Opinion ID: 1897530
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Freedom of Expressive Association

Text: An individual's freedom to speak, to worship, and to petition the government for the redress of grievances could not be vigorously protected from interference by the State unless a correlative freedom to engage in group effort toward those ends were not also guaranteed. Roberts, supra, 468 U.S. at 622, 104 S.Ct. at 3252, 82 L.Ed. 2d at 474. Thus, the right to engage in activities protected by the First Amendment [carries with it] a corresponding right to associate with others in pursuit of a wide variety of political, social, economic, educational, religious, and cultural ends. Ibid. The freedom to come together in furtherance of a collective purpose provides protection for minority views, thereby fostering political and cultural diversity. Ibid. When the government attempts to interfere with the internal organization or affairs of the group, id. at 623, 104 S.Ct. at 3252, 82 L.Ed. 2d at 474, the members' freedom of expressive association may be curtailed. In this regard, the Supreme Court has said that [t]here can be no clearer example of an intrusion into the internal structure or affairs of an association than a regulation that forces the group to accept members it does not desire. Id. at 623, 104 S.Ct. at 3252, 82 L.Ed. 2d at 474-75. This does not mean, however, that in every setting in which individuals exercise some discrimination in choosing associates, their selective process of inclusion and exclusion is protected by the Constitution. New York State Club Ass'n v. City of New York, 487 U.S. 1, 13, 108 S.Ct. 2225, 2234, 101 L.Ed. 2d 1, 16 (1988). Rather, the Court has found that a group member infringes upon an organization's freedom of expressive association only if he or she affect[s] `in any significant way' the [other members'] ability ... to ... advocate public or private viewpoints. Ibid.; see also Rotary Club, supra, 481 U.S. at 548, 107 S.Ct. at 1947, 95 L.Ed. 2d at 486 (holding that the evidence fails to demonstrate that admitting women to Rotary Clubs will affect in any significant way the existing members' ability to carry out their various purposes); Roberts, supra, 468 U.S. at 626-27, 104 S.Ct. at 3254, 82 L.Ed. 2d at 477 (ruling that the Jaycees has failed to demonstrate that the Act imposes any serious burdens on the male members' freedom of expressive association because [t]here is ... no basis in the record for concluding that admission of women ... will impede the organization's ability to engage in these protected activities or to disseminate its preferred views). Moreover, [t]he right to associate for expressive purposes is not ... absolute. Roberts, supra, 468 U.S. at 623, 104 S.Ct. at 3252, 82 L.Ed. 2d at 475. The Supreme Court has held that [i]nfringements on that right may be justified by regulations adopted to serve compelling state interests, unrelated to the suppression of ideas, that cannot be achieved through means significantly less restrictive of associational freedom. Ibid. State laws against discrimination may take precedence over the right of expressive association because acts of invidious discrimination in the distribution of publicly available goods, services, and other advantages cause unique evils that government has a compelling interest to preventwholly apart from the point of view such conduct may transmit. Id. at 628, 104 S.Ct. at 3255, 82 L.Ed. 2d at 478. The right of expressive association must, therefore, be weighed against this compelling interest in each case. We find that the LAD does not violate Boy Scouts' freedom of expressive association because the statute does not have a significant impact on Boy Scout members' ability to associate with one another in pursuit of shared views. The organization's ability to disseminate its message is not significantly affected by Dale's inclusion because: Boy Scout members do not associate for the purpose of disseminating the belief that homosexuality is immoral; Boy Scouts discourages its leaders from disseminating any views on sexual issues; and Boy Scouts includes sponsors and members who subscribe to different views in respect of homosexuality. Boy Scouts claims that its members' views regarding homosexuality are evident from its Scout Law and Oath, which embody general moral principles. The Scout Law requires Boy Scout members to be trustworthy, loyal, helpful, friendly, courteous, kind, obedient, cheerful, thrifty, brave, clean, and reverent, whereas the Oath requires each scout to promise: I will do my best to do my duty to God and my country and to obey the Scout Law; to help other people at all times; to keep myself physically strong, mentally awake, and morally straight. Boy Scouts asserts that it teaches those moral principles to its members through scouting activities. BSA Bylaws require that in all activities, emphasis [is to] be placed upon practice in daily life of the principles of the Scout Oath. Boy Scouts aims to foster strength, confidence, and good judgment by providing boys with a world full of exciting adventures and the opportunity to go places and do things. Boy Scout Handbook, supra, at vii. In the words of the Chief Scout Executive: As a Scout, you'll hike and camp, learn how to live in the out-of-doors, and discover many ways to care for the land. You can cook your meals over a camp stove and identify all kinds of plants and animals that are part of our environment. No matter what happens, you'll know how to take care of yourself. You'll develop strength, confidence, and good judgment. And you can find out how it feels to be a leader. [ Ibid. ] We agree that Boy Scouts expresses a belief in moral values and uses its activities to encourage the moral development of its members. Cf. Roberts, supra, 468 U.S. at 636, 104 S.Ct. at 3259-60, 82 L.Ed. 2d at 483-84, (O'Connor, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment) (stating protected expression may also take the form of quiet persuasion, inculcation of traditional values, instruction of the young, and community service .... [and e]ven the training of outdoor survival skills or participation in community service might become expressive when the activity is intended to develop good morals, reverence, patriotism, and a desire for self-improvement). We are not persuaded, however, that a shared goal[ ] of Boy Scout members is to associate in order to preserve the view that homosexuality is immoral. See id. at 622, 104 S.Ct. at 3252, 82 L.Ed. 2d at 474 (recognizing that freedom of expressive association protects an association's collective effort on behalf of shared goals). Boy Scouts argues that the words morally straight and clean in the Scout Oath and Law explicitly or implicitly stand for the proposition that homosexuality is immoral. [12] In support of its position, Boy Scouts relies on the Boy Scout Handbook definition of morally straight and clean: