Boy Scouts Of America v. Dale

530 U.S. 640 (2000)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

The Boy Scouts assert that homosexual conduct is inconsistent with the values it seeks to instill. BSA (D) is a federally chartered corporation that has been in existence since 1910. D seeks to promote the ability of boys to do things for themselves and others, to train boys in Scout-craft, and to teach patriotism, courage, self-reliance, and kindred values. Part of their mission statement is to instill values in young people and to prepare the boys to make ethical choices over their lifetimes. The Scout Oath even talks about keeping physically strong, mentally awake, and morally straight. Scout law also talks about being clean; “A Scout keeps his body and mind fit and clean. He goes around with those who believe in living by these same ideals. He helps keep his home and community clean.” D does not encourage any specific set of moral beliefs, and moral fitness is even deemed to be an individual choice. D does not espouse any religion. Its Scout Handbook talks about sexual responsibility and says that sex should only take place between married couples. D believes that boys should learn about sex and family life from their parents, consistent with their spiritual beliefs. Dale (P) first became a member of D in 1978 at the age of 8. He remained a member of a troop until he was 18. P was exemplary as a scout and earned over 25 merit badges. He eventually became an Eagle Scout. P also served D as a Scout leader and Junior Assistant Scoutmaster for Troop 73. In 1989, he sought adult membership in D. P became the Scout Master for Troop 73 and served for 16 months. When P left home to go to college, he acknowledged to his friends and family that he was gay. He even became co-president of the Rutgers University Lesbian and Gay Alliance. Eventually, P was interviewed by a newspaper, and an article was published on a seminar that P attended for gays. Later that month, P got notice from D that his membership was being revoked because of his homosexuality. In 1991, New Jersey amended its Law Against Discrimination (LAD) to include protections based on affectional or sexual orientation. P sued D under LAD. The New Jersey Superior Court granted summary judgment in favor of the Boy Scouts. It held the Boy Scouts was not a place of public accommodation, and that, alternatively, the Boy Scouts is a distinctly private group exempted from coverage under New Jersey's law. The Appellate Division reversed and held that New Jersey's public accommodations law applied to the Boy Scouts and that the Boy Scouts violated it. The New Jersey Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the Appellate Division. It held that the Boy Scouts was a place of public accommodation subject to the public accommodations law, that the organization was not exempt from the law under any of its express exceptions.