, because they prohibit participation by open homosexuals, do not comply with the city's anti-discrimination policies and can no longer rent their headquarters for $1 a year, as they have since the city approved its original resolution on the plan 80 years ago.

The city had set a Dec. 3 deadline for the Scouts' Cradle of Liberty Council to agree to pay $200,000 a year, instead of $1, but the Scouts simply ignored that deadline, and negotiations apparently have broken off.

Assuming there are no changes in circumstances, that would mean the Scouts would have to be out of the building, which they built and paid for with their own funds decades ago, on June 1.

That left many, including a black leadership organization called Project 21, headed by WND columnist Mychal Massie, enraged.

"I live close to Philadelphia and am aware of the problems plaguing the city," said Project 21 member Jimmie Hollis. "The fact that the City Council is taking exception to the Boy Scouts is an outrage. With so much to fix, why are they so willing to instead hobble an organization trying to help people?"

Project 21 said the focus on the Scouts' prohibition of open homosexuals is wrong. That condemnation had come from city councilman Darrell Clarke, who told the New York Times, "you cannot be in a city-owned facility being subsidized by the taxpayers and not have language in your lease that talks about nondiscrimination."

Scouting spokesman Gregg Shields said such "open homosexuality" would be inconsistent with the group's values. That policy was affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2000 when it ruled the Boy Scouts of America is a private organization that can set its own membership rules under the First Amendment.

The headquarters building, the Marks Center, was built by the BSA, but the half-acre parcel of land is owned by the city. The city council voted last year to renege on its ongoing $1-a-year lease and decided to set the rent at $200,000 a year, something BSA leaders say they cannot pay and still serve the 69,000 youths who benefit from their programs.

"If the Boy Scouts were anti-God, championed homosexuality and were anti-establishment, I would venture to say they would find themselves welcome in Philadelphia," said Massie. "It's the fact that they stick to and seek to promote a responsible and reasonable code of ethics that makes them a target of the anti-family left that tends to dominate urban governments such as Philadelphia's these days."

The nonprofit group, sponsored by the National Center for Public Policy Research, has been a leading voice of the African-American community since the 1990s.

A spokesman for the Philadelphia Scouts, Jeff Jubelirer, told WND there would be several significant issues to address should the city pursue an eviction. He said there are about 75 other organizations in Philadelphia with similar building or land-use arrangements as the Scouts.

Their original agreement was that the city allowed the Scouts to use the city land in perpetuity for $1 a year, but the Scouts would have to build their own building and maintain it. That was the agreement on which the Council decided to renege.

The city "is making a value judgment" about the Scouts, because the other organizations are not being given the same ultimatums and deadlines, he said.

"They're all great organizations. There's nothing wrong with them," he said. And they have lease arrangements that range from payments of $1 to $100 a year for various uses.

One such institution is the Catholic Church, which does not allow women ministers, he noted.

"How are they going to justify differentiation in treatment," he wondered. "There are wonderful arts organizations, museums, a public radio station. They're on that list."

He said the other issue is the improvements the Scouts have made to the land, including the building and the $2 million in renovations done in just recent years. The original agreement envisioned the Scouts continuing to use the land "in perpetuity," so will those improvements then be reimbursed if the city reneges, he wondered.

And if that city agreement isn't upheld, he asked, are there other agreements that likewise will simply be abandoned?

Jubilerer said the city, as of now, is applying its pressure to a single group, and not taking into consideration that all groups in similar circumstances should be treated similarly.

The campaign against the Boy Scouts has been pursued by Romulo Diaz, the city solicitor, who, according to Philadelphia media reports, is an open homosexual.

He had set the Dec. 3 deadline. The Scouts, however, "do not feel obliged to respond to that date," Jubelirer said. And Diaz followed up with a statement the city would "respect" the Scouting organization's right to respond before it takes further steps.

Such issues were virtually nonexistent before 2000. That year, a challenge was raised by homosexuals to the private organization's policy and the dispute went to the U.S. Supreme Court, which affirmed the Boy Scouts right to set membership requirements.

Then activist groups turned their sights on property arrangements such as in Philadelphia, where the Scouts have been using the donated property for years.

Former WND columnist Hans Zeiger, who wrote a book about the Scouts and their battles, "Get Off My Honor: The Assault on the Boy Scouts of America," said the Boy Scouts since 1911 have been reaching out to the disabled, racial and ethnic minorities, Native Americans and inner city children with the lessons of right and wrong.

"When it comes to a Scout troop, sexual orientation is an issue that goes beyond differences in skin color or economic status. It affects such matters as tenting arrangements and the development of pre-teenage masculinity in a close-knit group of boys and men," he wrote.

"So here's what I say to the radical Left in the city where the Declaration of Independence was signed … Take away the funding. Seize the 75-year-old headquarters building. The Scouts can survive without it," he wrote at the time.

In a column, Robert Knight of the Culture and Media Institute of the Media Research Center cited the underlying unfairness of such a decision in Philadelphia.

Knight, in his critique of a Washington Post report on the dispute, noted that the Scouts "built the building with their own money, and then gave it to the city in 1928."

He also noted the Scouts' lease was "in perpetuity" but the city simply decided to renege.

"The Scouts bar openly homosexual Scoutmasters and members for moral reasons and for the sake of protecting young boys from possible harm, not because they are motivated by bigotry or prejudice," he wrote. "The Post article read as if the Scouts have no rational reason for wanting to determine whether prospective leaders or members are attracted sexually to males."

WND recently reported citizens outraged by the city's ultimatum crashed the e-mail system of the Philadelphia mayor's office.

About 150,000 Boy Scout-related e-mails were removed from the city's e-mail system, reported the Bulletin newspaper of Philadelphia.

"We were deluged," said Terry Phillis, chief information officer for Mayor John Street. "We pulled the messages off so they wouldn't take the system down. It had to be done to protect system integrity."

City officials in San Francisco and Boston have made similar decisions to displace the Scouts because of the group's behavior code.

WND also reported earlier this year a Scouts victory when the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit dismissed a lawsuit by the American Civil Liberties Union to stop the Defense Department from allowing the Scouts to hold its National Jamboree every four years at Fort A.P. Hill in Fredericksburg, Va.

Link

[CCTAU 3,336]

The campaign against the Boy Scouts has been pursued by Romulo Diaz, the city solicitor, who, according to Philadelphia media reports, is an open homosexual.

This is just about equality, not just homos. Wonder how well Philly will hold up against the Catholic Church.