Excerpted from January/February of The Greater Philpadelphia Story.
....A Pre-Hearing Conference took place on January 20, 1999. BSA stood firm against the PHRC's (Pennsylvania Human Relations Commission) ruling of Probably Cause. They are determined not to comply with the ruling and have refused to cooperate with any conciliation negotiations. The PHRC's only recourse is to take the BSA to the next phase of forced compliance: A public hearing.
To avoid the public trial, the BSA initiated a proceeding in Commonwealth Court asking, in essence, for the case to be thrown out of court without any hearing of the facts. As if indignant that they have to go through the legal processes like anyone else, the BSA made grandiose arguments. Repeatedly, it has claimed that it should not have to defend such a case because they must use contributor's money to defend it.
They asked for several seldom-used extraordinary remedies: Declaratory judgement, mandamus, and preliminary injunction....
....The BSA claimed that this proceeding would cause "irreperable harm" to it.....
Pamela Darville, the Assistant Chief Counsel for the PHRC, argued strongly against the BSA request. In a legal submission Darville said that the PHRC has "the authority to exercise its police power to ensure the fundamental rights of the Commonwealth's citizens to be free of unlawful discrimination"....
Fortunately, Commonwealth Court saw through the BSA strategy and ruled in our favor. It demanded that a public trial begin the week of May 17, 1999.
...Connecticut, Kansas, and Oregon cases against BSA failed because BSA was held not to be a "public accommodation" operating at a fixed location. What makes the outcome more hopeful in Pennsylvania is that an organization can be found to be a "public accommodation" which may not discriminate even though it does not have a particular location or place of business.... That is how it ought to be.
...the PHRC states that other organizations even smaller than the BSA have been forced to abide by anti-discrimination laws. The legal brief submitted by the PHRC points to the Rotary Club, Jaycees, Kiwanis, Fraternal Order of Eagles, International Association of Lions, YMCA, and the United States Power Squadron.
The BSA claims to be exempt and different from all of the above mentioned because it has its members cite an Oath which contains the terms "to do my duty to God." The PHRC contends that this Oath does not make the BSA "private" or "religious"
The strongest piece of evidence that the BSA is not "religious" or "private" is their own Congressional Charter. There is not one mention of religion in that Charter and the wording clearly states that the BSA is a public organization dedicated to teaching "Scoutcraft."