As for sex being the same thing as sexual preference? Go ask any gay (but not pre-op transgender… some of whom do consider themselves gay before reassignment) man if he’s male. You find one who says he’s a different sex than a straight man, I’ll bow out of this thread.
In Canada, that is a consitiutionally enshrined right. In the USA, that is not a constitutionally enshrined right, and because it is not, gays have be turfed out of jobs at the Boy Scouts of America.
Too bad that you are a foul mouthed bigot. It reflects poorly on you, and your scouting organization, your nation.
If my son told me he wanted to join the Boy Scouts, I’d be considerably more disgusted and repelled than if he told me he was gay.
When I was a kid, Boy Scouts were razzed more than geeks, nerds, spazs, dorks and/or weenies. If they came to school in their little uniforms it was an open invitation for the local bully squad to stuff them in a locker.
You have shown that you have no understanding what so ever of what an analogous ground is. Go read Eagan. Until then, you are just spouting mindlessly.
Freedom of association is a wonderful thing. While it allows bigots to associate with whom they will, it most importantly allows those who are not to be protected from them.
Foul mouthed I may be, but if you impugn my language on anyone else you might associate with me, you’re as prejudiced as anyone you claim is denying basic rights to anyone else. As to my bigotry, well, while I don’t hold bigoted views, I do ascribe to Voltaire’s maxim regarding the willingness to defend the right to hold a view, no matter how offensive I find it. I feel that that right to expression extends itself to association.
Wiki suggests several. None of whom seem to be related to this concept. Would you like to offer some clarification, or would you prefer I pull some similar nonsense name out of my ass and tell you that you don’t know your ass from a hole in the ground until you’ve read some similar tome on what is a basic philosophical concept?
True dat.
Color me unimpressed. The constitution of the Soviet Union had as many or more “enshrined rights” as any constitution has ever had. If you entrust you rights to a group of petty magistrates, then you’re an idiot.
And you are an idiot for comparing Canada to the Soviet Union, for implying that the Canadian legislative and judicial systems are merely petty magistrates, for failing to recognize that our constitutionally enshrined rights are very real, and for failing to recognize that our constitutionally enshrined rights have made tremendous advances in how our society functions, particularly with respect to gay rights, in which the USA is lamentably lagging, and is in fact going backwards with respect to gay marraige in many of its states.
And you have failed to make any sort of case for how whom you fuck changes what your rights are.
I have linked to the law in Canada for you. The SCC goes into considerable detail in its clearly written reasons in Eagan. Either you have not bothered to read it, you are not capable of understanding it, or you simply disagree with it. Either way, there is nothing more I can do for you.
That’s the point – a person should not be discriminated against based on sex or sexual orientation. That is the law here in Canada (SCC’s decision in Egan & s.15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms). That is not the law in the USA. In the USA is is perfectly legal to discriminate against people because of their sexual orientation. That is just plain bigotry.
I see. You can’t spell.
In the end, I don’t really bother with foreign judicial opinions as they respect the operations of private groups in the US. In that same vein, I don’t look too closely at Soviet decisions on Jewish religious rights or Bulgarian opinions on how Rumanian property rights function.
What does this mean? Either you met the BSA-mandated requirements for Eagle Scout, or you did not. ‘BSA parlance’ is really all that matters here.
Bigotry, in the end, is synonymous with discrimination. And discrimination is not necessarily a bad thing.
When I hire someone, do I pick the best candidate based upon the needs of my organization, or do I pick whomever applied first? An argument against bigotry needs to be backed up with something that realistically applies to the needs of the particular body in question. In the end, if you poll the parents of most Boy Scouts, whether right or wrong, they don’t want gay men running their scout troops. You seem to want the government to step in and correct their views. I feel that’s a perfect way to cement anti-gay sentiment from being passed on generationally (“Honey, we had to pull you out of the scouts lest you be ass-raped.”) and to encourage further governemtnal abuses (“Citizen: Eastasia has always been our ally.”)
I never suggested that Canadian law applies to the USA. Canadian law as applied to Canada protects certain human rights of gays in Canada. American law as applied to the USA does not protect those human right of gays in the USA.
That you keep dragging the Soviet Union into this is pathetic.
That you chose not to look about the world outside the USA to see how human rights are handled by various countries, is nothing more than you crawling back into you bigotted little hole.
So to complete the equation, your position is that bigotry is not necessarily a bad thing.
Same old crap that the racists used against blacks.
I used the Soviets as an example. One government defining what is a ‘right’, even if it is your government, does not create an absolute positive for all people. There are certain things that are rights for human beings, there are other things that are nice for them, but, in the end, are just optional benefits. Church youth groups are effective for making sure that kids don’t get into drugs. That doesn’t mean that athiest children have the right to join them.
When you start extending what you declare mandatory human rights to anything that is a benefit, you lose credibility on those things which actually are important.
Yeah, except businesses that exclude blacks based upon their color inevitably miss out on qualified personnel, which hurts them. If the Scouts, by excluding gay leaders, miss out on key leaders who advance their group in bigger ways than their moral stance, they will fall by the wayside to a more inclusive group that does.
If a social group wants to exclude blacks, gingers, gays or whomever, it’s their right. You don’t have a right to tell a private organization whom to include because you think you know better than they do
I agree with the above sentiment. I just wish the Scouts didn’t exclude gays.
Maybe someday they’ll come around. They used to exclude blacks, in the early years. At our church we had an elderly deacon who may have been associated with Scouting longer than anyone else in the US. As a boy he was a Lone Scout, and even made Eagle that way. Why was he a Lone Scout? Because he was black and the local troop wouldn’t let him join. Joe Thompson went on to be a Scout leader, forming the first local troop for black Cub Scouts, then Boy Scouts, and so on. For the rest of his life, until he died just a few years ago in his nineties, he was on Scouting boards, or whatever they call them, as an official. Eighty years with the Scouts.
It frightens me that you can tell that I’m surfing the internet while wearing my sweaty exercise clothes.
:eek: