Boy Scouts of America v. Dale (2000)

In 1978, Jamesdale joined the Boy Scouts 73 team in Matawan, New Jersey at the age of eight. After 10 years of research and scouting at all levels, Dell was awarded the Eagle Scout badge. This is only one tenth of the honor of the Boy Scouts. Immediately after receiving the Eagle Scout badge, Dell became an adult member of Boy Scout. In addition, he was invited to become an assistant scout of force 73. After graduating from high school, Dell continued studying at Rutgers University.

Boy Scouts vs. Dell, 530 US 640 (2000) Private organizations choose their members based on sexual orientation, even though such discrimination is prohibited by the anti-discrimination law to protect public minorities , You can exile members. America versus Crookshank, 92 US 542 (1876) The second revision has no purpose other than to restrict the authority of the federal government. "Right to possess and possess weapons" in the sense of "possessing weapons for legitimate purposes" is not "right granted by the constitution" but "not depending on the existence of goods in any means ". (See the opinion of the Supreme Court Court of Morrison Remick Waite)

On April 26, 2000, adult Dell was an assistant scout of New Jersey's Boy Scout. When his position was canceled he filed a lawsuit against the Boy Scouts of the United States. The Boy Scouts fired him because he learned that Dell is a homosexual gay activist. Dell believes that the Boy Scouts infringes the domestic statues due to sexual orientation in public places and prohibits discrimination. Boy Scouts is a non-profit organization aimed at spreading value systems to young people. Homosexual behavior is contradictory to these values. (American Boy Scout Handout Handout, 1 page)

American Boy Scouts vs. Dale analyzed with "Right not related page". The court's decision that Boy Scouts have the right to eliminate homosexuality is based on the proposal of the first amendment that the organizations eliminate the members' rights that could impair the purpose or expression of the organization. In 2003, the Supreme Court judged that he disputed the law of Texas with a homosexual sodomy as a criminal proceeding instead of a homosexual sodomie. Lawrence vs. Texas lawsuit raises protection issues equivalent to substantial fair proceedings. With the fifth to the fourth round of voting, the court reversed the previous ruling of the Bowers v Hardwick case, and the state recognized that the state lacked legitimate interest in regulating adults' private sex acts. Judge O'Connor added the sixth vote to overturn the conviction, but her decision relied entirely on equal protection clauses. Judge Scalia objected to the majority of "signing a so-called homosexual agenda" and it can be predicted that he accused it.