Boy scouts of america v. dale
In the case of Boy Scouts of America v. Dale, the issue was that the organization found out that a man, James Dale, was homosexual and openly supported gay organizations which went against the organizations beliefs. The scoutmaster revoked his membership because they don't support him or want any part of organizations that do. In this, the problem arose that this was violating his first amendment freedoms and was discrimination in a public place. Should the New Jersey public accommodations law violate the Boy Scouts' First Amendment right of expressive association to ban anyone affiliated with homosexuals from serving as troop leaders?
I agree with the Supreme courts decision in this case. Their job is to strictly interpret the constitution and apply it to the different situations that happen in life. From their viewpoint, this case is in the Boy Scouts favor because it doesn't violate the constitution. If this were a business then it would be but since this is a private organization they are entitled to their beliefs as long as it is not a government funded organization, which it isn't supposed to be. You have the choice on whether to become apart of this organization just like any other and the choice of whether or not to believe what they do and as long as it's not criminal and not public business discrimination then it just isn't that at all. It's just a group of people coming together with a set of beliefs within the boundaries of the constitution.
I agree with the Supreme courts decision in this case. Their job is to strictly interpret the constitution and apply it to the different situations that happen in life. From their viewpoint, this case is in the Boy Scouts favor because it doesn't violate the constitution. If this were a business then it would be but since this is a private organization they are entitled to their beliefs as long as it is not a government funded organization, which it isn't supposed to be. You have the choice on whether to become apart of this organization just like any other and the choice of whether or not to believe what they do and as long as it's not criminal and not public business discrimination then it just isn't that at all. It's just a group of people coming together with a set of beliefs within the boundaries of the constitution.