Boy Scouts vs. Philidelphia (Fixed)

[jackofallgeeks]

So, the Boy Scouts' stand on homosexuality is in
the news again today, with the City of Philidelphia saying they can
change their policy of excluding gays (and atheists, apparently), or they
can remove their organization from publicly-owned land (technically, they
could also pay $200k/year rent). Now, I don't really care to get into the
details of whether a private organization can set discriminatory standards
for membership, or whether the fact that the scouts built the building at
their own cost has any bearing on the fact that they don't own the plot of
land, or any of the other bits in this bin. But one thing that struck me is
that this conflict is being framed as a "free speach" issue, and I don't
think that's appropriate. This isn't about what the scouts are saying, it's
about who they let into their club, and those aren't the same thing. I
think more to the point is the question of whether this is a case of the
government coersing a private institution through financial pressure, and
think that's more problematic, too. The city does have rights to operate
it's property as it sees fit, but it's still troublesome to me when the
government swings it's influence around to force people to do things like
this.

Comments

[dikaiosunh.livejournal.com]

So... I'm a little confused by the principle involved here. Let's say that I bought the land (though not the building - those things can be owned separately).

Assuming that none of this violates a contract in place...

1. Would it be OK for me to start charging rent on it because I don't like the Scouts' policy?

2. What if I started charging just because, while the previous owner was a strong Scouts booster and gave them free occupancy, I don't care about the Scouts and really want the money?

If the answer to either of these is, "yes, it'd be OK," then why is it any different for the government? It's not like they're using eminent domain or anything as a pressure tactic - just the government's own position as a corporate actor in the market. If it wouldn't even be OK for me to do it (even though it might be mean), why not? What are my obligations to folks who I could charge for something but don't?

[jackofallgeeks.livejournal.com]

Well, first, I will concede that I don't know what the agreement between the scouts and the city were, and if it's just a case of a contract coming up for renewal and the current mayor declining the long-standing terms, that would be perfectly fine.

But I think it's pertinent to note that my point in the post wasn't, "I can't believe the city wants to charge the Boy Scouts for the use of public property," nor was the why (their policy on homosexuality) a consideration, either. I just had two points: (1) the scouts are wrong to phrase it as a free speech case, and (2) it makes me uncomfortable that the government is exerting force to get a private organization to confirm to public policy. If you want to evict the scouts, go ahead, but don't load the issue by giving them "an out" if they just concede to your demands.

I think there's quite a difference between saying, "we're going to have to start charging you now," and "you need to change your requirements/position/what-have-you or we're going to start charging you."

Finally, I think there's quite a difference between asking "what ought a private owner be allowed to do with his private property," and "what ought the government be allowed to do with public property."

Don't get the wrong impression, I have less than a great opinion of the Boy Scouts, and I don't think their policy on denying homosexuals into their club (let alone atheists, what's up with that?) is a good idea. I'm just saying that I don't like how the city's handling this and I think it's dumb (and maybe a little insincere) that the Scouts are making it about free speech.