FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

July 29, 2002

Exclusion of Boy Scouts Held Constitutional

The United States District Court for the District of Connecticut ruled on Thursday, July 25, that the exclusion of the Boy Scouts of America (BSA) from the Connecticut State Employee Charitable Campaign because of its anti-gay policy in no way violates the Scouts’ constitutional rights.  This case, Boy Scouts of America v. Wyman, arose after the Connecticut Commission for Human Rights and Opportunities (CHRO) determined that including an organization in the campaign that discriminates against gay people violates Connecticut state law.  After the Comptroller of Connecticut subsequently barred the Boy Scouts from participation, the Scouts sued the Comptroller in federal court.  Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders (GLAD), together with cooperating attorney Maureen Murphy, intervened in the case at the CHRO and appeared as amicus in the federal court.

GLAD staff attorney Karen Loewy commented, “This ruling makes clear that while the Boy Scouts may be allowed to discriminate, they are not entitled to any special privileges from the state.”

The CHRO ruled in May 2000 that the Boy Scouts’ inclusion in the State Employee Charitable Campaign violated the Connecticut Gay Rights Law.  After the United States Supreme Court ruled in Dale v. Boy Scouts of America that the Scouts had an expressive association right to deny gay adults the opportunity to be volunteer Scout leaders, the CHRO confirmed its earlier ruling, explaining that although the Boy Scouts may be allowed to discriminate, they cannot participate in the State Charitable Campaign as long as they do.

The federal court today clarified that while the Scouts’ may be legally permitted to discriminate, there are consequences for them in other areas, and those consequences do not infringe their rights.  The court stated, “The BSA asks the court to declare that its lawful and constitutionally-protected right to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation is synonymous with compliance with the non-discrimination laws of the state, specifically the Gay Rights Law.  The Court finds to the contrary.”

GLAD represented itself and the Connecticut Women’s Education and Legal Fund (CWEALF) and the Connecticut Coalition for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Civil Rights before the CHRO and in federal court.