Philly says Boy Scouts have to accept gays

[MikeH]

He's shown over and over again that he can't read or comprehend anything anyone posts here, no surprise he doesn't understand the bible.

[Tuberski]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Marksscoutcenter.png

This building is worth $200,000/year?

ACK!

[Dry]

Plenty of protestants drink alcohol. The few who don't are rather fringe.

Exactly.
I'm no more religious today, but when I was, drinking alcohol was ok.
What is very un-christian/forbidden is to be drunk/addicted.
Some of us didn't want to touch a single glass of wine or alcohol, because of the fear to 'like that too much' and become addicted.

The general consensus in the protestant world I know, is that addiction - to anything - is a very strong sign of the devil at work. The use of anything (drug, gamble, video-games,...), while sometimes strongly discouraged, is permitted, as long as you do not become addicted.

The idea behind the proponents of strict rules is: 'the best way not to become addicted, is to not start at all'.

[MikeH]

They aren't bothered about using manipulative techniques to generate 'religious highs' and get you hooked on Jesus though are they.

[Wezil]

The general consensus in the protestant world I know, is that addiction - to anything - is a very strong sign of the devil at work. The use of anything (drug, gamble, video-games,...), while sometimes strongly discouraged, is permitted, as long as you do not become addicted.

It's okay to dance with the devil just don't go any further?

Interesting.

[MikeH]

Only in the pale moonlight.

[Zevico]

There are several questions in this case:
(1) does the council have unqualified power to render its own contracts void or voidable;
(2) if not, does it have a qualified power to do so that includes a right to render a contract void or voidable on certain grounds (including discriminatory policies);
(3) if yes to (1) or (2) then legally the council is within its rights just as, say, congress would be.

Secondly the lease can be considered a "subsidy", that is, quite beneficial to the vendor/lessee/the boy scouts, in so far as it is in perpetuity rather than say, for a period of "X" years fixed at a rate of $1 a rent. X is calculated as follows. Take the market price of the property at the time of purchase and divide it by the market price of rent (yearly). E.g. $100,000 market price, divide by $10,000 rent price= 10 years= 10 years of nominal $1 market rent. That would be fair. The council did the scouts a favour. If the council did this, say, 1 or years after the contract was entered into, I'd say that's pretty unfair. Is it an enforceable contract? Unless (1) there's a rule against perpetual leases or (2) the council has legal power to override the contract, then it is probably enforceable.

[Ben Kenobi]

The council did the scouts a favour

The scouts did the council a favour by selling them the building.

Why does everyone see it as a subsidy? A building is expensive. It's a considerable asset. They should be compensated for it.

[Ben Kenobi]

Your gay hate is just so offensive Ben.

Really? My argument has nothing to do with this at all.

Let's switch this around. Suppose it was a Gay and Lesbian organisation which built the building and then sold it to Philly council.

I'd have exactly the same argument, that the GALA folks should be compensated for the building.

What is interesting is the hatred to the scouts. I sincerely doubt that anyone here would deny that GALA should be compensated, but believe the scouts should not!

[Asher]

The scouts did the council a favour by selling them the building.

Why does everyone see it as a subsidy? A building is expensive. It's a considerable asset. They should be compensated for it.

At this point, the land is more valuable than the building.

I'm not sure you comprehend how valuable downtown lots are. When developers buy up residential holdouts, they don't buy it for the piece of **** building that sits on it. They want the land.

[Ben Kenobi]

I understand that, which is why Philly council should have bought the building outright in '28.

Now they need to buy the building based on 2010 prices. If the lot is so valuable, what's the issue?

[Asher]

They don't need to do any such thing. You just said the building was GIVEN to the city.

[Asher]

Really? My argument has nothing to do with this at all.

Let's switch this around. Suppose it was a Gay and Lesbian organisation which built the building and then sold it to Philly council.

I'd have exactly the same argument, that the GALA folks should be compensated for the building.

No one should be compensated for a building that is not theirs.

[Ben Kenobi]

You just said the building was GIVEN to the city.

In exchange for the perpetual rent. The two are tied together. Break one, you break the other, and the building reverts back to the scouts.

[Ben Kenobi]

No one should be compensated for a building that is not theirs.

The sale contract stipulates that they would be permitted to rent the building in perpetuity for the sum of one dollar a year.

If the sale contract is broken, then the Philly council is no longer the owner of the building.