Showing posts with label First Amendment. Show all posts
Showing posts with label First Amendment. Show all posts

Thursday, December 6, 2007

No Brotherly Love for the Boy Scouts

[UPDATE] Link for Scouting Legal Defense Fund

Update on a story we brought you back in October.

I've never been one to advocate boycotts on business. I do understand, however, the power of the boycott and how that they can be an effective tool in changing things. I'm advocating, for the first time, the boycott of an entire city. I call for this in an effort to affect this city's tourism dollar. I do this because I find this city to be in contempt of the United States Constitution.

I do this because I was a Boy Scout.

It's time to send Philadelphia a clear and strong message that they are out of line in making demands of a private organization to change their policies.

Boy Scouts Lose Philadelphia Lease in Gay-Rights Fight

By IAN URBINA
Published: December 6, 2007

PHILADELPHIA, Dec. 4 — For three years the Philadelphia council of the Boy Scouts of America held its ground. It resisted the city’s request to change its discriminatory policy toward gay people despite threats that if it did not do so, the city would evict the group from a municipal building where the Scouts have resided practically rent free since 1928.

Hailed as the birthplace of the Boy Scouts, the Beaux Arts building is the seat of the seventh-largest chapter of the organization and the first of the more than 300 council service centers built by the Scouts around the country over the past century.

But over the years the fight between the city and the Scouts was about more than this grandiose structure in Center City.

Municipal officials said the clash stemmed from a duty to defend civil rights and an obligation to abide by a local law that bars taxpayer support for any group that discriminates. Boy Scout officials said it was about preserving their culture, protecting the right of private organizations to remain exclusive and defending traditions like requiring members to swear an oath of duty to God and prohibiting membership by anyone who is openly homosexual.

This week the Boy Scouts made their last stand and lost.

“At the end of the day, you can not be in a city-owned facility being subsidized by the taxpayers and not have language in your lease that talks about nondiscrimination,” said City Councilman Darrell L. Clarke, who represents the district where the building is located. “Negotiations are over.”

Mr. Clarke said talks ended this week when the deadline passed for the local chapter to change its policy; on June 1 the group will be evicted.

“Since we were founded, we believe that open homosexuality would be inconsistent with the values that we want to communicate with our leaders,” said Gregg Shields, national spokesman for the Boy Scouts. “A belief in God is also mentioned in the Scout oath. We believe that those values are important. Tradition is important. Our mission is to instill those values in scouts and help them make good choices over their lifetimes.”

In 2000, the Supreme Court decided a case — Boy Scouts of America v. Dale — involving an openly gay scout from New Jersey who was barred from serving as troop leader. The court ruled in a 5-to-4 decision that, as a private organization, the group had a First Amendment right to set its membership rules.


The City of Philadelphia is in clear and direct violation of the civil rights of the Boy Scouts of America.

John F. Street, Mayor
City of Philadelphia
Room 215 City Hall
Philadelphia, PA 19107
Primary Phone: 215-686-2181
Fax: 215-686-2180
E-Mail: John F. Street, City of Philadelphia


This isn't over. Not while I draw breath.

Once and Always, an American Fighting Man


.

Thursday, October 18, 2007

A Constitutional Stand earns a Mental Evaluation?

I heard about this on Steve Gill this morning and I have to say, it really set me off.

From TownHall:

College Admins: If You Favor Second Amendment Rights, You Must Be Crazy
By Jon Sanders
Wednesday, October 17, 2007
Send an email to Jon Sanders

A Minnesota college student was suspended and ordered to undergo "mental health evaluation" for his response to campuswide e-mails from school officials concerning the Virginia Tech massacre.

The college, Hamline University, a private, liberal-arts institution affiliated with the Methodist Church, has a policy on "Freedom of Expression and Inquiry" that guarantees that Hamline students will be "free to examine and discuss all questions of interest to them and to express opinions publicly or privately."

With such a strong guarantee on students' "freedom from censorship and control" by the university, student Troy Scheffler's e-mail must have been horrifically bad to warrant such a crackdown. Right?

Wrong. What Scheffler did was make a gun-rights case for concealed-carry permits on campus to help ward off potential Cho Seung-Huis before they strike Hamline. This was no monstrous act; in fact, it was in line with public debate across the nation following Cho's rampage, not to mention an issue of perennial debate in America. Many researchers, most notably John R. Lott Jr., have shown conclusively that gun ownership itself wards off crime while laws banning guns lead to increases in crimes. Criminals are less likely to strike if they have reason to believe their prospective victims could be armed.

Scheffler had written in his April 17 e-mail reply to David Stern, Hamline vice president of student affairs, that "Considering this university also pushes 'diversity' initiatives like VA Tech, maybe its 'leadership' will reconsider [Hamline's] ban on conceal carry law abiding gun owners... Ironically, according to a few VA Tech forums, there are plenty of students complaining that this wouldnt have happened if the school wouldnt have banned their permits a few months ago."

He added, "I just dont understand why leftists dont understand that criminals dont care about laws; that is why they’re criminals... Maybe this school will reconsider its repression of law abiding citizens rights."

Two days later, Hamline President Linda Hanson e-mailed the campus about Virginia Tech. Scheffler replied to that e-mail also, expanding upon his comments to Stern.

In both messages, Scheffler made it clear to all but the most hysterically inclined person that his advocacy of concealed-carry permits was to protect the students from criminals. Scheffler recognized that this protection would be afforded primarily by predators' foreknowledge that any one of the students at Hamline could shoot back, but also – given that the administrators had both brought up the VT massacre – by students being able to stop a killing rampage before it got started.

In short, what Scheffler wrote was no preamble to a blood-lusty explosion of violence. At worst it was crude criticism of the university administration combined with a stark assessment of the true risk of a concealed-carry society like Virginia Tech's: total defenselessness against a Columbine-inspired mass murderer. Regardless, it should have been protected by the university's stated policy guaranteeing free expression.

Nevertheless, on April 23 Scheffler received a hand-delivered letter from Dean of Students Alan Sickbert that informed him his e-mails were "deemed to be threatening and thus an alleged violation of the Hamline University Judicial Code" and that he was placed on "interim suspension" to be lifted only after he agreed to a psychological evaluation by a licensed mental health professional...


So the kid does what the administration asks, sends his opinion, taking a Constitutional stand on the matter, and he's suspended and told he has to have a psych evaluation before he's allowed to return to school? Is Hamline College in some place other than the United States? Is this a lesson to be learned, that when a college administration asks for opinions, they really don't want to hear what you think? Such elitist thinking. It's no wonder academia is viewed as being a bunch of pompous leftist blowhards who have no substance.

I don't normally advocate this, but my advice to Mr. Scheffler is to get a good lawyer and sue them for violating his constitutional rights of free speech. Totally unConstitutional behavior on the part of Hamline College.

Once and Always, an American Fighting Man


.