Boy Scouts win right to remain in building they built

[RadiomanATL]

You're still sooper stoopid. Just because a contract exists it doesn't mean it is legal or following the law. The BSA are not following the City law in Philly that requires non-profit groups who use city property for free to not discriminate. A jury with an Eagle Scout as foreman saying the BSA can stay doesn't even mean it is within the law. It simply means 12 idiots don't know how to comprehend basic law because the BSA pulls heart strings at every possible chance and dumb bitches fall for it.

...and yet it was determined in this case that it was following the law.

Circling back around again?

You're still sooper stoopid. Just because a contract exists it doesn't mean it is legal or following the law. The BSA are not following the City law in Philly that requires non-profit groups who use city property for free to not discriminate. A jury with an Eagle Scout as foreman saying the BSA can stay doesn't even mean it is within the law. It simply means 12 idiots don't know how to comprehend basic law because the BSA pulls heart strings at every possible chance and dumb bitches fall for it.

(Your affinity for dishonesty in posting is matched only by your stoopidity)

So your argument boils down to: "I don't like the ruling, therefore it is illegal...waaaaah".

Thanks for clearing that up.

It was determined that the BSA broke no laws. Deal with it. You may now continue with your whining.

 

[CurveLight]

...and yet it was determined in this case that it was following the law.

Circling back around again?

You're still sooper stoopid. Just because a contract exists it doesn't mean it is legal or following the law. The BSA are not following the City law in Philly that requires non-profit groups who use city property for free to not discriminate. A jury with an Eagle Scout as foreman saying the BSA can stay doesn't even mean it is within the law. It simply means 12 idiots don't know how to comprehend basic law because the BSA pulls heart strings at every possible chance and dumb bitches fall for it.

(Your affinity for dishonesty in posting is matched only by your stoopidity)

So your argument boils down to: "I don't like the ruling, therefore it is illegal...waaaaah".

Thanks for clearing that up.

It was determined that the BSA broke no laws. Deal with it. You may now continue with your whining.

Your affinity for dishonesty in posting is matched only by your stoopidity.

 

[RadiomanATL]

You're still sooper stoopid. Just because a contract exists it doesn't mean it is legal or following the law. The BSA are not following the City law in Philly that requires non-profit groups who use city property for free to not discriminate. A jury with an Eagle Scout as foreman saying the BSA can stay doesn't even mean it is within the law. It simply means 12 idiots don't know how to comprehend basic law because the BSA pulls heart strings at every possible chance and dumb bitches fall for it.

(Your affinity for dishonesty in posting is matched only by your stoopidity)

So your argument boils down to: "I don't like the ruling, therefore it is illegal...waaaaah".

Thanks for clearing that up.

It was determined that the BSA broke no laws. Deal with it. You may now continue with your whining.

Your affinity for dishonesty in posting is matched only by your stoopidity.

...and yet you can't deny that is that is the essence of your argument.

Fail.

 

[CurveLight]

What? You can't sue to force someone to rent you something at a specific rate. NO ONE forced the city mayor to agree to this lease. That lawsuit would go NOWHERE

Why are you only concerned about the gay rights, what about the BSA's rights?

if you rent a house from me for $1 a month in perpetuity, I won't have a case if in 80 years I come and say "I don't like what they are doing so I want to raise the rate."

A lease is a contract.

Many slaveowners owned slaves indefinitely so by your argument owning slaves should not have stopped after doing so was illegal because they had indefinite contracts of ownership.

Let's see how you try to dance away from that one.

You show me a slave that signed a contract to be a slave and I'll show you one dumb sumbitch.


I guess that makes me Fred Astaire

Holy shitballs you are a fucking loser. Why do bigots like you love dishonesty so damn much? Oh thass right. Without it you'd have to not post 94% of the time. Slave owners had contracts recognized by the State that said they owned their slaves indefinitely so by your argument owning slaves should not have stopped after doing so was illegal because they had indefinite contracts of ownership.

 

[CurveLight]

So your argument boils down to: "I don't like the ruling, therefore it is illegal...waaaaah".

Thanks for clearing that up.

It was determined that the BSA broke no laws. Deal with it. You may now continue with your whining.

Your affinity for dishonesty in posting is matched only by your stoopidity.

...and yet you can't deny that is that is the essence of your argument.

Fail.

You're doing your typical childish dishonest bullshit and hoping to accomplish......what? It's not about like or disliking how the dumbass jurors voted. It's about pointing out the BSA are violating city law. Have you ever even attempted to read the Lease itself? No. Of course not. That would imply you care about being informed prior to making conclusions and we know sell out bigots like you don't give a fuck about anything but your own personal agenda.

It's disheartening to know bigot fuckwads like you are in the Scouts and teaching kids it's appropriate to be bigots. (Note: I didn't say you personally are in the scouts you dumbfuck. I said bigots like you). I wouldn't care except for the fact the Scouts look for a free ride all the fucking time. If the Scouts are so awesome why can't they afford to pay their own way? Don't scout members care enough to give enough or do they generally expect to live in Liberal Land in perpetuity have make others help pay their way?

 

[RadiomanATL]

Your affinity for dishonesty in posting is matched only by your stoopidity.

...and yet you can't deny that is that is the essence of your argument.

Fail.

You're doing your typical childish dishonest bullshit and hoping to accomplish......what? It's not about like or disliking how the dumbass jurors voted. It's about pointing out the BSA are violating city law.

They didn't.

Perhaps you missed the verdict?

 

[Madeline]

CurveLight, the city ordinance (cities do not pass "laws") did not overcome the lease. Unless the city appeals, the case is closed.

 

[bodecea]

Not free stupid. They've paid as agreed.

Just because you don't like the amount, does not mean that they haven't lived up to their end of the bargain...so...

1. They have paid as agreed.
and
2. They have not received public funding.

You may now circle back around and begin the same argument again, like you always do.

No, Radioman, a dollar a year is what the law regards as a "peppercorn". It is a meaningless gesture insofar as payment is concerned. I'd be shocked if the Boy Scout's lawyers had tried to argue this.

And for the record, payment in kind is just as much government support as payment in cash. Goods and services have value and that value can be measured.

Sorry, contracts are contracts. Just because the city doesn't like the amount now does not give them the automatic ability to start charging a higher rent.

So...if the BSA breaks another city law/ordinance.....let's say, polution laws....while in that building a contract is a contract and they cannot be removed?

 

[RadiomanATL]

No, Radioman, a dollar a year is what the law regards as a "peppercorn". It is a meaningless gesture insofar as payment is concerned. I'd be shocked if the Boy Scout's lawyers had tried to argue this.

And for the record, payment in kind is just as much government support as payment in cash. Goods and services have value and that value can be measured.

Sorry, contracts are contracts. Just because the city doesn't like the amount now does not give them the automatic ability to start charging a higher rent.

So...if the BSA breaks another city law/ordinance.....let's say, polution laws....while in that building a contract is a contract and they cannot be removed?

If it is determined they broke a law, they can be removed.

It was determined in this case that they did not. Therefore, they cannot be removed, and cannot be charged a higher rent.

 

[bodecea]

Sorry, contracts are contracts. Just because the city doesn't like the amount now does not give them the automatic ability to start charging a higher rent.

So...if the BSA breaks another city law/ordinance.....let's say, polution laws....while in that building a contract is a contract and they cannot be removed?

If it is determined they broke a law, they can be removed.

It was determined in this case that they did not. Therefore, they cannot be removed, and cannot be charged a higher rent.

Quick question...who initiated this lawsuit in the first place?

 

[RadiomanATL]

So...if the BSA breaks another city law/ordinance.....let's say, polution laws....while in that building a contract is a contract and they cannot be removed?

If it is determined they broke a law, they can be removed.

It was determined in this case that they did not. Therefore, they cannot be removed, and cannot be charged a higher rent.

Quick question...who initiated this lawsuit in the first place?

The Cradle of Liberty brought forth the lawsuit over the cities ultimatum.

BSA, through the Cradle of Liberty, won. And it was determined that the city cannot raise the rent.

 

[CurveLight]

CurveLight, the city ordinance (cities do not pass "laws") did not overcome the lease. Unless the city appeals, the case is closed.

Ordinances are laws. The Philly law was passed in 1982 as the Fair Practices Law/Ordinance. It's as much as a law as a speed limit sign. This is why in 2004 the BSA aka CLCC re-wrote their Charter to say they would not participate in any "unlawful discrimination." That was their attempt to get around this.

 

[CurveLight]

If it is determined they broke a law, they can be removed.

It was determined in this case that they did not. Therefore, they cannot be removed, and cannot be charged a higher rent.

Quick question...who initiated this lawsuit in the first place?

The Cradle of Liberty brought forth the lawsuit over the cities ultimatum.

BSA, through the Cradle of Liberty, won. And it was determined that the city cannot raise the rent.

You dumbass. This is no where near over and if you had read the case you would know why. Oh, and for your stoopid claim of paying rent:

"...and we don't have to pay any rent," Scouts' attorney William M. McSwain said of the verdict involving the organization's policy."
Philly.com : Federal jury decides in favor of scouts

Are you really pathetic enough to claim they are paying rent even after a BSA attorney brags they don't have to pay rent?

Here's the real kicker for you ignorant fucks. According to the Lease the City does not even need to give a reason to evict:

"Under the city's lease, it can evict the Scouts without giving a reason, Scouts' Jason P. Gosselin said."

That's a BSA attorney pointing that out. What else you fucking geniuses want to embarrass yourself about by citing "The Lease! The Lease!" Lol..............

 

[RadiomanATL]

Quick question...who initiated this lawsuit in the first place?

The Cradle of Liberty brought forth the lawsuit over the cities ultimatum.

BSA, through the Cradle of Liberty, won. And it was determined that the city cannot raise the rent.

You dumbass. This is no where near over and if you had read the case you would know why. Oh, and for your stoopid claim of paying rent:

"...and we don't have to pay any rent," Scouts' attorney William M. McSwain said of the verdict involving the organization's policy."
Philly.com : Federal jury decides in favor of scouts

Are you really pathetic enough to claim they are paying rent even after a BSA attorney brags they don't have to pay rent?

Here's the real kicker for you ignorant fucks. According to the Lease the City does not even need to give a reason to evict:

"Under the city's lease, it can evict the Scouts without giving a reason, Scouts' Jason P. Gosselin said."

That's a BSA attorney pointing that out. What else you fucking geniuses want to embarrass yourself about by citing "The Lease! The Lease!" Lol..............

...and yet the BSA is still there....the attempt to evict them lost....

You still lose, sorry.

 

[Madeline]

Mebbe the case was wrongly decided. But nonetheless, decided it is and unless appealed, that's the end of it.

 

[CurveLight]

If it is determined they broke a law, they can be removed.

It was determined in this case that they did not. Therefore, they cannot be removed, and cannot be charged a higher rent.

Quick question...who initiated this lawsuit in the first place?

The Cradle of Liberty brought forth the lawsuit over the cities ultimatum.

BSA, through the Cradle of Liberty, won. And it was determined that the city cannot raise the rent.

The Cradle of Liberty brought forth the lawsuit over the cities ultimatum.

BSA, through the Cradle of Liberty, won. And it was determined that the city cannot raise the rent.

You dumbass. This is no where near over and if you had read the case you would know why. Oh, and for your stoopid claim of paying rent:

"...and we don't have to pay any rent," Scouts' attorney William M. McSwain said of the verdict involving the organization's policy."
Philly.com : Federal jury decides in favor of scouts

Are you really pathetic enough to claim they are paying rent even after a BSA attorney brags they don't have to pay rent?

Here's the real kicker for you ignorant fucks. According to the Lease the City does not even need to give a reason to evict:

"Under the city's lease, it can evict the Scouts without giving a reason, Scouts' Jason P. Gosselin said."

That's a BSA attorney pointing that out. What else you fucking geniuses want to embarrass yourself about by citing "The Lease! The Lease!" Lol..............

...and yet the BSA is still there....the attempt to evict them lost....

You still lose, sorry.

I didn't post it for your benefit because you're predictably dishonest.

 

[RadiomanATL]

Quick question...who initiated this lawsuit in the first place?

The Cradle of Liberty brought forth the lawsuit over the cities ultimatum.

BSA, through the Cradle of Liberty, won. And it was determined that the city cannot raise the rent.

You dumbass. This is no where near over and if you had read the case you would know why. Oh, and for your stoopid claim of paying rent:

"...and we don't have to pay any rent," Scouts' attorney William M. McSwain said of the verdict involving the organization's policy."
Philly.com : Federal jury decides in favor of scouts

Are you really pathetic enough to claim they are paying rent even after a BSA attorney brags they don't have to pay rent?

Here's the real kicker for you ignorant fucks. According to the Lease the City does not even need to give a reason to evict:

"Under the city's lease, it can evict the Scouts without giving a reason, Scouts' Jason P. Gosselin said."

That's a BSA attorney pointing that out. What else you fucking geniuses want to embarrass yourself about by citing "The Lease! The Lease!" Lol..............

...and yet the BSA is still there....the attempt to evict them lost....

You still lose, sorry.

I didn't post it for your benefit because you're predictably dishonest.

Uh-huh.

Then learn how to use, or not use, the quote function correctly.

And reality is now dishonest, eh?

Need to adjust your tinfoil some?

 

[CurveLight]

Mebbe the case was wrongly decided. But nonetheless, decided it is and unless appealed, that's the end of it.

I see the BSA wants to pursue a suit against the city for their legal fees. At least they are consistent in wanting taxpayers to pay the bills the BSA decides they should pay.

The case was wrongly decided based mostly on emotion and I still don't know how a former Eagle Scout made it as foreman of the jury.

My position is any group that discriminates should not be afforded public subsidizing in any form. A loss of revenue for a City is a loss no matter how it's phrased and if groups want to discriminate within the confines of their Private organization then damn it, be Private and pay your own way. If you want public assistance then play by the Public rules.

 

[Madeline]

Lots of people agree with your POV. Lots don't.

Have we now beaten this to death or not?

 

[CurveLight]

Uh-huh.

Then learn how to use, or not use, the quote function correctly.

And reality is now dishonest, eh?

Need to adjust your tinfoil some?

Pssst! Hey you......yeah you Radioflyer on training wheels.....the Common Sense Cantelope is about to smack you upside your head. Again. When you quote someone, or multiple people in the same post, everyone can see it and not just the ones quoted.

Tomorrow we can help you understand you don't actually add 2 quarts of water directly to that little Kool-aid pack.