you can pick your friends – keep your laws out of
my phone book!
As many may be aware from the news coverage,
the US Supreme court ruled
on a case involving the Boy Scouts of America. What the court decided,
in a nutshell, was that a NJ state law barring discrimination in
places of "public accommodation" did not apply to forcing
a private organization to accept homosexuals.
There is a long history of legal challenge to the policies of the
Boy Scouts and this is just the latest. Obviously, the Boy Scouts
are happy
with the decision and is spinning itself as a tolerant group…
|
"Boy Scouting makes no effort to discover the Scouting’s record of inclusion is impressive by any |
Personally, I agree with the decision, and I think it is an extremely
important one. This has nothing at all to do with whether I support
discrimination against gays (I don’t) and everything about how I
feel about the Constitution of the USA.
There is a lot of caselaw to back this up, and it is really crucial
to read the final judgment
to really understand how this decision protects freedom and
advocacy – not suppressing it. A small clip is below…
| "Chief Justice William Rehnquist agreed. He said for the court majority that applying a state public accommodations law to require the Boy Scouts to admit a gay troop leader violates the group’s constitutional right of expressive association." |
| "In Roberts v. United States Jaycees, 468 U. S. 609, 622 (1984), we observed that “implicit in the right to engage in activities protected by the First Amendment” is “a corresponding right to associate with others in pursuit of a wide variety of political, social, economic, educational, religious, and cultural ends.” This right is crucial in preventing the majority from imposing its views on groups that would rather express other, perhaps unpopular, ideas. See ibid. (stating that protection of the right to expressive association is “especially important in preserving political and cultural diversity and in shielding dissident expression from suppression by the majority”). Government actions that may unconstitutionally burden this freedom may take many forms, one of which is “intrusion into the internal structure or affairs of an association” like a “regulation that forces the group to accept members it does not desire.” Id., at 623. Forcing a group to accept certain members may impair the ability of the group to express those views, and only those views, that it intends to express. Thus, “[f ]freedom of association … plainly presupposes a freedom not to associate.” Ibid." |
It is crucial in my opinion that private groups
that exist for the purposes of expressive action to be able to choose
their members, and especially their leaders. Imagine a Jewish group
forced to accept a neo-nazi into their ranks… or imagine a women’s
only wicca group forced to accept male members… or a Christian
church forced to allow a Satanist serve mass… or a Pro-Choice
group forced to accept a vocal Pro-Life member as a spokesperson.
Consistently, the courts have ruled that we hold the freedom to
associate with whom we choose, including people who we consider
good role models. Freedom includes the ability to form groups that
uphold our principals, ideals and morals… even if in forming those
groups we exclude others.
This decision lays down and supports specific guidelines for the
types of organizations that can use criteria for membership – this
is not a free ride to intolerance or prejudice. Personally,
I would have supported a slightly broader decision but I would have
been very upset if these freedoms were lost.
I am a member of a pro-BDSM organization in NYC, TES
to be exact. One of the core things TES holds dear is it’s creed.
And part of that creed says….
| "The right to publicize activities and views-freely, without fear of occupational or professional repercussion-thereby raising the consciousness of both the public and ourselves regarding sexual minorities and sexual freedom." – link |
Now, without this constitutional protection, TES could not enforce
this creed. Someone with a very anti-BDSM religious view could join
TES and actively lobby to have actions taken that were in direct
opposition to the creed. That person could lobby for the right to
lead meetings in TES, give seminars and so on.
That can’t happen right now, because TES can simply enforce it’s
creed. In other words, after due process TES can say "your
views are contrary to our stated purpose so we are terminating your
membership". Of course, the due process part is hard to agree
on… but that’s another rant.
Does this ruling mean that suddenly the corner store can refuse
to serve minorities? Nope. Go read the decision – the situations
where this ruling apply are very narrow and specific.
If your a member or support any group that has at it’s core an
advocacy issue, then this ruling protects you and your views. While
the instance in particular might be distasteful, freedom is like
that. If you have a freedom someone will use it in a way you don’t
agree with – but that is the very nature of freedoms.