Opinion ID: 1897530
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Clean

Text: A Scout is CLEAN. A Scout keeps his body and mind fit and clean. He chooses the company of those who live by these same ideals. He helps keep his home and community clean. You never need to be ashamed of dirt that will wash off.... There's another kind of dirt that won't come off by washing. It is the kind that shows up in foul language and harmful thoughts. Swear words, profanity, and dirty stories are weapons that ridicule other people and hurt their feelings. The same is true of racial slurs and jokes making fun of ethnic groups or people with physical or mental limitations. A Scout knows there is no kindness or honor in such mean-spirited behavior. He avoids it in his own words and deeds. He defends those who are the targets of insults. The words morally straight and clean do not, on their face, express anything about sexuality, much less that homosexuality, in particular, is immoral. We doubt that young boys would ascribe any meaning to these terms other than a commitment to be good. Boy Scouts also argues that the immorality of homosexuality can be implied from the moral principles expressed by the Scout Oath and Law. Yet, Boy Scouts teaches that moral fitness is an individual choice and defers the ultimate definition to its members: Morality ... concerns the principles of right and wrong in our behavior, and what is sanctioned by our conscience or ethical judgment. ... In any consideration of moral fitness, a key word has to be courage. A boy's courage to do what his head and his heart tell him is right. And the courage to refuse to do what his heart and his head say is wrong. [ Scoutmaster Handbook, supra, at 71 (emphasis added).] The Boy Scout Handbook, supra, at 551, also acknowledges that a member's concept of morality is intertwined with his religious beliefs. The record in this case reveals that Boy Scouts' religious sponsors differ in their views about homosexuality. [13] Compare Brief of Amici Curiae National Catholic Committee on Scouting et al. at 1 (declaring that Boy Scouts' admission of practicing homosexuals would affect some church sponsors' ability to advance core moral values, arising from sincere well established religious beliefs) with Brief of Amici Curiae The Diocesan Council of the Episcopal Diocese of Newark, et al. at 1 (stating that the teachings of the Episcopal Church ... affirm[ ] the rights of lesbians and gay men to the equal protection of the laws and to live free from discrimination based upon affectional or sexual orientation). On the record before us, it appears that no single view on this subject functions as a unifying associational goal of the organization. We hold, therefore, that Dale's membership does not violate Boy Scouts' right of expressive association because his inclusion would not affect in any significant way [Boy Scouts] existing members' ability to carry out their various purposes. Rotary Club, supra, 481 U.S. at 548, 107 S.Ct. at 1947, 95 L.Ed. 2d at 486. That Boy Scout members do not associate to share the view that homosexuality is immoral suggests that Dale's expulsion constituted discrimination based solely on his status as an openly gay man. The United States Supreme Court has not hesitated to uphold the enforcement of a state's antidiscrimination statute against an expressive association claim based on assumptions in respect of status that are not a part of the group members' shared expressive purpose. See Roberts, supra, 468 U.S. at 628, 104 S.Ct. at 3255, 82 L.Ed. 2d at 478 ([W]e decline to indulge in the sexual stereotyping that underlies appellee's contention that, by allowing women to vote, application of the Minnesota Act will change the content or impact of the organization's speech.); see also New York State Club Ass'n, supra, 487 U.S. at 13, 108 S.Ct. at 2234, 101 L.Ed. 2d at 16 (upholding antidiscrimination law that merely prevents an association from using ... specified characteristics as shorthand measures in place of what the city considers to be more legitimate criteria for determining membership). Boy Scouts submits that it expelled Dale because he was pictured and written-up in the Star-Ledger as Co-President of the Rutgers University and Gay Alliance. See supra at 578, 734 A. 2d at 1205. In the article, Dale states that he is gay. He does not identify himself as a Boy Scout leader or member, nor does he express an opinion about any of Boys Scouts' policies, or suggest that Boy Scouts should allow him openly to advocate acceptance of homosexuality. [14] Indeed, Dale has stated that he accepts and endorses Boy Scouts' moral principles. In Dale's words: Scouting appealed to me for many reasons.... I admired the purposes for which BSA standsteaching young people outdoor and camping skills, developing their leadership abilities and sense of community responsibility, and providing them with the tools to make moral choices over the course of their lives. As a Scout, I promised to live by the Scout Oath.... I believed that the Scout Oath stood for my commitment to live an honorable life, to set high standards for myself, and to do my best to serve others. In my more than twelve years as a member of BSA, I strove never to do anything inconsistent with the values embodied in the Scout Oath.... ... I understood the Scout Oath to represent the high ideals Scouting encouraged each of its members to achieve. In all my years in Scouting, I always tried to live in accordance with the Scout Law and to adhere to the values embodied in it. As I grew ... older, my commitment to Scouting deepened. Scouting... taught me how to deal with the ethical choices I encountered as a teenager. Nonetheless, despite Dale's commitment, he was expelled from Boy Scouts shortly after the article was published. The original termination letter Dale received indicates that Dale was expelled because of his status and not because his membership conflicted with Boy Scouts' message. In it, Boy Scouts told Dale he was being terminated because of his sexual orientation: The grounds for this membership revocation are the standards for leadership established by Boy Scouts of America, which specifically forbid membership to homosexuals. In subsequent letters, Boy Scouts attempted to connect Dale's termination with his avowed homosexuality and Boy Scouts'policy [to] exclud[e] adults whose views of the morality of homosexual conduct differ from the views held by Boy Scouts of America. Those subsequent letters suggest that Boy Scouts perceived Dale's membership as interfering with its views on the morality of homosexual conduct; they do not alter Boy Scouts' original statement. The original termination letter expresses Boys Scouts' real concern: Dale's status as a homosexual. Perhaps more revealing is the contradiction between Boy Scouts' current litigation posture on homosexual members and the organization's general philosophy on open membership. Boy Scouts has been firmly committed to a diverse and representative membership. It recognizes that the skills it teaches its members are needed in all economic, cultural, and ethnic groups. A Representative Membership, supra, at 2. Its objective is to see to it that all eligible youth have the opportunity to affiliate with the Boy Scouts of America. Id. at 1. As we observed earlier, consistent with this position, Boy Scouts does not seek to limit membership to individuals of a particular religious faith or moral persuasion. See supra at 575, 599, 734 A. 2d at 1203, 1216. The result of this all-inclusive membership policy is the admission of four million boys and over one million adults. See id. at 598, 734 A. 2d at 1215. When contrasted with its all-inclusive policy, Boy Scouts' litigation stance on homosexuality appears antithetical to the organization's goals and philosophy. The exclusion of members solely on the basis of their sexual orientation is inconsistent with Boy Scouts' commitment to a diverse and representative membership. Moreover, this exclusionary practice contradicts Boy Scouts' overarching objective to reach all eligible youth. We are satisfied that Boy Scouts' expulsion of Dale is based on little more than prejudice and not on a unified Boy Scout position; in other words, Dale's expulsion is not justified by the need to preserve the organization's expressive rights. The invocation of stereotypes to justify discrimination is all too familiar. Indeed, the story of discrimination is the story of stereotypes that limit the potential of men, women, and children who belong to excluded groups. By way of example, we observe that certain claimed propensities of character were once invoked to advocate the subjugation of women. United States v. Virginia recites the prevailing view of women at the time of the writing of the Constitution:  Were our State a pure democracy ... there would yet be excluded from [our] deliberations ... women, who, to prevent depravation of morals and ambiguity of issue, should not mix promiscuously in the public meetings of men.' 518 U.S. 515, 531 n. 5, 116 S.Ct. 2264, 2275 n. 5, 135 L.Ed. 2d 735, 750 n. 5 (1996) (quoting Letter from Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Kercheval (Sept. 5, 1816)). Less than a century later, the exclusion of women from the Illinois State Bar was thought to be justified because [t]he natural and proper timidity and delicacy which belongs to the female sex evidently unfits it for many of the occupations of civil life. The constitution of the family organization, which is founded in the divine ordinance, as well as in the nature of things, indicates the domestic sphere as that which properly belongs to the domain and function of womanhood. The harmony, not to say identity, of interests and views which belong to the family institution, is repugnant to the idea of a woman adopting a distinct and independent career from that of her husband. [ Bradwell v. Illinois, 83 U.S. (16 Wall. ) 130, 141, 21 L.Ed. 442, 446 (1873) (Bradley, J., concurring).] See also J.E.B. v. Alabama, 511 U.S. 127, 132, 114 S.Ct. 1419, 1423, 128 L.Ed. 2d 89, 99 (1994) (noting that women were traditionally kept from jury duty because they were thought to be too fragile and virginal to withstand the polluted courtroom atmosphere). The sad truth is that excluded groups and individuals have been prevented from full participation in the social, economic, and political life of our country. [15] The human price of this bigotry has been enormous. At a most fundamental level, adherence to the principle of equality demands that our legal system protect the victims of invidious discrimination. New Jersey has long been a leader in this effort. See, e.g., Peper, supra, 77 N.J. at 80, 389 A. 2d 465 (stating that New Jersey has always been in the vanguard in the fight to eradicate the cancer of unlawful discrimination of all types from our society). In 1945, the New Jersey Legislature codified its commitment to equality by enacting the LAD, some twenty years before the effective date of Title VII. Ibid.; see 42 U.S.C.A. §§ 2000a-2000h-6. The Legislature found that because of discrimination, people suffer personal hardships, and the State suffers a grievous harm. N.J.S.A. 10:5-3. In specific, the Legislature determined that victims of discrimination suffer economic loss; time loss; physical and emotional stress; and in some cases severe emotional trauma, illness, homelessness or other irreparable harm resulting from the strain of employment controversies; relocation, search and moving difficulties; anxiety caused by lack of information, uncertainty, and resultant planning difficulty; career, education, family and social disruption; and adjustment problems.