The Case Of The James Dale Vs Boy Scouts

I do not disagree nor agree with the court's decision on the Boy Scouts of
America vs Dale case, I am on the fence of this case for two reasons. I believe that expelling him from his position as assistant troop leader deprives him of his equal rights and is also considered discrimination based on his sexual orientation. I believe Dales homosexuality isn't disabling anyone from carrying out their duties nor is he pushing his beliefs on or influencing the children in anyway to engage in relations with the same sex . In my opinion, it is unreasonable to kick him out of a position of power based on his sexual preference ; but on the other hand Boy Scouts of America is a private organisation and it does have the right to expression and in this case
Which was fought for in 1984 in the Roberts v. U.S. Jaycees case. The majority decision in the James Dale Vs Boy Scouts of America case stated that “the right to associate with others in pursuit of a wide variety of political, social, economic, educational, religious and cultural ends" is implicit in the right to engage in activities protected by the First Amendment. The majority continued to state that : "This right is crucial in preventing the majority from imposing its views on groups that would rather express other, perhaps unpopular, ideas." Forcing a group to accept certain members may impair the ability of the group to express those views, and only those views, that it intends to express.” Chief Justice Rehnquist, went on to say that "We are not, as we must not be, guided by our views of whether the Boy Scouts teachings with respect to homosexual conduct are right or wrong; public or judicial disapproval of a tenet of an organization's expression does not justify the State's effort to compel the organization's expressive message." thus saying that the Boy Scouts of America association has the right to discriminate and deny acceptance and or approval under the freedom of expression law since they are a private organisation. On June 28, 2000,
Justice Stevens, with whom Justice Souter, Justice Ginsburg and Justice Breyer joined in on the dissenting opinion and stated that “The law broadly protects the opportunity of all persons to obtain the advantages and privileges “of any place of public accommodation.” The New Jersey Supreme Court’s construction of the statutory definition of a “place of public accommodation” has given its statute a more expansive coverage than most similar state statutes, and as amended in 1991, the law prohibits discrimination on the basis of nine different traits including an individual’s “sexual orientation.”The question in this case is whether that expansive construction trenches on the federal constitutional rights of the Boy Scouts of America (BSA).” The majority holds that New Jersey’s law violates BSA’s right to associate and its right to free speech. But that law does not “impose any serious burdens” on BSA’s “collective effort on behalf of its shared goals,”nor does it force BSA to communicate any message that it does not wish to endorse. New Jersey’s law, therefore, abridges no constitutional right of the Boy