NJ Boy Scout Case

[Doug Laycock]

        Keeping in mind that I saw only a NY Times paraphase, and not the
opinion, two things were chilling:  that churches might be places of public
accommodation, and that churches were an easier case for that conclusion
than the Boy Scouts.  That is, the reasoning seemed to be that we might be
unsure about the public nature of the Boy Scouts, but we see they meet in
churches, so that clears it up.

At 11:25 AM 3/6/98 -0800, you wrote:
>On Fri, 6 Mar 1998 08:25:40 -0400 "Vance R. Koven"
><vrkoven at WORLD.STD.COM> writes:
>>Was there any indication in the opinion whether the Scounts had
>>asserted a First/Fourteenth Amendment associational right?
>
>Interesting question.  I should think it most interesting if they did not
>do so, since that is one of their prime arguments in the Randall/Mt.
>Diablo cases here in California.
>
>Question for Doug:  Is the chilling aspect that the Scouts were
>considered a public accomodation, or is it chilling that the court
>implied churchs are public places subject to public accomodation law?
>
>Don Roberts
>


Douglas Laycock
University of Texas Law School
727 E. Dean Keeton St.
Austin, TX  78705
        512-471-3275 (voice)
        512-471-6988 (fax)
        dlaycock at mail.law.utexas.edu