Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Boy Scouts Evicted
America's Debate > Archive > Assorted Issues Archive > [A] Big Trials and Legal Cases
Pages: 1, 2
Google
Dontreadonme
I didn't put this under the old ACLU thread, as it was primarily a NAMBLA oriented one.

I don't have a news link yet, but heard it on the radio coming back from lunch.

A judge in San Diego has ruled in favor of prohibiting the Boy Scouts of America from using Balboa Park, a public park in the area that the BSA has used for over 80 years, and has spent considerable time, effort and money to clean and maintain.
The suit was brought on with the help of the ACLU by a lesbian couple.

Again this is from the radio broadcast, until I get a news link. But here is the ACLU case in their own words. Link

My question is, are the Boy Scouts enough of a public menace to tolerance to warrant tying up court dockets with these lawsuits? The BSA presently pays $1 a year to use the facilities, so it would be understandable to charge them market value, but they are being evicted because they as a private organization do not wish to have openly gay members.

Is this a mean spirited attack on freedom of association, or necessary litigation?


On edit: Found a news link Here
Google
Bill55AZ
Kalifornia is the place to be! I vote mean spirited. It seems to be a requirement to be a member of the ACLU.
Ataal
Amazing, a lawsuit brought on to hinder freedom by an organization that advocates freedom.
Billy Jean
That's a terrible ruling. The judge and the ACLU aught to be ashamed of them selves. dry.gif
Ataal
QUOTE
Judge Napoleon A. Jones Jr. ruled that by not letting others bid on the lease, the deal promoted a religious organization, thus violating the establishment clause, or First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.


The city failed to follow its usual procedures in leasing property and instead engaged in "private, exclusive negotiations culminating in another long-term lease of the Balboa Park property," he wrote in his ruling.


Just saw the news link and it does put a new perspective on the ruling.

That being said, since I've seen no cases where the boy scouts were using that park as an anti-gay rally or using it to beat gays up or anything, it seems since the BSA have been there for so long, the only people that have a problem with them being there are gays, and it looks like the ACLU used this ruling as a spotlight to show the nation how evil the boy scouts are.

Just remember, those kids in the boy scouts just want to get their merit badges, have fun, and live life. They have no interest in anyone's political agenda. I was in boy scouts and they certainly don't preach anti-gay sentiments to the kids. They wouldn't even know of the controversial issue if it weren't for all the media hype. It's sad that these kids are being used as pawns in a political arena.
Billy Jean
QUOTE
the only people that have a problem with them being there are gays, and it looks like the ACLU used this ruling as a spotlight to show the nation how evil the boy scouts are.


EXCUSE ME!? I'm gay and I found the ruling despicable. Please don't make generalizations like that. dry.gif I loved the Girl Scouts when I was a child and I think both organizations do a lot of good.
Ataal
I'm sorry Billy Jean, I should've worded that more carefully. flowers.gif
Victoria Silverwolf
Wow, I get to be the only person who supports this ruling. smile.gif

From what I can gather from the facts of this case, the government awarded the use of this land to the Boy Scouts without considering any other bid. That is, they gave special consideration to this organization above all other organizations. That's a big no-no, because the Boy Scouts is a religious organization.

Belief in God is a mandatory requirement for joining the Boy Scouts. You cannot join the Boy Scouts just to have fun without being a theist or lying about your religious beliefs.

I have no objection to the Boys Scouts, or any other private organization, having whatever requirements they deem fit for membership. (I reserve the right to denounce these requirements, of course.) I have a strong objection to any government support for any religious organization.

(The open discrimination against homosexuals by the Boy Scouts is a secondary issue here, as there is, sadly, not yet a Constitutional ban on government support of organizations that practice this form of discrimination. There is, in my view, a clear Constitutional ban on government support of organizations that discriminate on the basis of religion.)
Ataal
QUOTE
Belief in God is a mandatory requirement for joining the Boy Scouts. You cannot join the Boy Scouts just to have fun without being a theist or lying about your religious beliefs.


Where do you get that idea? I do not believe in god, I was in the boy scouts and I never lied about it.

Is it because of the oath that has the word "god" in it? I suppose it's mandatory to believe in god to use our nation's currency, or to say the pledge of allegiance too?
Rattlesnake
It's the BSA's own fault for being homophobic. It doesn't matter if the individual boy scouts are homophobic, because they belong to an organization that is. I don't see what's so terrible about forcing them to take their business elsewhere. If the KKK wanted to set up office there, would you support it?
Google
Abs like Jesus
Boy Scout Leader Kicked out for Atheist Beliefs
QUOTE
"We don't define God," says Scout spokesman Mark Hunter, "but we ask that each of our leaders subscribe to that, our declaration of religious principles."

...the Scouts say as a private organization that does not receive federal funding, it has the right to require its members to believe the same principles.

"Although we respect his beliefs," says Hunter, "his right to choose what he believes, we're just asking that our belief system be respected as well."


Hope that proves helpful, Ataal.

While I think it's ridiculous that this issue should have to go to court for any reason, I would rather see it averted not by the ACLU but by organizations like the Boy Scounts adopting a little more tolerance. On the basis of the ruling I agree that there should have been open bidding rather than the special consideration.
Ataal
QUOTE
If the KKK wanted to set up office there, would you support it?


If they were using it for non-violent means, why shouldn't I? Because I don't agree with their philosophy?

That "homophobic" thing is getting old by the way. Instead of rationalizing your statements, you just call them names because you disagree with their beliefs.

QUOTE
Hope that proves helpful, Ataal.


Actually, it's not. It's obviously a local community thing because I spent years in boy scouts and was never once told that I had to believe in god or I'm out of there, and that was in Utah. Maybe they have stricter guidelines on scout leaders, I don't know.
ConservPat
QUOTE(Rattlesnake @ Aug 6 2003, 04:26 PM)
It's the BSA's own fault for being homophobic. It doesn't matter if the individual boy scouts are homophobic, because they belong to an organization that is. I don't see what's so terrible about forcing them to take their business elsewhere. If the KKK wanted to set up office there, would you support it?

Come on Rattlesnake, the KKK and Boy Scouts, that's kinda a stretch. If these individual KIDS are not homophobic, there is no reason to deprive them of a park that THEY helped maintain.

CP us.gif
CruisingRam
Although the KKK is not the boyscouts, I was an eagle scout and it certainly is a quasi-religious organization, and has kicked out openly gay scout masters, so therefore, this ruling is legitimate. If you take a political stance as an organization pro or con to an issue, expect to have your goverment perks taken from you. For instance, 90% of BSA packs meet in schools here. This is a goverment funded building, so unless they are going to allow some Anti-boyscout organization equal access to the building, they are very vunerable to this kind of ruling. I have to say, though it kinda sucks, the BSA brought this on themselves, and should quit whining like they are the victim here!
ConservPat
QUOTE(CruisingRam @ Aug 6 2003, 04:34 PM)
Although the KKK is not the boyscouts, I was an eagle scout and it certainly is a quasi-religious organization, and has kicked out openly gay scout masters, so therefore, this ruling is legitimate. If you take a political stance as an organization pro or con to an issue, expect to have your goverment perks taken from you. For instance, 90% of BSA packs meet in schools here. This is a goverment funded building, so unless they are going to allow some Anti-boyscout organization equal access to the building, they are very vunerable to this kind of ruling. I have to say, though it kinda sucks, the BSA brought this on themselves, and should quit whining like they are the victim here!

These specific boys have done nothing to warrant them to be kicked out of this park. Kicking them out because of what other scout groups have done is unfair.

CP us.gif
CruisingRam
All scout groups belong to the BSA- and it was the national group that started thier homophobic policy, one I though really flew in the face of what the BSA I grew up with emphasized, and I was quite disappointed, and stop volunteering myself when they became just another extension of Falwell and the Christian Coalition- ALL, AND I MEAN ALL scout groups have become vunerable to lawsuits because of this, and I think they had better change thier message of hate or disband soon, or hire a bunch of tobacco lawyers that burns up a good chunk of thier money every year, cause I would sue em myself if they start being all preachy here too!
ConservPat
QUOTE(CruisingRam @ Aug 6 2003, 04:42 PM)
All scout groups belong to the BSA- and it was the national group that started thier homophobic policy, one I though really flew in the face of what the BSA I grew up with emphasized, and I was quite disappointed, and stop volunteering myself when they became just another extension of Falwell and the Christian Coalition- ALL, AND I MEAN ALL scout groups have become vunerable to lawsuits because of this, and I think they had better change thier message of hate or disband soon, or hire a bunch of tobacco lawyers that burns up a good chunk of thier money every year, cause I would sue em myself if they start being all preachy here too!

But the point is that individuals are being penalized for what the group that they belong to have done. That is like all citizens of Nazi Germany being put up for war crimes.

CP us.gif
Abs like Jesus
QUOTE
These specific boys have done nothing to warrant them to be kicked out of this park. Kicking them out because of what other scout groups have done is unfair.


They are part of the same organization. The benefit from the group as a whole and they have legal action taken against them as a whole. That's just the way it works. Had they openly bid on the property rather than received it by way of special consideration they likely could have remained on the property even in spite of their more narrow policies.
CruisingRam
QUOTE(Conservpat @ Aug 6 2003, 08:45 PM)
QUOTE(CruisingRam @ Aug 6 2003, 04:42 PM)
All scout groups belong to the BSA- and it was the national group that started thier homophobic policy, one I though really flew in the face of what the BSA I grew up with emphasized, and I was quite disappointed, and stop volunteering myself when they became just another extension of Falwell and the Christian Coalition- ALL, AND I MEAN ALL scout groups have become vunerable to lawsuits because of this, and I think they had better change thier message of hate or disband soon, or hire a bunch of tobacco lawyers that burns up a good chunk of thier money every year, cause I would sue em myself if they start being all preachy here too!

But the point is that individuals are being penalized for what the group that they belong to have done. That is like all citizens of Nazi Germany being put up for war crimes.

CP us.gif

If you are going to use nazi germany in context, remember that youth organizations there (aryan youth) targeted gays and gypsys BEFORE jews and by extension, the BSA is sliding much more into that realm that not allowing them to play in a park!
ConservPat
QUOTE(CruisingRam @ Aug 6 2003, 04:51 PM)
QUOTE(Conservpat @ Aug 6 2003, 08:45 PM)
QUOTE(CruisingRam @ Aug 6 2003, 04:42 PM)
All scout groups belong to the BSA- and it was the national group that started thier homophobic policy, one I though really flew in the face of what the BSA I grew up with emphasized, and I was quite disappointed, and stop volunteering myself when they became just another extension of Falwell and the Christian Coalition- ALL, AND I MEAN ALL scout groups have become vunerable to lawsuits because of this, and I think they had better change thier message of hate or disband soon, or hire a bunch of tobacco lawyers that burns up a good chunk of thier money every year, cause I would sue em myself if they start being all preachy here too!

But the point is that individuals are being penalized for what the group that they belong to have done. That is like all citizens of Nazi Germany being put up for war crimes.

CP us.gif

If you are going to use nazi germany in context, remember that youth organizations there (aryan youth) targeted gays and gypsys BEFORE jews and by extension, the BSA is sliding much more into that realm that not allowing them to play in a park!

My point is that generalizing a group of people because something out of there control happened somewhere else is unfair.

CP us.gif
Mrs. Pigpen
I am curious if the ACLU allows homophobes, racists, or religious zealots into their organization. If not, they are clearly discriminating on the grounds of personal belief systems. As such an organization, I certainly hope they are restricted by the standards they would impose on others.
Dontreadonme
QUOTE
and I think they had better change thier message of hate or disband soon

I was wondering how long it would take for someone to trot out the old liberal mantra, that if you don't agree with something, let's call it 'hate'.
So much for tolerance and diversity, guess that doesn't apply to those who make the rules about tolerance and diversity.

If you run a private organization that doesn't allow conservative views, does that make it a hate group?
The boy scouts have the right to freedom of association, maybe not the free use of public facilities, but they can allow in whomever meets the criteria.
Too bad the fine young men throughout the last century who have gone on to do great things in their community are now homophobes.
nileriver
I donít think the ACLU has plans to come in your house and question you on your views. BSA is a very large group, it has power and influence, and therefore in these days it can be part of any raging political front, its really simple. The powers that be, conservative or what not cant restrict liberty, by saying gay and lesbian lifestyle is illegal,
That is what they are doing.
Dontreadonme
QUOTE
I donít think the ACLU has plans to come in your house and question you on your views. BSA is a very large group, it has power and influence, and therefore in these days it can be part of any raging political front, its really simple. The powers that be, conservative or what not cant restrict liberty, by saying gay and lesbian lifestyle is illegal,
That is what they are doing.

If I get the gist of what you're saying Nile, I don't agree with the premise that the BSA is saying anything about homosexuality should be illegal.
They are simply exercising their right of associating with like minded, and like valued people.
Mrs. Pigpen
QUOTE(Dontreadonme @ Aug 6 2003, 02:15 PM)
If I get the gist of what you're saying Nile, I don't agree with the premise that the BSA is saying anything about homosexuality should be illegal.
They are simply exercising their right of associating with like minded, and like valued people.

EXACTLY! This isn't about making homosexuality illegal rolleyes.gif The ACLU is getting out of hand. If I had a bunch of time and money on my hands, I'd organize a Christian fundamentalist (even though I'm certainly not a fundamentalist) movement and hand out brochures at churches everywhere urging them to go to ACLU meetings and loudly offer their own suggestions as to how the organization should be run. Wouldn't that be a hoot? Thousands of fundies crashing the ACLU parties accompanied by discrimination lawsuits if they weren't allowed in, or silenced.
Ataal
QUOTE
I was an eagle scout and it certainly is a quasi-religious organization


Which religion are they a part of? I know these groups base many of their values on fundamental religious principals(what a horrible atrocity!), but none of them are an authority of any one religion, which would be the only time government would have to step back away from issues like these. The law does not seperate government from all religions, it seperates itself from a national religion, or an establishment thereof.
Rattlesnake
QUOTE
I don't agree with the premise that the BSA is saying anything about homosexuality should be illegal.  They are simply exercising their right of associating with like minded, and like valued people.


So if I were to start a group that considered only white Aryans to be "like minded, like valued people," then the government should give me a place to hold meetings and have recreation? Even though we don't allow any black or latino people to join, and in fact malign them as a group that's unacceptable to our morals and values, the government should allow us use of public facilities basically for free? Where exactly is the border drawn? How much bigotry is allowed before a group is "really" bigoted? Does the organization have to be focused on bigotry, or can it just have bigoted policies? Are certain groups (i.e. gays and atheists) "ok" to be descriminated against, but others aren't? Why not just say cut the *** NOTICE: THIS WORD IS AGAINST THE RULES. FAILURE TO REMOVE IT WILL RESULT IN A STRIKE. *** and not do any business with any bigoted organizations?


This is a homophobic religious organization. They shouldn't get government sponsership, and they shouldn't be a business partner for the government. They're perfectly welcome to their close-minded, gay-hating views, but they can take their business eslewhere, because there's certainly a similar place that's privatly owned. I thought conservatives were supposed to be pro-private sector, but apparently they're all over big government when it supports a homophobic organization.


QUOTE
If I had a bunch of time and money on my hands, I'd organize a Christian fundamentalist (even though I'm certainly not a fundamentalist) movement and hand out brochures at churches everywhere urging them to go to ACLU meetings and loudly offer their own suggestions as to how the organization should be run.


Nice to see you've got such great priorities about solving America's problems.
BecomingHuman
I don't see what the problem is from a legal standpoint:

"In their letter, the ACLU and THLA point out that both Boy Scout leases bar discrimination based on religion and provide that the Boy Scouts must abide by all laws and regulations of the City of San Diego. The City's Human Dignity Ordinance bans discrimination based on sexual orientation."

If the Boy Scouts don't abide by San Diego law, then the leases are void. Our way or the highway. If the boy scouts sent a letter back that said "We would never dream of discriminating someone based on their sexual orientation." This wouldn't be an issue.

So they can either discriminate and not get any government subsidy; or tolerate gays and get support. As long as gay people in Sand Diego pay taxes, tax money should not pay for something that discriminates against gays.
ConservPat
I would like to see any evidence that connects this particular branch of the Boy Scouts with descrimination against gays, anyone?

CP us.gif
Rattlesnake
Conserv, since the KKK is a racism organization and they have racist policies, you can safely assume that every branch is racist. Since it's BSA offical policy to not allow gays to become scout masters, I would have to say that the burden of proof falls upon you to prove that they deviate from offical BSA policy.
CruisingRam
CP- that is almost as ridiculous as an argument as the catholic church not being responsible for pedophilia in it's ranks as a whole, only the particular diocese. If your national organization allows discrimination by sexual orientation, then by extension the local branch is affected by this "corporate culture"- if the local chapter would come out and say "we do not discriminate based on sexual orientation"- which they certainly had the opportunity to do so in the court case, this would have been moot right? Apparently they had no intention of doing that, otherwise they would have won the case!
Dontreadonme
QUOTE
QUOTE†
I don't agree with the premise that the BSA is saying anything about homosexuality should be illegal.† They are simply exercising their right of associating with like minded, and like valued people.


So if I were to start a group that considered only white Aryans to be "like minded, like valued people," then the government should give me a place to hold meetings and have recreation? Even though we don't allow any black or latino people to join, and in fact malign them as a group that's unacceptable to our morals and values, the government should allow us use of public facilities basically for free? Where exactly is the border drawn? How much bigotry is allowed before a group is "really" bigoted? Does the organization have to be focused on bigotry, or can it just have bigoted policies? Are certain groups (i.e. gays and atheists) "ok" to be descriminated against, but others aren't? Why not just say cut the *** NOTICE: THIS WORD IS AGAINST THE RULES. FAILURE TO REMOVE IT WILL RESULT IN A STRIKE. *** and not do any business with any bigoted organizations?

Even though you quoted me, I think you only read what you wanted to, here let me help.
QUOTE
The boy scouts have the right to freedom of association, maybe not the free use of public facilities, but they can allow in whomever meets the criteria.


I am essentially agreeing that they probably should not be given free use of public facilities.
But it sure didn't take much to bring out all the talk of gay-hating, homophobia, and bigots.
My my, all the names people have for people or groups they don't like.
I thought liberals were pro-tolerance. (Oh yeah, not when it's not politically correct...I forgot)
Rattlesnake
I don't really have anything against the boyscouts except they're homophobic and a little cheesy, so I don't exactly see what my motivation would be other than that political disagreement to "not like" them. Oh, and yes, I don't tolerate people who are homophobic, racist or anti-Semitic. Do you?


Oh, and I apologize, my post wasn't as much directed at you personally as towards the entire "this is outragous" group.
Dontreadonme
I agree that the BSA can be mighty cheesy. flowers.gif

I just think the term homophobic has been thrown around waaaay too much. If the BSA is considered homophobic, then so are most organized religions, and (I'm assuming) a large chunk of the population.

Just because you don't agree with a lifestyle or a certain type of people or group and don't wish to associate with them, doesn't mean you should be forced to, on a personal level anyway. Freedom of association.

BTW, I'm not homophobic, I agree with my party's stance on that.
Bill55AZ
QUOTE(Rattlesnake @ Aug 6 2003, 10:07 PM)

This is a homophobic religious organization.



I suppose you are an expert on homophobic religious organizations?
My experience with scouts is that religion and sexual orientation are discussed almost .001% of the time.
Churches sponsor them, so they will have a place to meet, but that is about as far as it goes. The 2 lesbians who brought the suit have done more to damage acceptance of their orientation than all the Boy Scouts that ever were or will be.
This is where my sympathy for their issues stop, when they get mean and vindictive and lash out and hurt others just to show that they can.
Tolerance is not a one way street. mad.gif
CruisingRam
Whenever you discriminate based on a sexual orientation or race, you are participating in a hate based organization, unless it is in a religious setting, with no goverment help, such as in a church, that has religious beliefs contrary to the orientation, though it is a little more gray against race. The mormon church would not allow blacks to be preists in the church until 1978, pretty hard core discrimination there as well. So I stick by the hate moniker, simply because they don't go out and beat up homosexuals as an organization, they certainly advicate discrimination against them, which now changes them to organization with ideals of hate.
Dontreadonme
Lumping the BSA into hate organizations cheapens the efforts and hard work combating REAL hate groups.

And some have posted here that the BSA is a religous organization. So that means they're OK, right?
Ataal
QUOTE
I don't tolerate people who are homophobic, racist or anti-Semitic


Well, I do. Not because I agree with them(I don't), but they have just as much right to believe what they want as I do. As long as they operate peacefully, why should I not tolerate them?
Rattlesnake
I never said we should silence them, I said I didn't tolerate them, as in I wouldn't allow them in my home or be their friend.
Mrs. Pigpen
QUOTE(Rattlesnake @ Aug 6 2003, 03:07 PM)
So if I were to start a group that considered only white Aryans to be "like minded, like valued people," then the government should give me a place to hold meetings and have recreation? Are certain groups (i.e. gays and atheists) "ok" to be descriminated against, but others aren't? Why not just say cut the *** NOTICE: THIS WORD IS AGAINST THE RULES. FAILURE TO REMOVE IT WILL RESULT IN A STRIKE. *** and not do any business with any bigoted organizations?

BSA is not a hate group, and apparently, it IS okay to discriminate, if the discrimination is based upon an anti-religious stance.
QUOTE
Nice to see you've got such great priorities about solving America's problems.

True, but fortunately my priorities aren't quite as low as an organization which would spend its time and money barring a group of little boys from camping in parks.
nileriver
I donít see the ACLU out on the streets trying to make religion illegal. I do see them going to every extreme to make it so minority groups that are of no real harm from being made illegal, that is a small difference, I wait for a report of the ACLU tape recoding church meetings to send fines, but they never do that. How is a society to escape its woes if certain groups of adults believe its the right thing to do in respects in instructing their children on who and why to hate or discriminate against, but that has nothing to do with this. Why did the couple make that case in the first place against the BSA, i seemed to miss that.
Ataal
QUOTE
I never said we should silence them, I said I didn't tolerate them, as in I wouldn't allow them in my home or be their friend.


Oh, absolutely. However, your version of tolerance is different than the mainstream definition of tolerance. I would imagine that the tolerance ads are not advocating everyone to allow gays, minorities, etc... into their home or be their friend, but to allow them their right of peace, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Maybe I'm nit-picking on words and their meanings, but I just wanted to make sure we're talking about the same thing.
quarkhead
QUOTE(BecomingHuman @ Aug 6 2003, 03:08 PM)
I don't see what the problem is from a legal standpoint:

"In their letter, the ACLU and THLA point out that both Boy Scout leases bar discrimination based on religion and provide that the Boy Scouts must abide by all laws and regulations of the City of San Diego. The City's Human Dignity Ordinance bans discrimination based on sexual orientation."

If the Boy Scouts don't abide by San Diego law, then the leases are void.  Our way or the highway.  If the boy scouts sent a letter back that said "We would never dream of discriminating someone based on their sexual orientation."  This wouldn't be an issue.  

So they can either discriminate and not get any government subsidy; or tolerate gays and get support.  As long as gay people in Sand Diego pay taxes, tax money should not pay for something that discriminates against gays.

becominghuman has hit the nail on the head, and this point deserves to be stated again. This is about a point of law.

I'm surprised at the level of bickering in this thread. We have "liberals" bashing the BSA, and I was shocked to see libertarians bashing the ACLU.

This case isn't about the "bigger" debate. The ACLU was right on the money here.

Those of you who claim to be libertarians, the ACLU will defend ANYBODY who's civil liberties are being abused, regardless of their political leanings. They have defended religious groups, the KKK, conservatives, and liberals.

The BSA is in the same boat (or should be) as ANY private group. They have the right to choose their own membership based on their own criteria - but they are still subject to contractual laws and statutes. And IF they discriminate against a protected group of people, they should NOT receive any federal or local governmental funding or "perks." Period. It's easy to dismiss the case against the BSA in our minds, because they are by and large a benevolent and positive force in society. But because they do practice a form of discrimination, they should either change their policy, or give up all public assistance.

I think DTOM's question:
QUOTE
My question is, are the Boy Scouts enough of a public menace to tolerance to warrant tying up court dockets with these lawsuits? The BSA presently pays $1 a year to use the facilities, so it would be understandable to charge them market value, but they are being evicted because they as a private organization do not wish to have openly gay members.
Is this a mean spirited attack on freedom of association, or necessary litigation?

is a bit specious. The first question particularly puts quite a spin on the issue. As if a group which is NOT a public menace is somehow not subject to the same laws as any group that may BE a public menace.

This lawsuit in NO WAY attacks the BSA's freedom of association. This lawsuit, by defending the idea that private groups may not be given special privilege, is defending the Constitution for all of us.

We should be down on our libertarian knees, thanking the ACLU. smile.gif
DaytonRocker
I'm confused about a couple things.

First, why would a person be compelled to tell the Boy Scouts who they want to have sex with? I didn't realize the Boy Scouts were about sex. When I was the assistant Scoutmaster for my son's troop, I don't recall rewarding boys with merit badges for heterosexuality.

I didn't walk into Scouts and say, "Hey, I like to have sex with women!" and have everybody slap me on the back and let me in. Truthfully, someone having to even drag sexual behavior into an organization designed to teach our youth values and morals creeps me out. I would be just as creeped out as somebody wanting to be a leader that happened to be the president of his local charter of The United States Masturbation Society (I just made that up, so any resemblance to any actual organization is purely coincidental).

I would imagine there are plenty of gays in scouts who haven't felt the need to advertise they like to have sex with the same gender of people they camp out with. If they don't feel a need to bring sex into the organization, who cares?

Secondly, if gays have so much grief with the Boy Scouts stance on this, why not create your own organization that is more sexually oriented and supports the gay lifestyle?

The Boy Scouts are not about sex. Making it about sex is reason enough for me to keep you the hell away from my kids.
Dontreadonme
Addendum to the original question.

According to a guest on The O'Reilly Factor, Balboa Park in San Diego, was originally given to the city specifically for the Boy Scouts, and others, to use. I am still looking for a news site link to this.

If this is true, does this change anybody's stand?
Ataal
To play devil's advocate for a seond. I guess you could argue that if the boy scouts are not about sex, what would it matter if they had a gay scout leader. Maybe they should have a don't ask, don't tell policy?

But, I can concur, I don't remember any mention of sex, heterosexual or not in boy scouts. The BSA develops both mental and physical skills in young men to help them become better people. If that's hateful, then I guess I'm all for hateful organizations.
DaytonRocker
QUOTE
To play devil's advocate for a seond. I guess you could argue that if the boy scouts are not about sex, what would it matter if they had a gay scout leader. Maybe they should have a don't ask, don't tell policy?


As a hateful, overprotective father, I wouldn't want anybody camping with my son or daughter that advertised his/her heterosexuality or celibacy. The need to advertise one's sexual behavior is a big enough problem to me when you're talking about spending the night with any of my kids.
Bill55AZ
QUOTE(Dontreadonme @ Aug 7 2003, 12:13 AM)
Addendum to the original question.

According to a guest on The O'Reilly Factor, Balboa Park in San Diego, was originally given to the city specifically for the Boy Scouts, and others, to use. I am still looking for a news site link to this.

If this is true, does this change anybody's stand?

A part of it was set aside for an indigent women's shelter, and boys/girls clubs, etc. but later reverted to the city. That is as much as I could find. The park's history goes way back, pre-BSA.
Mrs. Pigpen
QUOTE(Ataal @ Aug 6 2003, 05:18 PM)
To play devil's advocate for a seond.  I guess you could argue that if the boy scouts are not about sex, what would it matter if they had a gay scout leader.  Maybe they should have a don't ask, don't tell policy?


Some (most) already do.

http://www.datalounge.com/datalounge/news/...tml?record=8346
http://wakingbear.com/boyscout.htm

QUOTE
The San Francisco Examiner reported in mid-December 1996 that the San Francisco Bay Area Council of Boy Scouts, representing 33,000 Scouts and 5,500 Scout leaders in San Francisco and Alameda counties, had quietly approved a policy that would allow gay men and boys to participate in Scout activities as long as members did not openly advocate homosexuality.
Curmudgeon
QUOTE(Ataal @ Aug 6 2003, 05:22 PM)
Which religion are they a part of?

In the link in the first item in the thread, the ACLU states:
QUOTE
After a long series of court battles, the California Supreme Court last year ruled that the Boy Scouts are a completely private religious organization, making them exempt from non-discrimination laws and permitting them to exclude boys and adult leaders who are agnostic, atheist or gay. 

If I am reading their site correctly, they are stating that the Boy Scouts have been determined, in California at least, to be a religious organization. Now I know that schools have rented gyms out to churches who are trying to get established, but I think that the Boy Scouts are a very well established organization. A $1.00 per year lease sounds like a susidy to me. It sounds as though the ACLU is right on target.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2014 Invision Power Services, Inc.