Opinion ID: 1897530
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The LAD

Text: We first consider whether Boy Scouts is subject to the LAD, which provides that [a]ll persons shall have the opportunity... to obtain all the accommodations, advantages, facilities, and privileges of any place of public accommodation, ... without discrimination because of ... affectional or sexual orientation. N.J.S.A. 10:5-4. Boy Scouts must therefore abide by the LAD if Boy Scouts is a place of public accommodation and does not meet any of the LAD exceptions. See, e.g., N.J.S.A. 10:5-5 l (exempting distinctly private entities, religious educational facilities, and parents or individuals acting in loco parentis in respect of the education and upbringing of a child).
[T]he overarching goal of the [LAD] is nothing less than the eradication `of the cancer of discrimination.' Fuchilla v. Layman, 109 N.J. 319, 334, 537 A. 2d 652 (quoting Jackson v. Concord Co., 54 N.J. 113, 124, 253 A. 2d 793 (1969)), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 826, 109 S.Ct. 75, 102 L. Ed. 2d 51 (1988). [D]iscrimination threatens not only the rights and proper privileges of the inhabitants of [New Jersey,] but menaces the institutions and foundation of a free democratic State. N.J.S.A. 10:5-3. In furtherance of its purpose to root out discrimination, the Legislature has directed that the LAD shall be liberally construed. Ibid. We have adhered to that legislative mandate by historically and consistently interpreting the LAD `with that high degree of liberality which comports with the preeminent social significance of its purposes and objects.' Andersen v. Exxon Co., 89 N.J. 483, 495, 446 A. 2d 486 (1982) (quoting Passaic Daily News v. Blair, 63 N.J. 474, 484, 308 A. 2d 649 (1973)). A clear understanding of the phrase place of public accommodation is critical. That is because place of public accommodation is, in large measure, determinative of the LAD's scope. Certainly, if the statute is broadly applicable, the antidiscriminatory impact of its provisions is greater. The Legislature's finding that the effects of discrimination are pernicious, and its directive to liberally construe the LAD, have informed our cases interpreting the reach of place of public accommodation.
In 1965, the Court held that places of public accommodation were not limited to those enumerated in the statute. Fraser v. Robin Dee Day Camp, 44 N.J. 480, 486, 210 A. 2d 208 (1965) (then N.J.S.A. 18:25-5( l )). At that time, the statutory definition used the word include to preface a list of specific places of public accommodation. See id. at 485, 210 A. 2d 208. We reasoned that the Legislature's choice of the word include indicated that the places expressly mentioned were merely illustrative of the accommodations the Legislature intended to be within the scope of the statute. Other accommodations, similar in nature to those enumerated, were also intended to be covered. Id. at 486, 210 A. 2d 208. Less than a year later, the Legislature amended the LAD to expressly state that `a place of public accommodation' shall include, but not be limited to  the various examples identified, L. 1966, c. 17 (emphasis added), thereby reaffirming our broad construction of the statutory language. [5] Later, the word place became a further source of legal dispute. In National Organization of Women v. Little League Baseball, Inc., 67 N.J. 320, 338 A. 2d 198 (1974), we affirmed the decision of the Appellate Division holding that: [t]he statutory noun `place' ... is a term of convenience, not of limitation[,] ... employed to reflect the fact that public accommodations are commonly provided at fixed `places.' 127 N.J.Super. 522, 531, 318 A. 2d 33 (App.Div.1974). The defendant in Little League was a chartered baseball league that excluded girls between the ages of eight and twelve years from participation in its programs. The league contended that it did not come within the meaning of the statute, primarily because it [was] a membership organization which does not operate from any fixed parcel of real estate in New Jersey of which it had exclusive possession by ownership or lease. Id. at 530, 318 A. 2d 33. The court rejected that narrow view of place: The place of public accommodation in the case of Little League is obviously the ball field at which tryouts are arranged, instructions given, practices held and games played. The statutory accommodations, advantages, facilities and privileges at the place of public accommodation is the entire agglomeration of the arrangements which Little League and its local chartered leagues make and the facilities they provide for the playing of baseball by the children. [ Id. at 531, 318 A. 2d 33 (citations omitted).] In New Jersey, place has been more than a fixed location since 1974. As Boy Scouts correctly observes, other jurisdictions interpreting their antidiscrimination laws have found place to be a limiting factor encompassing only a fixed location. See, e. g., Welsh v. Boy Scouts of Am., 993 F. 2d 1267, 1269 (7th Cir.) (holding that Boy Scouts is not place of public accommodation under Title II of Civil Rights Act of 1964 because Congress when enacting § 2000a(b) never intended to include membership organizations that do not maintain a close connection to a structural facility within the meaning of `place of public accommodation'), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 1012, 114 S.Ct. 602, 126 L.Ed. 2d 567 (1993); United States Jaycees v. Richardet, 666 P. 2d 1008, 1011 (Alaska 1983) (stating that the word `place'....would not encompass a service organization lacking a fixed geographical situs); United States Jaycees v. Bloomfield, 434 A. 2d 1379, 1381 (D.C.1981) (disagreeing with lower court's conclusion that it is not necessary that there be a building ... in order to categorize an existing entity as a place of public accommodation); United States Jaycees v. Iowa Civil Rights Comm'n, 427 N.W. 2d 450, 454 (Iowa 1988) (stating that United States Jaycees is not a `place' within our definition of `public accommodation'); United States Jaycees v. Massachusetts Comm'n Against Discrimination, 391 Mass. 594, 463 N.E. 2d 1151, 1156 (1984) (finding that Massachusetts antidiscrimination law does not apply to [a] membership organization, since such an organization does not fall within the commonly accepted definition of `place'). We observe that not all jurisdictions have interpreted place so narrowly. The New York Court of Appeals has held that a place of public accommodation need not be a fixed location, it is the place where petitioners do what they do, including the place where petitioners' meetings and activities occur. United States Power Squadrons v. State Human Rights Appeal Bd., 59 N.Y. 2d 401, 465 N.Y.S. 2d 871, 452 N.E. 2d 1199, 1204 (1983). The Supreme Court of Minnesota has also approved a flexible construction of the term place. In United States Jaycees v. McClure, 305 N.W. 2d 764, 773 (Minn.1981), the Minnesota court agreed with the Little League premise that a `place of public accommodation'... is less a matter of whether the organization operates on a permanent site, and more a matter of whether the organization engages in activities in places to which an unselected public is given an open invitation. Despite numerous additions and modifications to the LAD in the twentyfour years since Little League was decided, the New Jersey Legislature has not enacted a limiting definition of place. See Massachusetts Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Manzo, 122 N.J. 104, 116, 584 A. 2d 190 (1991) (stating that [t]he Legislature's failure to modify a judicial determination, while not dispositive, is some evidence of legislative support for the judicial construction of a statute .... [especially when] the Legislature has amended [the] statute several times without altering the judicial construction). We decline now to construe place so as to include only membership associations that are connected to a particular geographic location or facility. As the Appellate Division has so aptly pointed out, [t]o have the LAD's reach turn on the definition of `place' is irrational because `places do not discriminate; people who own and operate places do.' Dale, supra, 308 N.J.Super. at 533, 706 A. 2d 270 (quoting Welsh, supra, 993 F. 2d at 1282 (Cummings, J., dissenting)). A membership association, like Boy Scouts, may be a place of public accommodation even if the accommodation is provided at a moving situs. Little League, supra, 127 N.J.Super. at 531, 318 A. 2d 33. In this case it is readily apparent that the various locations where Boy Scout troops meet fulfill the LAD place requirement.
Our case law identifies various factors that are helpful in determining whether Boy Scouts is a public accommodation. We ask, generally, whether the entity before us engages in broad public solicitation, whether it maintains close relationships with the government or other public accommodations, or whether it is similar to enumerated or other previously recognized public accommodations. Broad public solicitation has consistently been a principal characteristic of public accommodations. Our courts have repeatedly held that when an entity invites the public to join, attend, or participate in some way, that entity is a public accommodation within the meaning of the LAD. See, e.g., Clover Hill Swimming Club, Inc. v. Goldsboro, 47 N.J. 25, 33, 219 A. 2d 161 (1966) (stating that [a]n establishment which by advertising or otherwise extends an invitation to the public generally is a place of public accommodation); Sellers v. Philip's Barber Shop, 46 N.J. 340, 345, 217 A. 2d 121 (1966) (stating that [a]n establishment which caters to the public or by advertising or other forms of invitation induces patronage generally is a place of public accommodation); Fraser, supra, 44 N.J. at 488, 210 A. 2d 208 (stating that [i]n light of the nature of the facilities and activities offered to the general public by respondent's day camp, we hold that it is a public accommodation); Little League, supra, 127 N.J.Super. at 531, 318 A. 2d 33 (stating that Little League is a public accommodation because the invitation is open to children in the community at large); Evans v. Ross, 57 N.J.Super. 223, 231, 154 A. 2d 441 (App.Div.) (stating that LAD requires an establishment which caters to the public, and by advertising or other forms of invitation induces patronage generally, [not to] refuse to deal with members of the public who have accepted the invitation), certif. denied, 31 N.J. 292, 157 A. 2d 362 (1959); see also Kiwanis Int'l v. Ridgewood Kiwanis Club, 806 F. 2d 468, 475 (3d Cir.1986) (stating that LAD applies whenever the organization or club ... invite[s] an unrestricted and unselected public to join as members); Brounstein v. American Cat Fanciers Ass'n, 839 F.Supp. 1100, 1107 (D.N.J. 1993) (stating that `primary [public accommodation] consideration' under LAD is `whether the invitation to gather is open to the public at large') (quoting Kiwanis Int'l, supra, 806 F. 2d at 474). BSA engages in broad public solicitation through various media. In 1989, for example, BSA spent more than $1 million on a national television advertising campaign. A New York Times article describes one of Boy Scouts'hip television ads, quoting a BSA spokesman as stating, scouting [is] a product and we've got to get the product into the hands of as many consumers as we can. [6] Kim Foltz, TV Ad's Hip Pitch: It's `Cool' to be a Boy Scout, N.Y. Times, Oct. 30, 1989. BSA has also advertised in widely distributed magazines, such as Sports Afield and Redbook. Local Boy Scout councils engage in substantial public solicitation. BSA frequently supplies the councils with recruiting materials, such as television and radio public service announcements, advertisements, and other promotional products. Monmouth Council, in particular, has expressly invited the public by conducting recruiting drives and by providing local troops with BSA-produced posters and promotions aimed at attracting new members. Boy Scout troops also take part in perhaps the most powerful invitation of all, albeit an implied one: the symbolic invitation extended by a Boy Scout each time he wears his uniform in public. See Sellers, supra, 46 N.J. at 345, 217 A. 2d 121 (finding that barber shop's pole extended implied invitation to public). A boy in a uniform may well be Boy Scouts' strongest recruiting tool. By encouraging scouts to wear their uniforms to school, and when participating in School Nights and public demonstrations, Boy Scouts invites the curiosity and awareness of others in the community. Boy Scouts admits that it encourages these displays in the hope of attracting new members. On the facts before us, it cannot be controverted that Boy Scouts reaches out to the public in a myriad of ways designed to increase and sustain a broad membership base. Whether by advertising or active recruitment, or through the symbolism of a Boy Scout uniform, the intent is to send the invitation to as many members of the general public as possible. Once Boy Scouts has extended this invitation, the LAD requires that all members of the public must have equal rights ... and not be subjected to the embarrassment and humiliation of being invited[,] ... only to find [the] doors barred to them. Evans, supra, 57 N.J.Super. at 231, 154 A. 2d 441. Boy Scouts is a public accommodation, not simply because of its solicitation activities, but also because it maintains close relationships with federal and state governmental bodies and with other recognized public accommodations. Our cases have held that certain organizations that benefit from relationships with the government and other public accommodations are themselves places of public accommodation within the meaning of the LAD. In Little League, for example, the court concluded that Little League was public in the added sense that local governmental bodies characteristically make the playing areas available to the local leagues, ordinarily without charge. 127 N.J.Super. at 531, 318 A. 2d 33, aff'd, 67 N.J. 320, 338 A. 2d 198 (1974). More recently, in Frank v. Ivy Club, 120 N.J. 73, 79, 110, 576 A. 2d 241 (1990), a female student sought membership in the all-male eating clubs at Princeton University. Although they did not publicly solicit new members, we held that the clubs' close relationship to the University, a place of public accommodation, rendered them subject to the LAD. Id. at 110, 576 A. 2d 241. It is clear that Boy Scouts benefits from a close relationship with the federal government. Indeed, BSA was chartered by Congress in 1916, 36 U.S.C.A. § 30901, and has been the recipient of equipment, supplies, and services from the federal government, also by act of Congress, 10 U.S.C.A. § 2544. Thus, the Secretary of Defense, 10 U.S.C.A. § 2544(a), and other departments of the federal government, 10 U.S.C.A. § 2544(h), have been authorized to lend to the Boy Scouts of America, for the use and accommodation of Scouts, Scouters, and officials who attend any national or world Boy Scout Jamboree, such cots, blankets, commissary equipment, flags, refrigerators, and other equipment and without reimbursement, furnish services and expendable medical supplies, as may be necessary or useful to the extent that items are in stock and items or services are available. [10 U.S.C.A. § 2544(a).] Since its inception, BSA has maintained a special association with each successive President of the United States. According to a BSA public relations fact sheet: One of the causes contributing to the success of the Boy Scouts of America has been the thoughtful, wholehearted way in which each President of the United States since William Howard Taft in 1910 has taken an active part in the work of the movement. Each served as Honorary President during his term in office. Another fact sheet states that seventyeight percent of the members of the 100th Congress participated in scouting. Boy Scouts also maintains a close relationship with the military. According to a BSA pamphlet entitled Organizations That Use Scouting, military personnel serve Scouting in many capacities. At many [Army, Navy, Air Force, and National Coast Guard] installations, facilities are available for Scouting shows, meetings, training activities, and other similar Scouting events. Monmouth Council, in particular, has used the New Jersey military installation known as Fort Monmouth. Likewise, state and local governments have contributed to Boy Scouts' success. [7] In New Jersey, the Legislature has authorized the Division of Fish, Game and Wildlife in the Department of Environmental Protection to stock with fish any body of water in this state that is under the control of and for the use of ... Boy Scouts, N.J.S.A. 23:2-3, and has exempted Boy Scouts from having to pay motor vehicle registration fees, N.J.S.A. 39:3-27. Local governmental agencies, such as fire departments and law enforcement agencies, serve Boy Scouts by sponsoring scouting units. Nationally, over 50,000 youth members belong to units sponsored by fire departments, whereas in New Jersey alone over 130 units are sponsored by fire departments and over 100 units are sponsored by law enforcement agencies. Perhaps Boy Scouts' connection to public schools and school-affiliated groups constitutes its single most beneficial governmental relationship. Organizations That Use Scouting advises that the education field holds our greatest potential. Boy Scouts currently recruits many of its members through its presence in and use of school facilities. A large percentage of scouting units nationally, as well as in New Jersey, are chartered by public schools and affiliated organizations. Moreover, public schools and community colleges often host scouting meetings, activities, and recruiting events such as School Nights. School Night for Scouting [is a] recruiting plan operated by many councils in connection with the schools. Under this plan, an open scout meeting is held at a school in order to encourage students to join scouting. Public schools not only aid Boy Scouts by allowing the organization to use their facilities after school, but also during the school day. According to Boy Scouts, [m]ore and more of our schools are becoming available for other than formal education.... Inschool Scouting, where the pack, troop, team, or post meets during the school day, is recognized in many areas. In 1992, close to 700,000 students throughout the nation were taught the Boy Scouts' Learning for Life curriculum during the school day. Given Boy Scouts' public solicitation activities, and considering its close relationship with governmental entities, it is not surprising that Boy Scouts resembles many of the recognized and enumerated places of public accommodation. Similarity to the places of public accommodation listed in the LAD has been a benchmark for determining whether the unlisted entity should be included. Cf. Board of Chosen Freeholders v. New Jersey, 159 N.J. 565, 576, 732 A. 2d 1053 (1999) (stating that [u]nder the ejusdem generis principle of statutory construction, when specific words follow more general words in a statutory enumeration, we can consider what additional items might also be included by asking whether those items are similar to those enumerated). In Fraser v. Robin Dee Day Camp , for example, this Court held that a day camp is the type of accommodation which the Legislature intended to reach because a day camp offers accommodations which have many attributes in common with swimming pools, recreation and amusement parks, motion picture houses, theatres, music halls, gymnasiums, kindergarten and primary schools, all of which are specifically enumerated in the LAD. 44 N.J. at 487, 210 A. 2d 208. The Appellate Division in Little League identified Little League's `educational or recreational nature' as a basis for the court's conclusion that Little League was similar to the types of public accommodations listed in the statute. 127 N.J.Super. at 531, 318 A. 2d 33 (quoting Fraser, supra, 44 N.J. at 487, 210 A. 2d 208). Similarly, Boy Scouts' educational and recreational nature, like the day camp in Fraser or the baseball teams in Little League, further supports our conclusion that Boy Scouts is a place of public accommodation under the LAD. See, e.g., Advancement Guidelines 4 (1992 ed.) (stating that [e]ducation and fun are functions of the scouting movement).
Boy Scouts claims that even if it is a place of public accommodation, it is nonetheless exempt from the LAD under three express exceptions: (1) the distinctly private exception; (2) the religious educational facility exception; and (3) the in loco parentis exception. N.J.S.A. 10:5-5 l . Because we determine that these exceptions do not apply to Boy Scouts, we hold that Boy Scouts is subject to the LAD. While this Court has been scrupulous in its insistence that the [LAD] be applied to the full extent of its facial coverage, it has never found such coverage to exist in the face of an unambiguous exclusion. Peper v. Princeton Univ. Bd. of Trustees, 77 N.J. 55, 68, 389 A. 2d 465 (1978) (citations omitted). Nonetheless, despite our adherence to statutory exceptions expressly and unambiguously set forth by the Legislature, we are mindful that [e]xemptions from remedial statutes should generally be narrowly construed. Poff v. Caro, 228 N.J.Super. 370, 379, 549 A. 2d 900 (Law Div.1987) (citing Service Armament Co. v. Hyland, 70 N.J. 550, 559, 362 A. 2d 13 (1976)). We begin with the distinctly private exception. The LAD provides that [n]othing herein contained shall be construed to include or to apply to any institution, bona fide club, or place of accommodation, which is in its nature distinctly private. N.J.S.A. 10:5-5 l . Boy Scouts' status as a bona fide club has not been questioned. Our focus is, therefore, on the meaning of distinctly private. We agree with the New York Court of Appeals that this language, found in both the New York Human Rights Law, N.Y. Exec. Law § 292, and in the LAD, is intended as a narrowly drawn statutory exclusion. Power Squadrons, supra, 465 N.Y.S. 2d 871, 452 N.E. 2d at 1204 (stating that this exception does not refer simply to private clubs or establishments closed to the public but uses more restrictive language excluding from the statute's provisions only clubs which are `distinctly private'). Boy Scouts bears the burden of proving that it fits within this narrow exception. Cf. Spragg v. Shore Care & Shore Mem'l Hosp., 293 N.J.Super. 33, 51, 679 A. 2d 685 (App.Div.1996) (holding burden of proof on defendant-employer to prove bona fide occupational qualification exception to LAD). In deciding whether Boy Scouts is a place of public accommodation, we considered the organization's public solicitation activities. Solicitation of a broad membership base is closely related to the issue of selectivity in membership, which may explain why various courts have considered both factors in their analyses of both place of public accommodation and the distinctly private exception. See, e.g., Kiwanis, supra, 806 F. 2d at 476 (stating that distinctly private exception represents the other side of the `public accommodation' coin .... because of the emphasis placed on `selectivity' as the standard for determining `public accommodation,' as well as for determining if a club is `distinctly private'). We have reviewed the multiple ways in which Boy Scouts reaches out to the public and, therefore, will consider the selectivity issue as the principal determinant of distinctly private status. See Power Squadrons, supra, 465 N.Y.S. 2d 871, 452 N.E. 2d at 1204 (stating that the essence of a private club is selectivity in its membership). Thirty-three years ago, in Clover Hill Swimming Club, Inc. v. Goldsboro , we said that not every establishment using the `club' label can be considered `distinctly private.' Self-serving declarations by ... an accommodation are not determinative of its character. 47 N.J. at 34, 219 A. 2d 161. Although the swimming club had represented to the public that all applications [for membership] would be subject to approval by club officials, it appeared that Clover Hill was only selective when black families applied. Ibid. The Court refused to accept bogus representations concerning the private nature of the club when it was quite clear that membership was generally open and had to do with a family's interest in recreation and not much else. Ibid. Little League, citing Clover Hill, primarily relied on the baseball league's open [invitation] to children in the community at large, with no restriction (other than sex) whatever as a basis for the court's finding that the league was a public accommodation. 127 N.J.Super. at 531, 318 A. 2d 33. The lack of any membership selectivityexcept for the prohibition against the admission of girls weighed in the public accommodation calculus; it also bears upon the distinctly private exception. Kiwanis International v. Ridgewood Kiwanis Club is the only case to hold a club exempt under the distinctly private exception. 806 F. 2d at 477. The Third Circuit, relying on Little League, applied a selectivity analysis to determine whether Kiwanis Ridgewood was a public accommodation and, therefore, not distinctly private. Id. at 476-77. The court found that the local club was selective based on its membership practices, which were described as follows: The Ridgewood club is small, comprised of only twenty-eight members. Ten individuals have been members for over twenty years. Indeed, Kiwanis Ridgewood has admitted no more than twenty members over the course of the past decade. Each new member had to be sponsored by a current member, and formally voted in by the Ridgewood Board of Directors. The sponsorship of the existing member acted as a primary screening mechanism in the maintenance of the quality of membership. In addition to national membership requirements, Kiwanis Ridgewood established several local membership requirements, which included, among others, the candidate's willingness to pray at meetings and to recite the pledge of allegiance. Although Kiwanis International has encouraged large-scale membership solicitation in the past, the suggested membership roundup mailings were sent only to those prospects already known by current members. These individuals would be invited to a Kiwanis meeting to determine their compatibility with the organization's goals and members. The scope of these membership drives was limited. Not only did every solicited individual have to be known by an existing member, but every applicant out of that group of solicited individuals would have to be sponsored by an existing member. [ Id. at 475.] Unlike Kiwanis Ridgewood, which used sponsorship [by an] existing member ... as a primary screening mechanism in the maintenance of ... quality membership, Boy Scouts does not require new members to be sponsored by a current member. Ibid. Nor does Boy Scouts limit its recruiting, or invitations to the public, to individuals who are known by an existing member. To the contrary, Boy Scout publications indicate that the organization seeks a broad membership base. In a booklet, entitled A Representative Membership, [8] Boy Scouts states that its national objective, as well as for regions, areas, councils, and districts is to see that all eligible youth have the opportunity to affiliate with the Boy Scouts of America. Id. at 1 (emphasis added). The booklet is emphatically inclusive: We have high hopes for our nation's future. These hopes cannot flower if any part of our citizenry feels deprived of the opportunity to help shape the future. How can you persuade other Scouters to accept a commitment to a representative membership? Consider these facts: 1. Our federal charter sets forth our obligation to serve boys. Neither the charter nor the bylaws of the Boy Scouts of America permits the exclusion of any boy. The National Council and Executive Board have always taken the position that Scouting should be available for all boys who meet the entrance age requirements. .... 4. Another aim of Scouting is the development of leadership. Leadership in America is needed in all sections of the country and in all economic, cultural, and ethnic groups. 5. To meet these responsibilities we have made a commitment that our membership shall be representative of all the population in every community, district, and council. [ Id. at 2 (emphasis added).] Boy Scouts' large membership further undercuts its claim to selective membership. Nationally, over four million boys and one million adults were Boy Scout members in 1992. [9] Since its inception, over 87 million people have joined Boy Scouts. In 1991, Monmouth Council alone had over 8400 youths and over 2700 adult members. The New York Court of Appeals, construing distinctly private in United States Power Squadrons v. State Human Rights Appeal Board, has suggested that an organization's failure to limit its maximum membership, in and of itself, demonstrates that the club is not private: Organizations which routinely accept applicants and place no subjective limits on the number of persons eligible for membership are not private clubs. 465 N.Y.S. 2d 871, 452 N.E. 2d at 1204. We note only that the size of the Boy Scout organization certainly implies an open membership policy. Boy Scouts argues, however, that it is distinctly private because its Scout Oath and Scout Law constitute genuine selectivity criteria. In support of its position, Boy Scouts relies on Welsh v. Boy Scouts of America, wherein the Seventh Circuit stated: Although the Scouts intentionally admit a large number of boys from diverse backgrounds, admission to membership is not without exercise of sound discretion and judgment. This is evident from the Constitution and By-laws as well as the Boy Scouts' Oath and Scout Law. ... We hold therefore that the Scouts organization not only is selective, but that its very Constitution, By-laws and doctrine dictate that it remain selective. [993 F. 2d at 1276-77.] We acknowledge that Boy Scouts' membership application requires members to comply with the Scout Oath and Law. We do not find, however, that the Oath and Law operate as genuine selectivity criteria. To the contrary, the record discloses few instances in which the Oath and Law have been used to exclude a prospective member; in practice, they present no real impediment to joining Boy Scouts. Joining requirements are insufficient to establish selectivity where they do not function as true limits on the admission of members. See Power Squadrons, supra, 465 N.Y.S. 2d 871, 452 N.E. 2d at 1204 (requiring examination for basic boating course was not selective where club place[d] no subjective limits on the number of persons eligible for membership). Here, there is no evidence that Boy Scouts does anything but accept at face value a scout's affirmation of the Oath and Law. See Roberts v. United States Jaycees, 468 U.S. 609, 621, 104 S.Ct. 3244, 3251, 82 L.Ed. 2d 462, 473 (1984) (finding group unselective where new members are routinely recruited and admitted with no inquiry into their backgrounds). Most important, it is clear that Boy Scouts does not limit its membership to individuals who belong to a particular religion or subscribe to a specific set of moral beliefs. Boy Scouts asserts that [t]here is a close association between the Boy Scouts of America and virtually all religious bodies and denominations in the United States, and that each member's concept of moral fitness should be determined by his courage to do what his head and heart tell him is right. See supra at 575-76, 734 A. 2d at 1203. Moreover, Boy Scouts encourages its members to respect and defend the rights of others whose beliefs may differ. Scoutmaster Handbook, supra, at 561. By its own teachings then, Boy Scouts is inclusive, not selective, in its membership practices. Boy Scouts also argues that it is distinctly private because it is selective in its adult membership. In addition to the Scout Oath and Law requirements, adult members are bound by the Declaration of Religious Principle, and are subject to evaluation according to informal criteria designed to select only individuals capable of accepting responsibility for the moral education and care of other people's children in accordance with scouting values. Several of the Troop 73 leaders who were involved in Dale's adult membership approval have said that they would not have approved Dale's application had they known that Dale was an avowed homosexual, thus lending support to BSA's position. The Appellate Division's analysis of Boy Scouts' adult membership selectivity dispels the notion that an open membership organization can claim the distinctly private exception because it is selective as to a small subset of the larger group: We reject the suggestion that the BSA organization as a whole is not a place of public accommodation because more stringent membership criteria are applied to a single component of the organization, its adult members. Such a result is clearly inconsistent with the remedial purposes of the LAD. Acceptance of the argument would mean that public clubs in Clover Hill and Fraser, are not places of public accommodation because their member-counselors or lifeguards are subject to more stringent, enhanced training criteria. An extension of defendants' argument would be that the BSA is not a place of public accommodation because of the demanding standards that must be met to become an Eagle Scout. [ Dale, supra, 308 N.J.Super. at 538, 706 A. 2d 270 (citations omitted).] See also Brounstein, supra, 839 F.Supp. at 1107-08 (stating that [t]he fact that an organization is selective with respect to the privileges and benefits it accords to members does not exempt that organization from the proscriptions of the LAD if it is otherwise a `public place of accommodation'). Boy Scouts accepts boys who come from diverse cultures and who belong to different religions. It teaches tolerance and understanding of differences in others. It presents itself to its members and to the public generally as a nonsectarian organization available to all boys who meet the entrance age requirements. Its Charter and its Bylaws do not permit the exclusion of any boy. Boy Scouts is not distinctly private because it is not selective in its membership. Boy Scouts claims, however, that it is exempt from the LAD because it is an educational facility operated or maintained by a bona fide religious or sectarian institution. N.J.S.A. 10:5-5 l . This claim deserves little discussion. Boy Scouts repeatedly states that it is nonsectarian. Its Bylaws declare that no member shall be required to take part in or observe a religious ceremony distinctly unique to a church or other religious organization. Boy Scouts emphasizes that religious instruction is better reserved for the home and the organization or group with which the member is connected. Further, the Scoutmaster Handbook instructs its leaders that scouting is identified with no particular faith, encourages no particular affiliation, nor assumes functions of religious bodies. We cannot say that Boy Scouts is a bona fide religious or sectarian institution in the face of the organization's clear pronouncements on this subject. [10] Finally, Boy Scouts argues that requiring it to admit Dale frustrates the right of a natural parent or one in loco parentis to direct the education and upbringing of a child under his control. N.J.S.A. 10:5-5 l . The right of a parent to provide for the custody, care, and nurturing of a child is well-established. Ginsberg v. New York, 390 U.S. 629, 639, 88 S.Ct. 1274, 1280, 20 L. Ed. 2d 195, 203 (1968). In limited cases, that right is also extended to persons, like a stepparent, whose intent it is to assume the parental relationship. A.S. v. B.S., 139 N.J.Super. 366, 369, 354 A. 2d 100 (Ch.Div.1976). Boy Scouts does not qualify as one in loco parentis. Our prior decisions indicate that the status of in loco parentis is reserved for individuals who function as a parent. See, e.g., Miller v. Miller, 97 N.J. 154, 162, 478 A. 2d 351 (1984) (recognizing stepparent may have in loco parentis relationship); In re M.S., 73 N.J. 238, 243-44, 374 A. 2d 445 (1977) (finding juvenile shelter for delinquents stands in loco parentis ). Characteristics of that relationship include the responsibility to maintain, rear and educate the child, Miller, supra, 97 N.J. at 162, 478 A. 2d 351, as well as the duties of supervision, care and rehabilitation, In re M.S., supra, 73 N.J. at 242, 374 A. 2d 445; see also A.S., supra, 139 N.J.Super. at 369, 354 A. 2d 100 (defining role as one who means to put himself in the situation of the lawful father with reference to the father's office and duty of making provision for the child). Boy Scouts does not assume those responsibilities or those duties. It does not maintain or rear children. A Boy Scout leader may function as a supervisor of children for limited periods of time; he does not have the responsibility to maintain, rear and educate children such that he stands in the place of a parent. We hold that Boy Scouts is a place of public accommodation and is not exempt from the LAD under any of the statute's exceptions.
N.J.S.A. 10:5-4 states that [a]ll persons shall have the opportunity to obtain... all the accommodations, advantages, facilities, and privileges of any place of public accommodation. Because we hold that an assistant scoutmaster position is a privilege and an advantage of Boy Scout membership, and because Boy Scouts has revoked Dale's registration based on his avowed homosexuality, a prohibited form of discrimination under the statute, we conclude that Boy Scouts has violated the LAD. In Dale's revocation letter, Boy Scouts expressly stated that BSA membership registration is a privilege. Boy Scouts has also taken the position that adult membership and adult leadership are interchangeable in the scouting world. See supra at 577, 734 A. 2d at 1204. Boy Scouts' statements raise the question whether the organization has waived its right to challenge Dale's claim that he has been denied a privilege within the meaning of the LAD. We find, nonetheless, that Boy Scout membership is both a privilege and advantage. The organization provides its members with numerous benefits, including opportunities to participate in group activities and to develop a variety of skills, e.g., camping, cooking, first aid, lifesaving. Boy Scout leaders are given the advantage of numerous training courses that teach valuable lessons in leadership and management. Scouting indirectly benefits its members through the advantage of a large influential network, including Air Force Academy, Annapolis and West Point graduates, Rhodes Scholars, astronauts, United States Presidents and Congressmen, as well as businessmen and community leaders. Indeed, Boy Scouts advertises the privileges and advantages of being a member in order to attract new members. [11] See id. at 590, 734 A. 2d at 1211. It is undeniable that Dale lost those privileges and advantages when he was expelled. It necessarily follows that Boy Scouts violated the LAD when it expelled him.