|
|
EDITORIAL SECTION |
THURSDAY, MARCH 26, 1998 |
No merit badge hereMr. Curran sued under California's civil-rights laws. On Monday the court ruled against him. The Boy Scouts are a private group, it said. Members can associate with whom they please. Thus the Boy Scouts can exclude those who don't reflect their values. In another California case, two brothers who are agnostics were ejected for refusing to repeat the Scout oath's belief in God. They challenged the Scouts' policy. The court again sided with the Scouts. The right of free association is precious. Government should not dictate private associations. But the Boy Scouts' exclusionary policies are unsettling and disappointing. The organization has a good record of teaching boys about loyalty, honor, and other virtues that help them in life. Sometimes Scouts meet in public buildings and receive public services or even money for Scouting events. That puts their membership policies to a different test, as other recent rulings show. A New Jersey appellate court held that the Boy Scouts are "a public accomodation" and can't exclude based on sexual orientation. Chicago's Human Relations Commission found that the Scouts' policy against gay members violated an anti-discrimination ordinance. Appeals are pending. Ultimately, the U.S. Supreme Court likely will have to decide the conflict. The Constitution guarantees the freedom of religion as well as association, inlcuding the right not to believe. Constitutional rights have built the foundation for America's diversity, an every-dynamic source of the nation's vigor. Excluding parts of the populace hinders the Boy Scouts more than those who are rejected. To exclude some because the don't fit the Scouts' mold is to fail to prepare youth for life in real America. |
|