BSA V. Dale Case Study

The respondent, James Dale, was a longtime Boy Scouts of America (BSA) member and eventually an assistant scoutmaster for his New Jersey troop. BSA is a private organization that holds certain values for the organization itself and its members. One of those expectations is that members of the organization should not participate in “homosexual conduct” (BSA V. Dale, 2000). Dale, however, was an activist for LGBT rights as well as a homosexual man. Because Dale’s homosexuality and LGBT activism went against the Boy Scouts of America’s values for its members. As a result, Dale decided to sue the Boy Scouts of America for revoking his Boy Scouts of America membership.

Noted in the facts earlier, the cased occurred because “Dale wrote to Kay requesting the reason for Monmouth Council’s decision. Kay responded by letter that the Boy Scouts “specifically forbid membership to homosexuals” (BSA v. Dale, 2000). Boy Scouts of America believes that its members should not conduct themselves as members of the LGBT community. Although the revocation of Dale’s membership may be portrayed as wrongful discrimination, it is not morally wrong for two reasons. Firstly, BSA may view homosexuality as morally inferior due to their fundamentally wrong beliefs but they have the moral right to do what is fundamentally wrong. Lastly, the act of revoking Dale’s membership may be deemed objectively demeaning but it isn’t wrongful discrimination because wrongful discrimination could occur in other ways besides being demeaning and “equal moral worth of persons” isn’t necessarily denied when one is demeaned. All things considered, it shouldn’t be determined that BSA wrongfully discriminated against

That objectively demeaning act is the revocation of Dale’s membership after BSA found out that Dale was homosexual. Hellman notes that Alexander’s mental state theory “may add to the wrongness of the discriminatory act, but they do not form the distinctive wrong-making feature of discrimination (Hellman 2008: 17)” (Lippert-Rasmussen). As noted above, the mental state of BSA may be deemed wrong but they do have the moral and legal right to have this policy. Looking again at Hellman’s theory, there is wrongful discrimination if: (1) “the relevant individual is perceived to have “equal moral worth of persons” and (2) if the discriminator has power over the discriminatee (Lippert-Rasmussen). It is undeniable that BSA is a superior to Dale. But, Dale’s termination might be deemed as demeaning but: (1) Dale was demeaned but that does not mean that his moral worth was denied, (2) wrongful discrimination discrimination doesn’t always equate to demeaning one’s moral worth, and (3) the act may have been demeaning but it does not it was