(no subject)

Date: 2008-06-05 05:02 am (UTC)
Browsing around, I'm afraid I have to agree that the lawsuit has legs. Reading the complaint, the BSA have a legal claim to the building. The city also cannot discriminate against them (as a tenant, per se) for their practices, if tenancy law is anything like it is here, I as a landlord cannot discriminate against tenants for their beliefs or practices so long as they're legal and don't damage the property, and that goes for organizations as well - I am a landlord with multiple properties so I have to be versed on the applicable laws.

As long as it's legal for a private organization in PA to have discriminatory membership policies, it's likely the city is going to end up on its ass in court. In the wake of California's gay marriage decision, progressive-minded communities all want to make a public stand in order to capture additional business or gain notoriety on the national or world stage, but the city appears to have bungled this particular attempt, unless they're simply doing it to be able to say "see look, we're progressive!" regardless of the legal outcome. The city are hardly heroes and the BSA are hardly villains in this debacle.

While gay rights activism is nice and all, I think anger tends to blind activists to the practical sides of the struggle. And I'm quite gay, for what it's worth.
This account has disabled anonymous posting.
If you don't have an account you can create one now.
HTML doesn't work in the subject.
More info about formatting

Profile

giza: Giza White Mage (Default)
Douglas Muth

April 2012

S M T W T F S
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
2930     

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags