Boy Scouts Decision Goes Against Atheists, Agnostics : Discrimination: The Supreme Court ruling has only limited significance. It will not have an impact on three cases in the Southland.

The Boy Scouts of America may deny membership to atheists and agnostics without violating federal anti-discrimination laws, according to the Supreme Court, which declined Monday to hear an appeal of a federal court ruling on the issue.

In May, a U.S. appeals court in Chicago concluded that the federal law forbidding discrimination in “places of public accommodation” did not include private groups such as the Boy Scouts. The ruling dismissed a lawsuit filed on behalf of a 7-year-old Illinois boy who refused to make the required Boy Scout pledge to “do my duty to God and my country.”

The high court’s refusal to hear the appeal has only limited significance, however. Indeed, lawyers in California said it has no impact on pending lawsuits against the Boy Scouts in Los Angeles, Orange County and San Diego.

Those suits, involving both gays and agnostics, rely on the state’s broader civil rights act. Unlike the federal law, which applies only to public places such as hotels and restaurants, California law forbids discrimination “in all business establishments . . . whatsoever.”

The law has been interpreted to include private organizations, such as Rotary Clubs. It has also been interpreted to forbid discrimination based on sexual orientation.

Attorney James G. Randall of Anaheim Hills called the high court action “merely a blip on the radar screen as far as we’re concerned. It has no effect or significance at all.”

Randall represents his twin 12-year-old sons, who refused to acknowledge a belief in God.

He won a ruling from an Orange County judge who said that the Boys Scouts’ ban on agnostics violates the state civil rights act. The Superior Court ruling, which is now under appeal, also rejected the Boy Scouts’ claim that they have a constitutional right to choose their members.

By contrast, the Boy Scouts prevailed on that issue in a Los Angeles case. Acting in a 12-year-old case involving a gay man, a judge in Los Angeles said that the Scouts are a private group and have a “freedom of association” right to select their membership. Appeals in that case were heard last week. A decision is pending.

In the San Diego case, El Cajon police officer Chuck Merino is suing the Scouts for discrimination because he was expelled from a leadership post after it was learned that he is gay.

The case acted on Monday concerned the reach of the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964. It forbids “discrimination or segregation” based on race, religion or national origin in places of “public accommodation.”

In a lawsuit filed by his father, Mark Welsh contended that the same provision barred the Boy Scouts from excluding him because of his religious beliefs.

In a 2-1 ruling, the U.S. Court of Appeals threw out his claim. “We hold that (the law) does not apply to the scouting organization because it is not an establishment that serves the public and thus it is not a place of public accommodation,” wrote Judge John L. Coffey.

No federal court has come to a different conclusion, and the justices rejected further appeals in the case (Welsh vs. Boy Scouts of America, 93-597).

Times staff writer Matt Lait contributed to this story from Orange County.