Written: 1/2/2013
The 9th circuit of appeals has ruled that cities may offer the BSA reduced rent.
I’m not a legal scholar by a long shot, but even to me the ruling sounds a bit fishy. What I took away from it (and please correct me if I’m wrong) is that even though the BSA discriminates, and in this case it was determined they do based on religious principles, since that is not their main operational concern, the city can give them a lower rent, at the cost of taxpayers.
I guess I’m a bit torn. Here in Pa., there are massive tax breaks for (oil) companies coming in to help create jobs (that’s what we’ll go with, yeah). A non-profit isn’t creating that many jobs. Yes, the services they provide to the community and the youth of the community are valuable, but how do you measure that against other non-profits.
If it’s just a sense of tradition, that’s not a reason at all to give out a tax break, and again, who gets to decide what’s a tradition?
Like I said, I don’t understand legal cases like this, but it’s still a shame to see taxpayer money going to help fund discrimination.
All my best,
Mike
