"Nonk" tried to argue that Iowa City was within its rights to deny the use of those facilities to the Boy Scouts of America. It was the same old line about this being made a matter of policy, as if an illegitimate decision could be made a legitimate one, merely by being written down as a policy. (Actually, when you think about it, doing so only makes the action worse. Instead of doing the wrong thing once, one insures that the wrong thing will be done over and over). The "policy" referred to, was that the facilities would be unavailable to any organization that discriminated against any group of people. She added that by using the facilites, any group doing so agreed to abide by the policies of Iowa City, so it would be valid to deny the use of those facilities to the BSA, because it wasn't living up to its side of the agreement.

In the gentlest terms possible, I pointed out why this argument was pure nonsense. The government of Iowa City was not, and is not a private organization or business. Those living within Iowa City do not get to choose whether or not they wish to pay taxes. By law, they must. The facilities belonging to that government are payed for with tax dollars, and maintained, using tax dollars, including the tax dollars payed by the local participants in the Boy Scouts of America. In effect, Iowa City was forcibly collecting rent for these facilities from all living in the city. That which one has payed for, one is entitled to use. By forcibly collecting rent, the government of Iowa City opted to make a sale, without conditioning that sale on an agreement to abide by these 'policies'. Having done so, it did not have the right to capriciously fail to live up to its side of the bargain, because that which is sold is no longer the property of the seller.

To be forced to make a purchase and then be denied the use of that which one has been forced to purchase, produces the same end result as a fine. In effect, Iowa City was imposing a fine on the membership of the local BSA chapter for non-compliance with its demands as to who the BSA should or should not be willing to 'hire' as its scoutmasters. This is certainly an imposition on the freedom of those taking part, and a violation of their freedom of religion, should they feel that their faith requires them to refuse to hire gay scoutmasters. Let us not forget that the BSA is a faith-based organization, however multidenominational a faith organization it may be.

The question is what is the justification for this imposition on the freedom of its membership. At last report, "troop leader" was an unpaid, volunteer position filled by a few of the parents. The policy did not reduce anybody's immediate earning potential. Nor, unless those kids were really precocious, were any of the scoutmasters going to be making any business connections through their volunteer positions. Scoutmasters are scoutmasters for one reason only - they love the kids, and the BSA can be a very positive experience that will leave those kids with many happy memories, for years to come. By exercising their freedom of religion, mandated by the first amendment to the constitution on the United States, the local membership imposed in no meaningful way on the freedom of the would-be gay scoutmasters.

As for this being a matter of policy, such a policy would clearly be unconstitutionally vague. Any organization that discriminated against any group? Shall the Knights of Columbus now be required to take on Presbyterian members, or shall it be barred altogether, because the Roman Catholic Church, with which it is affiliated, "discriminates" against female applicants to the priesthood? Facilities? Which facilities are covered? May Iowa City bar access to the city streets to organizations that its government disapproves of, on a similar contractual basis? Where does this 'argument' stop?

Nonk first tried to counterargue, saying that she had lived in Iowa City her whole life, and certainly knew its policies better than I did. I pointed out that in the United States which, I understood, Iowa City was part of, that the US constitution trumped federal law, which in turn trumped all local and state law, so this would be beside the point. Still attempting to find some ground to stand on, she then tried to reply by saying that we weren't going to settle this here, to which I replied, if this was so, why did she bring the issue up, here (on the House of Netjer webboard). Besides which, in a republic, which the US still likes to fancy itself as being, public policy is supposed to be guided at the grassroots level by consenses formed by this very sort of public discourse, so such a comment is inappropriate in the context of our allegedly free society.

There is more, but I'd really have to work to dredge it up from memory, and this is really a side issue, anyway. There was some silliness from one of the guests, in which he equated being allowed the use of governmental facilities, with receiving a governmental subsidy. This was kind of bizarre, because the BSA wasn't given any special access to those facilities that other local organizations weren't. In general, as happens so often, I was left with the troubling reality that the average American can't seem to comprehend the principles on which his own society runs.

Click here to continue.