Boy Scouts of America (BSA) v. Dale
When the Council Executive James Kay was asked to identify reasons for the decision, he contended that membership for the BSA forbade homosexuals. He noted that Dale had appeared in a photograph run by a newspaper at Rutgers as the gay and lesbian campus organizations co-president, in which he admitted to being a homosexual (BSA-discrimination, 2008). Therefore, he had proven unable to live by the law and oath of the scouts through a public avowal of his homosexuality. Dale countered that his expulsion was in violation of anti-discrimination laws in NJ that prohibited discrimination, in this case, based on sexual and affectional orientation. In his suit, he sought damages and a reinstating order (BSA-discrimination, 2008).
The suit was dismissed by a trial court, which ruled that the BSA had excluded open homosexuals consistently (Legal Information Institute, 2010). The court decided that, biblically and historically, homosexuality was criminal and morally wrong. Since the BSA had subscribed to the view from when it was incepted and the law did not apply to it. This is especially because the BSA did not ascribe to being a public accommodation place, as well as the fact that they could not be compelled to accept homosexuality, as it would be in violation of their First Amendment Freedom of Association rights. However, this was overturned by the Superior Court in NJ, concluding that, under the LAD, the association was a place of public accommodation.