A reasonable solution to the Boy Scout dilemma

[justwannano]

Do the Girl scouts have a policy about male leaders?
ENugent asked
Does anyone know if 4-H has a policy on sexuality? (No bestiality jokes, please).
I don’t believe they do. At least I haven’t heard of it.
I’m sort of a leader,I just do what they ask,ha ha ha , and no one has ever mentioned it to me. 4H is also a lot more family oriented than boy scouts.

[Wump]

*Originally posted by justwannano *
**Do the Girl scouts have a policy about male leaders?
<snip>
**

i don’t know if this answers your question or not, but in my venturer group (the next level up from scouts in canada) and for all the other levels, if there are girls in the group, there must be at least one female leader. I don’t believe we have exclusive girl scouts, unless they’re the same thing as girl guides, in which case male leaders are not allowed.

As for having gays in scouts, i wouldn’t care less if a gay joined our group as long as he wasn’t just joining to prove a point. Then that would piss me off as much as girls joining football.

[doreen]

[/quote]
quote:

I’m not talking about shouting it from the rooftops, just maybe a mention of it in the “Leadership Requirements” section of the adult application, or perhaps asking on the application if the person is a homosexual, just as it asks if the applicant uses illegal drugs or has been charged with child abuse.

Again, I agree with the majority that a person or group should not have to evince its beliefs in some predetermined way or run the risk of having those beliefs deemed insincere.
[/quote]

You may not have to evince those beliefs in any way them to be sincere, and I’m not even arguing that they aren’t,but how exactly do you hold something as a “core belief” (which was a position taken by the BSA) and never mention it to members?

No they’re not, because a homeowners association does not exist for expressive purposes. A homeowners association may certainly say that it requires people to be able to make X dollars a year, in order to pay the association fees. By doing so, it discriminates against poor people. Now, if a black couple, for example, could show that the income requirement was not reasonably related to the duties of the homeowners association but existed as a pretext to ban people of color, then they could sue for wrongful discrimination. But the homeowners association could not claim that its First Amendment right to free expression was being violated, because its raison d’etre does not include the expression of ideas, and the requirement that it admit people of all colors is not inconsistent with its goals and ideals (to keep up the neighborhood).

Perhaps the homeowner’s associations where I live are different. They exist for expressive purposes, unless people meeting with government agencies,businesses, etc. to express their opinion on how various matters should be handled is not expression.And it works the same way. If the Boy Scouts discimination is permitted ,because their purpose is to build moral character, and they have a super-secret belief that homosexuality is incompatible with that goal ,and therefore allowing homosexuals as members interferes with the expression of that belief,why can’t an expressive homeowners association’s discrimination be permitted if they have a super-secret belief that having an integrated neighborhood is a bad thing, and allowing blacks to join interferes with their expression of that belief. The only possible way to find a difference would be if the BSA’s belief is a core belief and the homeowners association’s isn’t, and that brings me back to the question of how an organization can hold a belief as a core belief, and never mention it to the members?

[The_Ryan]

*Originally posted by Jodi *
What do you mean by “inferior”?

In this context, “less deserving of rights, privlidges, and/or respect”.

In this case, the BSA has taken the position tha homosexuality is not consistent with the “values” it wants to intill in young men. They have never, to my knowledge, stated that homosexuals are “inferior.”

They have said that homosexuals are less moral than heterosexuals. In other words, that they are morally inferior.

I must be misinterpreting you, because you seem to be saying that their discriminatory attitude towards “x” is a pretext for discriminating against “x”.

No. I said that their attitude is not pretextual; they did not formulate their ideas of moral fitness or “values” solely as a pretext to exclude homosexuals.

Wait. Where did the word “homosexual” come from? This was a discussion of a hypothetical group and an unspecified category, not the BSA and homosexuals.

The purpose of the policy is to exclude homosexuals. How can that not be discriminatory?

I did not say it wasn’t discriminatory, I said it wasn’t formulated for discriminatory purposes; these are two different things.

The purpose was not formulated for discriminatory purposes? Huh? Let’s try this one more time. This time, try to keep your brain on track. You said:

There was no indication that the BSA’s position on homosexuality was pretextual, or recently formulated, or formulated for discriminatory purposes.

You clearly said that there is no evidence that the purpose was discrimatory. I replied that

The purpose of the policy is to exclude homosexuals. How can that [the purpose] not be discrimatory?

If your organization exists to instill your particular “values” into children, then it will almost inevitably discriminate against all who do not hold or evince those values.

Exactly. Discrimination is integral to certain values. Discrimination against homosexuals is inherent to fundamentalist Christianity. Discrimination against blacks is integral to neo-Nazism. To disallow discrimination is to disallow the expression of those values.

It will have the effect of discriminating against those people, but it will not have been formulated for the sake of discriminating against those people.

If you form a group with the intent of expressing certain values, and disrimination is inherent to those values, then your intent is clearly to discriminate. There is absolutely no reason to formulate a position on homosexuality but to discriminate against homosexuals. If you aren’t going to treat homosexuals differently from heterosexuals, then any values you have regarding homosexuality are irrelevant, and there is no reason to formulate them.

[JeffB]

*Originally posted by doreen *
You may not have to evince those beliefs in any way them to be sincere, and I’m not even arguing that they aren’t,but how exactly do you hold something as a “core belief” (which was a position taken by the BSA) and never mention it to members?

I think the BSA’s position is that homosexuality is covered under the “morally straight” clause. It would be impossible for them to list every single activity or belief that they would consider to not be morally straight.

[clayton_e]

I am a Scout of Life Rank. I believe that every boy and leader has a right in the scouts no matter what orientation they are. As long as there isn’t any sexual activity there is no problem.

[Jodi]

Yowza. I have no idea how all that garbage got in the middle of my post. The post should read:

DOREEN:

You may not have to evince those beliefs in any way them to be sincere, and I’m not even arguing that they aren’t,but how exactly do you hold something as a “core belief” (which was a position taken by the BSA) and never mention it to members?

Pretty easily, I would imagine, especially when it is your policy not to talk about the entire subject (i.e., sexuality of any type) at all. I am firmly against animal sacrifice, but I rarely if ever mention it because it just doesn’t come up. And, again, they have mentioned it when it does come up – i.e., in the California court case. They just failed to make an anticipatory announcement.

Perhaps the homeowner’s associations where I live are different. They exist for expressive purposes, unless people meeting with government agencies,businesses, etc. to express their opinion on how various matters should be handled is not expression.

Maybe they are different where you live. Where I live, the main purposes of homeowners associations include enforcing covenants; collecting and disbursing fees; managing the business end of the association; and making decisions regarding what will be allowed or prohibited in the development (swimming pools in, big satellite dishes out). They do not exist primarily for an expressive purpose.

And it works the same way. If the Boy Scouts discimination is permitted ,because their purpose is to build moral character, and they have a super-secret belief that homosexuality is incompatible with that goal ,and therefore allowing homosexuals as members interferes with the expression of that belief,why can’t an expressive homeowners association’s discrimination be permitted if they have a super-secret belief that having an integrated neighborhood is a bad thing, and allowing blacks to join interferes with their expression of that belief.

1. The BSA’s belief was never “super-secret.” No one alleges that it was.

2. Homeowners associations do not exist for a primarily expressive purpose, your assertion to the contrary notwithstanding. If you have some authority for the premise that they do, I would be happy to look at it. I have found none.

3. Housing is not expression. Therefore coercion in housing (ie, you may not discrimate against people of color) does not interfere with freedom of expression. You may say that a person expresses a particular belief by choosing to live in an all-white (or all-black) neighborhood, but that does not convert the primary purpose of housing into one of expression.

The only possible way to find a difference would be if the BSA’s belief is a core belief and the homeowners association’s isn’t, and that brings me back to the question of how an organization can hold a belief as a core belief, and never mention it to the members?

It is not a matter of core beliefs but of purposes. The purpose of the BSA is to express its beliefs and foster those beliefs in young men and boys. That is not the purpose of the average homeowners’ association. And, again, I refuse to acknowledge that a belief must be voiced in order to be sincere. (Parenthetically, it is inaccurate to say that the BSA “never mentioned it to its members.” As the majority pointed out, the BSA took a frankly anti-homosexual stance in a 1978 postition statement issued by its executive committee. Granted, it didn’t talk about it much, but then it didn’t talk about sex much at all, be it gay or straight.) Again, I am against animal sacrifice. Is that one of my “core beliefs”? Well, it’s not something I’m worried about on a day-to-day basis because it just doesn’t come up. When and if it does, I will firmly declare that I am against it. I would hate to have the sincerity of that belief questioned just because I didn’t preemptively declare that I was against it.

THE RYAN:

They have said that homosexuals are less moral than heterosexuals. In other words, that they are morally inferior.

I wouldn’t argue with this. I imagine that if they didn’t think homosexuals (or homosexuality) was morally unacceptable, they wouldn’t object to it.

You said:

I must be misinterpreting you, because you seem to be saying that their discriminatory attitude towards “x” is a pretext for discriminating against “x”.

To which I replied:

No. I said that their attitude is not pretextual; they did not formulate their ideas of moral fitness or “values” solely as a pretext to exclude homosexuals.

To which you now say:

Wait. Where did the word “homosexual” come from? This was a discussion of a hypothetical group and an unspecified category, not the BSA and homosexuals.

No, actually, it was not. Your initial quote speaks of “their” discriminatory attitude, “they” obviously referring to the BSA. You then substitute “x” for “homosexuals” – why I don’t know, since it’s obvious from the entire thread that we are talking about the (non-hypothetical) Boy Scouts discriminating against (non-hypothetical) homosexuals. If you wish to introduce a hypothetical discussion, that’s fine by me, but you can hardly object that I have failed to stick with hypotheticals when, until now, there have been none introduced.

You asked:

The purpose of the policy is to exclude homosexuals. How can that not be discriminatory?

To which I replied:

I did not say it wasn’t discriminatory, I said it wasn’t formulated for discriminatory purposes; these are two different things.

To which you now say:

The purpose was not formulated for discriminatory purposes? Huh? Let’s try this one more time. This time, try to keep your brain on track.

First of all, keep a civil tongue in your head when you address me, or you can hold the balance of this discussion alone. I have neither done nor said anything deserving of your unaccountable snippiness, and I am not inclined to tolerate it.

Discrimination is integral to certain values. Discrimination against homosexuals is inherent to fundamentalist Christianity. Discrimination against blacks is integral to neo-Nazism. To disallow discrimination is to disallow the expression of those values.

Correct. That does not mean the core purpose is to discriminate, as opposed to teach those values. To teach that stealing is wrong discriminates against thieves. But the core purpose of the tenet is not to discriminate against thieves but to teach that stealing is wrong. To teach that homosexual conduct is wrong (as opposed to homosexuals – the belief, BTW, of both most fundamentalist Christians and, as far as I can tell from Dale, the BSA) will have the effect of discriminating against those who engage in that (morally wrong) conduct. But the primary purpose is not to discriminate against gays but to teach young men and boys that homosexuality is not “morally straight.” Does that have the effect of discriminating against gays? Obviously. Is that its primary purpose? No.

If you form a group with the intent of expressing certain values, and disrimination is inherent to those values, then your intent is clearly to discriminate.

By that rationale, any moral system that prohibits stealing, murdering, or rapists is intentionally discriminatory against thieves, murderers, and rapists. While this may be true – it may have a discriminatory effect – that discriminatory effect, without more, will not support the conclusion that the moral system was in fact formulated for a discriminatory purpose.

There is absolutely no reason to formulate a position on homosexuality but to discriminate against homosexuals.

Of course there is – to teach that homosexual conduct is morally wrong. That is not the same as discriminating against homosexuals.

If you aren’t going to treat homosexuals differently from heterosexuals, then any values you have regarding homosexuality are irrelevant, and there is no reason to formulate them.

Again, the “treating homosexuals differently” (discriminating against them) is an obvious effect of believing homosexual conduct is wrong. That does mean that the treatment and the belief are the same, or that the latter was formulated specifically to produce the former.

[Jack_Batty]

Jodi, not that you’re not making good points, but jeez, how about leaving a few electrons for the rest of us.

[The_Ryan]

No, actually, it was not. Your initial quote speaks of “their” discriminatory attitude, “they” obviously referring to the BSA.

The quote in question was in response to this quote:

If they don’t need to prove anything for the exemption, then any organization, formed for any purpose (homeowners association,for example) could say “We don’t believe “x” people are equal,that belief is important to us, and therefore we don’t have to accept “x” people as members” and be exempt from anti-discrimination laws.

This, of course, is a pretext, and could be proven to be pretexual.

There is no mention in that discussion of the BSA. How is it “obvious” that I was talking about the BSA?

You then substitute “x” for “homosexuals”

???

it’s obvious from the entire thread that we are talking about the (non-hypothetical) Boy Scouts discriminating against (non-hypothetical) homosexuals.

So your statement “This, of course, is a pretext, and could be proven to be pretexual” refers to the BSA’s treatment of homosexuals?

If you wish to introduce a hypothetical discussion, that’s fine by me, but you can hardly object that I have failed to stick with hypotheticals when, until now, there have been none introduced.

Riiiight
Would you like to embarrass yourself further, or will this be all for today?

First of all, keep a civil tongue in your head when you address me, or you can hold the balance of this discussion alone.

All I said was that you should keep your brain on track. It’s not like I asked you to get you head out your ass or anything.

I have neither done nor said anything deserving of your unaccountable snippiness,

Taking my quotes out of context and putting words into my mouth does not deserve an admonishment?

and I am not inclined to tolerate it.

Yes, I’ve seen before how intolerant you are of the mention of your flaws.

That does not mean the core purpose is to discriminate, as opposed to teach those values.

The two purposes are not oppsed, they are identical.

But the core purpose of the tenet is not to discriminate against thieves but to teach that stealing is wrong.

Potayto, potahto. Teaching that stealing is wrong is the same as discriminating against thieves.

But the primary purpose is not to discriminate against gays but to teach young men and boys that homosexuality is not “morally straight.”

But the purpose of teaching that homosexuality is not “morally straight” is to shame homosexuals into not having homosexual intercourse, and to have heterosexuals treat homosexuals with less respect. Both are forms of discrimination.

By that rationale, any moral system that prohibits stealing, murdering, or rapists is intentionally discriminatory against thieves, murderers, and rapists.

Exactly.

While this may be true – it may have a discriminatory effect – that discriminatory effect, without more, will not support the conclusion that the moral system was in fact formulated for a discriminatory purpose.

It is not the effect, but the purpose that supports my conclusion. The purpose of morals is to discriminate against those that do not follow them.

Of course there is – to teach that homosexual conduct is morally wrong. That is not the same as discriminating against homosexuals.

Sure it is.

Again, the “treating homosexuals differently” (discriminating against them) is an obvious effect of believing homosexual conduct is wrong. That does mean that the treatment and the belief are the same, or that the latter was formulated specifically to produce the former.

Do you expect anyone to believe this? The BSA clearly believes that homosexual behavior is sufficiently wrong to justify banning homosexuals. That is, they believe that homosexuals should be treated differently. This distinction between “practicing the belief that homosexuals should be treated differently” and “treating homosexuals differently” is ridiculous. There is only one way to practice the belief, and that is to treat homosexuals differently. Therefore the statements “Our purpose is to practice our belief that homosexuals should be treated differently” and “Our purpose is to treat homosexuals differently” are saying exactly the same thing.

Suppose that I shoot someone. Should I get off if my purpose was not to shoot him, but to “express my belief that he should be shot”? If I believe that my message that this person should be shot simply cannot be adequately conveyed by any means other than shooting him, is prosecuting me for this a violation of my First Amendment rights? Is there any but the most sophist distinction between “my purpose is to shoot him” and “my purpose is to express my belief that he should be shot”?

[doreen]

Pretty easily, I would imagine, especially when it is your policy not to talk about the entire subject (i.e., sexuality of any type) at all. I am firmly against animal sacrifice, but I rarely if ever mention it because it just doesn’t come up. And, again, they have mentioned it when it does come up – i.e., in the California court case. They just failed to make an anticipatory announcement.

You as an individual may never mention animal sacrifice, even if it’s one of your core beliefs. The proper analogy would be an organization which opposes animal sacrifice as a core belief, but never mentions it to its members. A simple statement such as “Homosexuals are not eligible for membership” would do.

[/quote]
Maybe they are different where you live. Where I live, the main purposes of homeowners associations include enforcing covenants; collecting and disbursing fees; managing the business end of the association; and making decisions regarding what will be allowed or prohibited in the development (swimming pools in, big satellite dishes out). They do not exist primarily for an expressive purpose.
[/quote]

Obviously, they are different. We don’t even have covenants or developments in most of the city. Here they are simply voluntary organizations of homeowners (or sometimes residents) in a particular area,who meet with each other and government representaticves to express views on such things as the best way to re-route traffic during road repair,whether a business should be given a zoning variance and so on. I think that’s expressive.

1. The BSA’s belief was never “super-secret.” No one alleges that it was.

Hyperbole (mine} But the dissent certainly thought they kept it a secret.

2. Homeowners associations do not exist for a primarily expressive purpose, your assertion to the contrary notwithstanding. If you have some authority for the premise that they do, I would be happy to look at it. I have found none.

The ones here do. See above.

3. Housing is not expression. Therefore coercion in housing (ie, you may not discrimate against people of color) does not interfere with freedom of expression. You may say that a person expresses a particular belief by choosing to live in an all-white (or all-black) neighborhood, but that does not convert the primary purpose of housing into one of expression.

(Parenthetically, it is inaccurate to say that the BSA “never mentioned it to its members.” As the majority pointed out, the BSA took a frankly anti-homosexual stance in a 1978 postition statement issued by its executive committee

Actually, that memo was from the President and Chief Scout Executive to the Executive Committee-not to the members at all.

from the dissent:

Second, the 1978 policy was never publicly expressed–
unlike, for example, the Scout’s duty to be “obedient.” It was an internal memorandum, never circulated beyond the few members of BSA’s Executive Committee. It remained, in effect, a secret Boy Scouts policy.

To teach that homosexual conduct is wrong (as opposed to homosexuals – the belief, BTW, of both most fundamentalist Christians and, as far as I can tell from Dale, the BSA) will have the effect of discriminating against those who engage in that (morally wrong) conduct.

The BSA revoked his membership on the basis of his orientation, not his conduct.They had no reason to think he engaged in homosexual conduct.The idea that a homosexual orientation is inherently immoral is not widely held, even by those who think homosexual conduct is.To say that homosexual orientation is wrong (regardless of conduct) is extremely close to saying homosexuals are wrong.

I’m not going to continue this past asking you this hypothetical. Suppose, next year,ther’s a new Executive Committee,President and Chief Scout Executive. The President and Chief Executive send a memo to the Executive Committee stating that that the BSA believes that something is immoral,is covered by the morally straight clause, and people who have that quality are not eligible to be members or leaders. The issue is one where there is no general consensus regarding morality( not murder or stealing, but divorce,gambling or consuming alcohol}.Nothing more is mentioned for over ten years.Even many of their own members and chartering organizations don’t agree with them (but they don’t refuse to give charters to churches that don’t believe this issue to be immoral)Now, obviously, there’s no law prohibiting discrimination on the basis of gambling or consuming alcohol, but there may be some prohibiting discrimination based on marital status.Would they be able to say they prohibit divorced leaders because divorce is immoral, and that the laws prohibiting such discrimination can’t be applied to them?

[december]

Doreen wrote -

“They did take that stance [that opposition to homosexuality was important.] The sincerity of the belief was not enough.It also had to be shown that the NJ law placed an “undue burden” on the BSA’s rights.”

Yes, indeed. As a NJ resident, I was confused when our supreme court ruled that the Boy Scouts were not bigoted enough to exclude gays. If that decision had stood, in theory the NJ Scouts could have continued their policy by becoming a more explicit hate group.

Two other points

1. Lower level scouts are allowed to be gay. There is a kind of “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy. However, when one is elevated to Eagle Scout, sexuality is specifically questioned.

2. Atheists are in the same boat as gays. The Boy Scouts had no problem with my son-in-law’s Jewish religion, but they specifically insisted on belief in God for him to become an Eagle Scout.

[The_Ryan]

*Originally posted by december *

1. Lower level scouts are allowed to be gay. There is a kind of “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy. However, when one is elevated to Eagle Scout, sexuality is specifically questioned.

2. Atheists are in the same boat as gays. The Boy Scouts had no problem with my son-in-law’s Jewish religion, but they specifically insisted on belief in God for him to become an Eagle Scout.

This is what I find especially galling about the Scouts. Someone can spend several years in the Scouts, working towards being an Eagle Scout, without ever being told about the restrictions against homosexuals and atheists. Then when they apply for it, they’re told “Nope, sorry. You’re not good enough for us.” I think that people should be able to sue them for breach of contract.

[Mr2001]

Jodi:

Here we have to draw a distinction between what is morally right and what is legal. … And that was the issue so far as the Boy Scouts were concerned – not that banning homosexuals from positions of leadership discriminated against them (as it obviously does), but that they (the BSA) could not put homosexuals in positions of leadership without being understood to hold beliefs they (the BSA) do not in fact hold – i.e., homosexuality is okay.

OK… so I can legally tell someone “No, you can’t join my club because I believe that people like you are not worthy to be in my club,” but I can’t say “You can’t join because I don’t want people like you in my club”? The reason might be different, but the effect is the same. Does it really matter?

[RoboDude]

I always thought that the First Amendment protection of the right to assemble peacefully meant that it doesn’t matter.

[justwannano]

december
The boy scouts are not any kind of a hate group.

you said
in theory the NJ Scouts could have continued their policy by becoming a more explicit hate group.

[BF]

*Originally posted by december *
**1. Lower level scouts are allowed to be gay. There is a kind of “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy. However, when one is elevated to Eagle Scout, sexuality is specifically questioned.
**

Do you have any specific cites for this statement? Something that would help sway my own opinions in this matter?

[Jodi]

THE RYAN:

Would you like to embarrass yourself further, or will this be all for today?

This discussion is over. Feel free to post disingenuous confusie-faces as if you don’t understand why.

DOREEN:

You as an individual may never mention animal sacrifice, even if it’s one of your core beliefs. The proper analogy would be an organization which opposes animal sacrifice as a core belief, but never mentions it to its members. A simple statement such as “Homosexuals are not eligible for membership” would do.

What is the distinction you are drawing between the beliefs of the individual and the beliefs of the organization? That people might unknowingly join the organization, in reliance that unless it has said it disapproves of homosexuality, it therefore must approve of it? I was not aware that this was a problem. In any event, if you place on the organization the burden of making affirmative announcements, why don’t you place on the individual the burden of asking for specifics on policies that are unclear? Because it seems pretty clear that any time anyone asked the BSA “do you allow homosexuals in positions of leadership” the answer was “No.”

We appear to be going in cirles, and I don’t think any argument has been raised that wasn’t addressed in Dale. You agree with the dissent; I agree with the majority, simple as that. At least, unlike some others, we’ve both read it.

Suppose, next year,ther’s a new Executive Committee,President and Chief Scout Executive. The President and Chief Executive send a memo to the Executive Committee stating that that the BSA believes that something is immoral,is covered by the morally straight clause, and people who have that quality are not eligible to be members or leaders. The issue is one where there is no general consensus regarding morality( not murder or stealing, but divorce,gambling or consuming alcohol}.Nothing more is mentioned for over ten years.Even many of their own members and chartering organizations don’t agree with them (but they don’t refuse to give charters to churches that don’t believe this issue to be immoral)Now, obviously, there’s no law prohibiting discrimination on the basis of gambling or consuming alcohol, but there may be some prohibiting discrimination based on marital status.Would they be able to say they prohibit divorced leaders because divorce is immoral, and that the laws prohibiting such discrimination can’t be applied to them?

Frankly, I don’t know. Would they be able to make a convincing case that they have never allowed divorced people in positions of leadership? That they have always believed that being divorced is not consistent with the values they are attempting to instill? I imagine the issue would be a close one, just like this one is, because you haven’t really changed any of the facts except for substituting “divorced person” for “homosexual person” and by inferring that the belief (“divorced people are not morally straight”) is a relatively new one (ten years’ time), as opposed to one arguably held since the organization’s inception. What do you think would happen?

MR2001:

OK… so I can legally tell someone “No, you can’t join my club because I believe that people like you are not worthy to be in my club,” but I can’t say “You can’t join because I don’t want people like you in my club”? The reason might be different, but the effect is the same. Does it really matter?

Sure it does. Let’s say you have a firehouse that doesn’t have any women firefighters because it doesn’t like them pesky breeders doing manly-man work. And you have an identical firehouse that doesn’t have any women firefighters because it refuses to admit anyone who cannot consistently lift and carry 100 pounds for 100 feet, which the average man can do, but only a very fit woman can do. The effect of the regulations is the same – no women in the firehouse. The reason there are no women allowed is different, and one reason is okay and the other reason is not. In the former case, the reason is to discriminate against women (not okay); in the latter case, the reason is to further the purpose of the organization (the effective fighting of fires) (okay).

Similarly, if we accept that the BSA purpose of teaching “values” (and, by extension, that certain behavior is “good” and acceptable and certain behavior is “bad” and unacceptable) is a legitimate one – regardless of whether we personally consider those values valid or not – then we must allow them to discriminate in furtherance of the goals of their organization – as opposed to allowing them to discriminate for discrimination’s sake, which is not okay.

Let me ask you this: If you assume that the BSA position on homosexuality is sincerely held – that it does, in fact, believe that homosexuality is not morally acceptable – then how can you ask them to teach children something they do not in fact believe? I think that we can only do so by concluding that what they believe is wrong – that homosexuality is morally okay. But we do not have the right, as a LEGAL matter, to tell others that what they believe is wrong (something that is beyond proof in any event, since it is totally subjective) – not if they’re not accepting government funding, anyway.

[The_Ryan]

*Originally posted by Jodi *

Would you like to embarrass yourself further, or will this be all for today?

This discussion is over. Feel free to post disingenuous confusie-faces as if you don’t understand why.

You’d rather declare a discussion to be over than admit you were wrong? I’ll take that as a “yes” to whether you would like to embarrass yourself further.

[JeffB]

*Originally posted by doreen *
The best solution, given that there are differences of opinion as to the morality of homosexuality, even within the BSA-it’s not only outsiders who are against this policy would be to allow the chartered organization to determine whether they consider someone to be of good enough moral character, as they already do in every circumstance other than homosexuality and atheism. The fact that a Mormon troop may not choose a Scoutmaster who drinks alcohol, or that a Catholic troop may not choose someone who remarried without an annulment doesn’t restrict other troops from choosing those people, and there’s no reason why some group’s belief that homosexuality is immoral should restrict groups that don’t share that belief.

Evidently, this option will not be allowed. According to an article in today’s Washington Post:

Seven Boy Scout and Cub Scout troops in suburban Oak Park whose sponsoring organizations said they could not abide by a no-gays rule have had their charters lifted by the National Council of the Boy Scouts of America on the strength of a U.S. Supreme Court decision permitting the exclusion of homosexuals from scouting.

As an aside: Jodi, thank you for your explanations about the legal aspects. You’ve done a wonderful job of clarifying for me some confusing issues.

[doreen]

What is the distinction you are drawing between the beliefs of the individual and the beliefs of the organization? That people might unknowingly join the organization, in reliance that unless it has said it disapproves of homosexuality, it therefore must approve of it?

Not that they may join thinking that the organization must approve of it, but rather that they join or charter a troop not being aware that it’s an issue at all, just as many other beliefs are not an issue at all ,and that the BSA, in a sense, is a bundle of contradictions even after this case. On the one hand it says that it is a non-sectarian organization and encourages members to follow the teachings of their own faith, and on the other hand,it gives charters to groups who cannot both bar homosexuals and keep the teachings of their faith,yet doesn’t inform that that homosexuals must be barred. It says homosexuality is not acceptable for Boy Scout leaders, but doesn’t restrict homosexuals from their Learning for Life program (which has the same goals, but a different program).

Frankly, I don’t know. Would they be able to make a convincing case that they have never allowed divorced people in positions of leadership? That they have always believed that being divorced is not consistent with the values they are attempting to instill? I imagine the issue would be a close one, just like this one is, because you haven’t really changed any of the facts except for substituting “divorced person” for “homosexual person” and by inferring that the belief (“divorced people are not morally straight”) is a relatively new one (ten years’ time), as opposed to one arguably held since the organization’s inception. What do you think would happen

I suspect the decision would go the other way, not because they would have to show they’ve never allowed divorced leaders (they don’t ask for marital status on the application either),but because divorce is not as heated an issue.BTW, I didn’t mean to imply that the belief was relatively new,only the statement of it.

I also suspect, that 10 years from now, BSA won’t even have the policy, between the dissent from its own members (and some local councils), the groups who are are no longer permitted to or refuse to charter troops,the loss of funding from some United Ways, and changes in how people view homosexuality.