Philly says Boy Scouts have to accept gays

[Ben Kenobi]

No, I'm merely pointing out your complete lack of credibility because I'm amazed that a legal illiterate would spend six pages arguing with a lawyer about the law.

So the fact that I lack a legal degree makes me a legal illiterate? There's quite a scope in between those two extremes. I'm not a lawyer but I do have some training along those lines. I have done an internship while I was going to school. It's something I considered after I switched over and something I've been offered even now an opportunity to go back and do. So I'll reject your characterisation as a 'legal illiterate'.

But I'm not really surprised because it's sadly very common for fundamentalist Christians to delude themselves into thinking they know better than the experts in a field.

Where did I ever say I knew better than solomwi as to his legal field?

Two, how can a Catholic be a fundy? We aren't fundies.

Yep, all you are capable of is pointing out that five of the justices lean right giving the boy scouts an advantage.

And that legal precedents were established in 2000, but then I'm just a historian.

Stop calling yourself a historian. All you have is a bachelor's degree. If you want to make historians as a whole look bad you should at least earn it.

I did, I went to school. I've been published as well. I've done my time.

[Asher]

Apparently most people in this thread don't know what subsidize means.

Apparently you don't.

Even if you are not directly giving money, if you are selectively not receiving money for the value of your services or property it is a subsidy. By allowing them to not pay rent nor property tax, the city is subsidizing the boy scouts.

[Ben Kenobi]

Answer the damn question asher!

If the government were to expropriate your apartment, sell it to someone else, and gave you a cheque in the mail, would the cheque be considered a subsidy?

Yes or no, Asher.

[Asher]

As I said, too many vowels. More consonants, less vowels.

[MrFun]

too many vowels

[Ben Kenobi]

Apparently most people in this thread don't know what subsidize means

[Asher]

Patty: Sure-fire way to know you're on the wrong side of an issue: Ben agrees with you.

[Solomwi]

Where did I say otherwise. That they chose not to file on that basis is significant. The question we are arguing over is what that significance is. Solomwi seems to think that not filing a claim means that any legal basis for the claim disappears. I'm arguing the opposite. I'm saying that even though the claim was not filed has nothing to do with whether or not a breach of contract exists. The breach is still there.

Of course. But speculating as to whether a breach of contract exists, which is the topic we are discussing, doesn't rely on the plaintiff filing for breach of contract.

Oh, dear Christ, Ben. On what basis do you argue that a claim not asserted is preserved? It's not, no matter how much you want it to be. That's week 2 Civ Pro stuff. And a breach of contract on which one can't sue doesn't exist in any meaningful way. By the way, what I've said is that if suit is brought, any claim rising out of the same facts of the suit, but not asserted, is lost.

To address some of your other stupidities:

1. Yes, the issue is different here than in Dale. There, it was whether the state could actually force the Scouts to readmit an open homosexual. Here, the issue is whether the state has to continue subsidizing an organization which bars homosexuals. Two completely different issues, which means Dale isn't controlling. In other words, it's not relevant precedent for this case. Keep hanging your hat on "The court went for the scouts in a different case which posed a different question, so they'll obviously go for the scouts again."

2. EVEN IF the Court gets it wrong and sides with the Scouts, the result won't be the city compensating the Scouts for the building (or did you mean some other compensation this time). Why do you cling to that delusion? Again, it's the city's building, and was from the beginning. Even if the facts around the initial K matched your fantasyland version, the Scouts didn't sue on that K, so an unfavorable ruling for the city won't result in damages based on that K.

3. Yes, we can be fairly certain that the breach of initial K claim lacks merit based on its exclusion from the complaint. As Imran pointed out, the other possibility is that the lawyers for the Scouts really suck. Since even you were able to spot the initial K as a potential issue, that possibility is very unlikely. Lawyers bad enough to miss a glaring potential issue that even you could spot simply don't find themselves arguing constitutional cases on behalf of organizations like the Boy Scouts. Argument from silence isn't fallacious when the silence actually does imply the conclusion. Oh, and please re-read what Imran said before claiming he agrees with you.

4. The article you posted doesn't even get into strategy, aside from simply reporting what was argued at the motion to dismiss hearing. Please, PLEASE show me where it discusses breach of initial K as a strategic option.

I don't know what it is that makes you a legal illiterate. I just know that you prove you are one every time you post on a legal subject. The sooner you recognize that you're a legal illiterate, the better off you'll be. When the forum's lawyers keep lining up to tell you you're wrong, the problem probably doesn't lie with them.

[Al B. Sure!]

MrFun, can you tell me if anything is wrong with saddle shoes? I mean if they're let's say, cream and cinnamon color and paired with blackwatch plaid trousers and a navy waistcoat? Do you think the hue of the cinnamon would clash with the overall water tones of the outfit?

I'm asking you because after the other thread, I've decided to ask Apolyton's gay community about clothes and I don't trust Asher's ability to dress even himself properly.

[Ben Kenobi]

Oh, dear Christ, Ben. On what basis do you argue that a claim not asserted is preserved? It's not, no matter how much you want it to be. That's week 2 Civ Pro stuff. And a breach of contract on which one can't sue doesn't exist in any meaningful way.

'Meaningful way', ie, whether they can sue for it now. Bull****. The claim still exists. That's all I'm arguing. The breach of contract still happened, and still exists, even if they can no longer sue against it because they chose a different strategy.

1. Yes, the issue is different here than in Dale. There, it was whether the state could actually force the Scouts to readmit an open homosexual. Here, the issue is whether the state has to continue subsidizing an organization which bars homosexuals. Two completely different issues, which means Dale isn't controlling. In other words, it's not relevant precedent for this case. Keep hanging your hat on "The court went for the scouts in a different case which posed a different question, so they'll obviously go for the scouts again."

The question of subsidy comes right back to breach of contract. Can the Philly council retaliate after losing in 2000, by passing a law which applies only to the Scouts? No. And I don't think the Supremes will be happy after smacking down Philly before in Dale. Philly is still trying to get them to admit gay scoutmasters, so Dale is relevant. As soon as Philly said that they would continue with the status quo if the Scouts permitted gay scoutmasters, Dale comes back in the picture.

EVEN IF the Court gets it wrong and sides with the Scouts, the result won't be the city compensating the Scouts for the building (or did you mean some other compensation this time).

I said compensation. If they win, it will be compensation based on the violation of their civil liberties. It would be fun if it were more than they would have gotten for the building as a warning to Philly council not to do this again.

Argument from silence isn't fallacious when the silence actually does imply the conclusion.

Still an argument from silence. As Imran pointed out, there are other logical possibilities. Now you are arguing that their lawyers don't suck. Does it hurt having to defend an illogical preposition? Just cut yourself loose, Solomwi. It's a bad argument and you hurt your stronger arguments by clinging to this one.

[Solomwi]

There's nothing illogical about it, no matter how many times you cry "argument from silence." The only other logical possibility is highly, highly unlikely, to the point that it doesn't merit consideration as a serious possibility. I'm comfortable arguing that their lawyers don't suck enough to miss that claim entirely. Maybe that's because I, unlike you, have a clue about how much suckitude that would take. Imran also pointed out that it's significant that the claim was excluded.

What is this repeated bull**** about Philly losing in 2000? Are you referring to some case other than Dale? You do realize Philly wasn't a party in Dale, right? If I have this straight, you've now spun this into Philly asking for actual rent in 2003 as retaliation for a case it lost, even though it wasn't a party, in 2000. This is one of your more bizarre twistings that I've seen. Of course, even if that were the case, it's not clear that your conclusion holds. The city may well be able to end a subsidy for retaliatory reasons, and almost certainly can do so if the action can also be justified on non-retaliatory grounds (as this one can). It's a moot point, though, since once again your facts are completely made up.

No, the question of subsidy doesn't go back to breach of K. Breach of K is irrelevant, since the only breach claim in the suit has already been dismissed. You don't realize this, though, because you're legally illiterate. You have barely a clue about substantive law, and none at all about procedure.

On that note, no, the claim does not still exist. That's the whole point. If you have multiple claims arising out of the same set of facts, and you sue on some of them, you lose the rest. They cease to exist. That's why the overwhelmingly common practice is to throw everything with any basis in fact or law into a complaint. If you see something new after you've filed the complaint, you move to amend and pray you aren't too late. I've seen no indication that the Scouts ever amended to add the claim you think is a slam dunk.

You think nominal damages of $1 against Philly would be fun? That fits your criteria as more than the Scouts would have ever gotten for the building.

[Patroklos]

Cuba subsidizing Guantanamo

[Asher]

Cuba subsidizing Guantanamo

That's exactly what they're doing, whether they realize it or not.

[Ben Kenobi]

Imran also pointed out that it's significant that the claim was excluded.

So did I. The disagreement between Imran and me, and you, is over what that significance is, not whether this is significant.

No, the question of subsidy doesn't go back to breach of K. Breach of K

The question as to whether or not this is a subsidy goes back to the contract. Fact is, Philly signed a contract with the scouts to construct the building, and agreed, in lieu of compensation, to charge a nominal rent. This isn't a subsidy. If Philly argues that it is a subsidy, then the whole contract comes back in again.

You are right, that the Scouts can't legally bring the contract up. They don't have to. The Philly city council has already brought the contract up. It is entirely permissible for the Philly city council to make the contract an issue, but what this means is that breach is back in the game again.

You think nominal damages of $1 against Philly would be fun? That fits your criteria as more than the Scouts would have ever gotten for the building.

You think there will be nominal damages if they are proven to have passed an unconstitutional law? The scouts will get to stay, they will get paid and their contract will be upheld.

[Imran Siddiqui]

As Imran pointed out, there are other logical possibilities. Now you are arguing that their lawyers don't suck.

You really are disabled aren't you (and yes that was mean and I ask forgiveness for it, but still!). When I said "or their lawyers suck", I mean it to be a ridiculous option. They are the Boy Scouts, they have tons of money, of course their lawyers don't suck.