Augusta, Boy Scouts, and Free Association
 

The Boy Scouts want to exclude homosexuals.

Augusta National wants to exclude women.

Setting aside, for the time being, the ethical arguments for or against their respective positions, I'm interested in finding out what people think about the essential right of free association.

Is freedom of exclusion an necessary component of free association? The Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld that it is, but are they correct?

Secondarily, should the means of discriminating between those allowed membership and those excluded be essential to the purposes of association, or are they just as valid if they are tangiential? In other words, if the purpose of my associate with other people is to build a windmill, excluding those who cannot swing a hammer pertains to the essential purpose. Excluding all those who's names start with the letter "M" is clearly tangential. Speaking ethically rather than legally, is it still within my rights to do so?

-sm

(PS, if this devolves into a pro-anti-war thread like everything else on the site, so help me I'll vomit on my spiffy new sketchers)

I agree with the Supreme Court. Augusta and the Boy Scouts are what I would consider "social clubs." They are private groups that are non-essential to a person's well-being. Therefore, they have the right to admit whomever they choose...and if you don't fit the mold, sorry. Form your own club then. And I think this is beneficial to all in the end...I would say the NAACP formed due to such (a) situation(s).

And I would say that the means are just as valid if tangential. If I want to start a beer drinking group that only allows guys over age 27 with goattees to participate, then that's my prerogative. As I see it, we form relationships with people with whom we share interests. Over time, in order to protect those relationships, we may attempt to make it more exclusive...by creating rules that make it hard for any outsider to get in. This example could (sorta) be applied to marriage.

(For the record, I think the Scouts and Augusta are smoking crack. The Scouts in particular disgust me. I spent 14 years in that organization, and it's become a laughing stock.)

Oh, no, a Gen Xer...... Lock & load, Rev. Toad!!

No, seriously, just kidding... GenX seems like an qlmost quaint term these days. UT & I have both (I think--not want to speak for him) been interested in GenX as a social construction (if I may be PoMo for a moment). Anyway, let's be fair. Not EVERY thread has devolved into the war thing. I'm sure there are 2 or 3 that didn't.

Anyway, to the poll....
I agree with syc. However, I'd go further and suggest that just like Kleenex or Aspirin can become more than a brand name, some institutions can transcend their inherent private characteristics. I mean, take the Boy Scouts. They're not just a bunch of guys who go camping, they're The Boy Scouts!!! [cue patriotic music, 4th of July parade, old ladies being helped across the street, etc.] From a legal standpoint Origami USA and the Boy Scouts have similar standing as private non-profit membership organizations, but for anybody to suggest that the Boy Scouts don't have a certain extralegal stature about them is disingenuous.

And yes the BSA & Augusta are both looking like idiots. Though it's their legal privilege to do so!

Technically, depending on who you listen to, you (Steve) and Toad could be considered Gen X. Though I would go more with 1965-1980, some start it as early as 1960...others as late as '69.

I agree with you Steve in regards to the Scouts. I watched them challenge a small group (the Wilderness Scouts of America) in the south over the term "Scout." I believe the charge was trademark infringement (and I believe the Boy Scouts lost that one).

I'm with syc, if you don't like it, start your own club. And as someone else said, sure it make may you look like a relic of a bygone eara, backward chauvanastic pigs in the eyes of the world, but you're free to do it. I'm not going to bitch and whine because i can't join the associating for lesbian herion addicts or the black panthers. Freedom of association as far as i'm concerned implies inherit freedom of DISassociation and exclusion.

SteveDallas (love the reference by the way. Where did Berk head off to anyway?)

The neo-orthodox is the more important part of the byline. I love my western linear thinkin', my absolutes, and my MTV. I think Derrida was a fool, and Barth was a genius. You shouldn't be allowed to attend college without reading Kant, or graduate without owning at least one Thelonius Monk CD. Capitalism is neat, Phil Hendrie is funny, and most of my news intake comes from fark.com. As with everyone in my generation, at any given time, I earnestly believe that I am the most fascinating and intelligent person in the room.

Syc - I think it's kind of hit or mis with the scouts. I had a great scoutmaster, and learned more about peer leadership and self-reliance there than anywhere else. At a local level, I think it's functioning. On an organizational level ...

-sm

I'd go one further on the right to be exclusionary...if we cannot retain the right to be exclusionary, then anyone who disagrees with what our group does/represents can join it en masse, take over its leadership, and vote it out of existence.

This would be handing the keys to the kingdom over to whatever bunch of whomevers believing in who knows what to make sure that the world comes out all nice and tidy, according to their own narrow view of things.

Oh...wait...that's pretty much what's already going on, isn't it? Nevermind!:)

hostile takeover of a social club....

I fail to see the harm...
 

What woman is harmed by not being a member. No one worth less than $100M can get into the Augusta County Club. What person who is worth less than $100M is harmed by not being admitted. What's the difference? How come no one asks the 2nd question?

What homosexual is being harmed by not being a scout leader? Please describe the harm using specific terms.

Honestly, I couldn't give a flip about either club and don't understand why anyone would bitch about not being able to get in. And I've been in both (although not as a member).

Its more like when my two year old only wants toy #47 when my three year old is playing with it. I would tell women and homosexuals the same thing I tell my two-year old: "Find something else to play with and quit complaining."

Slightly Expanded View
 

While I agree that these two organizations have the right to admit whomever they please, here in San Diego a controversy is brewing.

It seems a certain group known for defending the rights of oft-times unpopular individuals is requesting that a contract the City of San Diego has with BSA be declared void.

The City is leasing public land in Balboa Park to the BSA for some trivial amount - $1 a year or something. The argument being given is, of course, that the BSA discriminates and thus should not be given special treatment or favorable terms or whatever legal term they are using.

I'm afraid I agree - it's OK for the BSA to have any policy they want. It's also for the city to have certain requirements regarding the organizations they rent to. If the BSA policy doesn't match up with the city's well, too bad BSA.

Now, this presupposes that the city has these standards, which I don't think they do as far as Balboa Park meeting space rental goes. But one could make the argument that by supporting the BSA, the city is also supporting the BSA's discriminatory behavior. One could also make the argument that the city is simply being good capitalists and are renting to people without making judgement, except for that token amount thing...

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/u...m11scouts.html