Scouts win!

[Hauldren Collider]

well, nevermind, I've been pwned. I assumed it would be a state court since it is a municipal thing.

[Solomwi]

That's a consequence of the route that they took. The scouts understood this as an attack on their fundamental rights, and a jury has understood the same to be the case.



You're pretty persistant aren't you? I don't think SCOTUS will look on their case too fondly.

Fact of the matter is that the Philly city council went so far as to pass a law for the explicit purpose of abrogating the fundamental rights to expression of the Scouts. That's a big no no in constitutional law, especially for the City, who's civil servants are paid by the taxpayers themselves. Do you think that the people of Philadelphia want their money to go to a SCOTUS case? No.

Again, this case was never about the money. Not for a second. If you are trying to work with the scouts, you don't pass laws after already been slapped down by SCOTUS in 2000, to try to refight the battle. You call them up, ask if they would accept changes to the lease agreement. You haggle, come up with a dollar figure and away you go.

Philly Council did none of this, and are paying the price.

There is too much wrongness here to tackle head on, but I will pose a few questions:

1. Why do you insist that Philadelphia was involved in Dale?
1a. If you don't, how did they get "slapped down" in 2000, and how can they be "refighting" that battle?
2. If Philadelphia, as it obviously did, decided it could no longer subsidize the Scouts with free rent, why would it think it could subsidize them with rent somewhere higher, but still below market value?
2a. Why would you expect haggling to work with a counterparty that fights paying any rent that would cut into their mission?
3. If Philadelphia enacted the Fair Practices Ordinance explicitly to attack the Scouts' rights, why did they keep subsidizing the Scouts for over 20 years after its passage? And why are the Scouts not mentioned anywhere in the law?

[Solomwi]

well, nevermind, I've been pwned. I assumed it would be a state court since it is a municipal thing.

Well, there was a federal question...

[Ben Kenobi]

1. All the city is trying to do is stop subsidizing the Scouts.

Then why are they perfectly happy to continue subsiding the scouts provided they adhere to the non-discrimination clause?

2. The case is in federal district court. Assuming the city appeals, the 3rd Circuit is the only step between the trial court and SCOTUS.

Assuming that the 3rd district court rules against the scouts, do you believe that the scouts wouldn't appeal? This case is destined for SCOTUS unless philly council backs down here.

3. The only remaining question in the case is whether what Philly is doing is an unconstitutional condition. It's a fairly easy question to answer with a little bit of knowledge (no, since the city could end the lease for no reason at all)

So if I'm permitted to fire someone without specifying, and I say that I fired them because they have a negro dialect, that makes it ok?

There's plenty of examples in employment law where employers get spanked over doing exactly what Philly council is trying to do here.

[Solomwi]

Then why are they perfectly happy to continue subsiding the scouts provided they adhere to the non-discrimination clause?



Assuming that the 3rd district court rules against the scouts, do you believe that the scouts wouldn't appeal? This case is destined for SCOTUS unless philly council backs down here.



So if I'm permitted to fire someone without specifying, and I say that I fired them because they have a negro dialect, that makes it ok?

There's plenty of examples in employment law where employers get spanked over doing exactly what Philly council is trying to do here.

1. Why wouldn't they be? In that case, they aren't subsidizing discrimination.

2. Who said they wouldn't? They're free to piss their money away on a futile appeal. Again, Rumsfeld v. FAIR is the appropriate precedent, not Dale. 8-0 in 2006. Also, why would it be incumbent on the city to back down, given that they're the wronged party here?

3. Employment law /= constitutional law, and you /= the city. The analogy fails because different rules govern the two situations.

[Ben Kenobi]

1. Why wouldn't they be? In that case, they aren't subsidizing discrimination.

Thank you. As I said, the subsidy is the smokescreen. This is a First amendment case, pure and simple. The subsidy is irrelevant.

Also, why would it be incumbent on the city to back down, given that they're the wronged party here?

In your opinion only. In the opinion of the jury, they found in favour of the scouts, stating that their fundamental rights were violated.

3. Employment law /= constitutional law, and you /= the city. The analogy fails because different rules govern the two situations.

Not a compelling argument. Essentially, the city is saying they will not rent to certain parties. This is open and shut discrimination based on their viewpoint.

Admitting that the city would be happy to rent to them provided they changed their beliefs is what is killing them here. It's not about the subsidy, never was.

[Berzerker]

I'd like to see how any pols do in the future after pushing the scouts off the property, thats why the scouts win.

[Solomwi]

Thank you. As I said, the subsidy is the smokescreen. This is a First amendment case, pure and simple. The subsidy is irrelevant.



In your opinion only. In the opinion of the jury, they found in favour of the scouts, stating that their fundamental rights were violated.



Not a compelling argument. Essentially, the city is saying they will not rent to certain parties. This is open and shut discrimination based on their viewpoint.

Admitting that the city would be happy to rent to them provided they changed their beliefs is what is killing them here. It's not about the subsidy, never was.

Wow. Just wow. How does the city not wanting to subsidize discrimination make it not about the subsidy? And how in the world is that (a) any kind of actionable discrimination or (b) killing the city? The city is actually saying nothing of the kind. It's saying it will rent to discriminating groups; it just won't subsidize their rent. Did you miss the option of paying full rent and keeping the discriminatory policy that the city offered from the start?

Seriously, you've gotten so far afield in your made-up version of events that it's necessary to recap what the city told the Scouts to start all of this: stop discriminating, pay your rent, or move. Note that two of the options allow continued discrimination, and the other allows continued subsidy. The Scouts, however, pitched a hissy fit in an effort to have their cake and eat it, too.

On the "not compelling" argument, I'd explain why the different rules turn your attempted analogy into utter dog****, but your legal illiteracy would make that completely futile.