I saw this article this morning on the excite daily poll addressing the bill that has just passed that strips federal funding from schools that won’t provide use of their facilities to organizations such as the Boy Scouts due to their discrimination against homosexuals.
So, the Boy Scouts can discriminate against whomever they please, and our public schools have to put up with it and provide them access to facilities regardless of whether they wish to condone this discrimination? Is it me, or is this a huge double standard?
Thank you, sqweels, for seeing my point. Fine, the Boy Scouts can discriminate against whomever they want because they don’t receive public funding…or do they? If they’re demanding use of public facilities for their meetings, activities, whatever…then they should be held to the same standards as every other club, group, team, etc. that the school sponsors. They can’t have it both ways, and to threaten to pull federal funding on the school that refuses to provide facilities to a group that advocates discrimination, is in my mind, a travesty.
Many private organizations use the public schools after school hours. The Boy Scouts do an enormous amount of good, although I disapprove of their prohibition against gay and atheist scout masters.
From what I’ve read, the vote only strips funding from schools that ban the Boy Scouts because of their ban on homosexuals; what if these schools ban BSA because of their non-acceptance of atheists? At the very least it would require a second senate vote.
That private organizations can get permission to use public school facilities is fine with me. What has me upset is that if the school chooses to decline the Boy Scouts’ request to use their facilities, they can lose federal funding. No matter how I try to spin it, that just isn’t right.
I sort of agree. I hate to see the Feds overrule the local schools.
However, I don’t think that schools should ban the Boy Scouts. IMHO they do a stupendous amount of good for the community. Furthermore, they have a First Amendment right to choose their membership. Here’s a link to an article by Nat Hentoff, an old-time free-speech liberal, who makes the point more eloquently than I could. http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20010616-26269174.htm Also, here’s an editorial from the liberal Denver Post. http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1002,417%7E47282,00.html The Post notes
“The Boy Scouts - however one feels about their leadership policy - have long been involved in the character-building business for the nation’s youth.”
—Exactly how is it “character-building” to teach children to discriminate against gays and atheists?
I find it sad that the precedent has been set that all organizations who wish to use public school facilities for their activities must be accomodated equally, as I do not believe that use of these facilities is a “right” (as referred to in the above quote) of any organization, it is a privilege. I believe (and I’m obviously in the minority here, at least where the courts are concerned) that if the public schools choose not to condone the discriminitory actions of an organization (in this case, the Boy Scouts), then they should not have to make their resources available to that group. It has been made abundantly clear by the ruling on their First Amendment issue that the Boy Scouts are a private organization and are free to include or exclude anyone based on their membership rules. As a private organization, I feel that they are free to uphold any rules they deem necessary, but they should be prepared to carry out those regulations independently. To demand to be accomodated by a public facility is, in fact, wanting it both ways.
Schools are not constitutionally allowed to discriminate between groups on the basis of religion in granting access to their facilities for after-school activities. At least as amended by Sen. Boxer, this seems to be expanding that protection to prevent discrimination on the basis of views about sexual orientation, whether religious or not. With her additional amendment, I rather like this resolution. Sure, it will protect the Boy Scouts, but it will also protect the youth BGLAD chapter that wants to meet on-campus.
True as far as it goes; a public school can close it’s facilities to all private groups, and the BSA couldn’t demand anything from them. However, if a school has a policy of permitting private groups, it cannot discriminate against the BSA. Other private groups discriminate; even the BSA doesn’t just discriminate against gays, it discriminates against women. And that’s never been an issue.
You know, if we didn’t have this policy of the federal government providing localities with funding for things like education, and then later attaching strings to it, this whole thing would be moot. We also wouldn’t have been saddled with a riduculous national drinking age or a national speed limit of 55. But that’s for another thread…
I think that if you were to make a proposal like this, it should be across the board, and not just for organizations that “prohibit the acceptance of homosexuals.” If it isn’t across the board than I think it shouldn’t be there at all.
Also, I think the spirit behind it is really lame. To combat “the organized lesbians and homosexuals in this country of ours”? How stupid is that?
If schools don’t want Boy Scouts then they should close down their facilities to everyone. The parents of those Boy Scouts support the public facilities with their tax money just like the rest of us do. So if a particular public building allows the public to use their facilities then they shouldn’t discriminate.
**
Who’s condoning anything? The KKK sometimes get permits to march down city streets. Is the city condoning the KKK?
Marc
Well… I’m an ex-boyscout, but I REALLY don’t like this. If a school wants to deny a group from meeting there because of discriminatory practices, I think that’s GOOD. I was getting annoyed enough by the Boy Scout’s policies on certain matters, but it’s gotten a lot worse lately. I say that if the Boy Scouts want to be discriminatory, that’s fine, but they have to face the consequences of that.
As for the KKK analogy, how would it sound if the federal government passed a similar law, which would strip federal funding from any school that denys the KKK access because of the KKK’s discriminatory practices?
If they want to pass a bill that strips federal funding from a school that doesn’t give equal access to all legal, public groups (With the exception of restrictions placed by the state), then that would be fine; Public places -are- public places, and should be such. But the SPECIFIC and EXCLUSIVE support for anti-gay behavior is appauling. :mad:
I saw a PBS special on the Boy Scouts last night—about that straight 12-year-old scout who started a “Scouting for All” movement. It was very good and interviewed people on both sides of the issue . . .
But I felt like a gypsy watching a Holocaust special—nowhere was it ever mentioned that the Boy Scouts also kick out atheists. True, that wasn’t the focus of the show, but they also went to great lengths to show scouts (straight and gay) in church and prayer meetings, to prove that even though they’re in favor of gay rights, at least “they’re still good, God-fearing Christians!”
I was actively involved in scouting. From Cub Scouts all the way through to becoming an Eagle Scout. I swell with pride when I see a scout proudly wearing his full uniform. If a scout in uniform is selling something to support his pack or troop, I’ll empty my pockets for him.
But I’m ashamed that BSA have made such a sweeping policy regarding the acceptance of homosexuals.
I’ve heard that some adult Eagle Scouts have returned their Eagle paraphernalia in protest. (I don’t say “former” Eagle Scout. Scouts draw on their experience in scouting every day. I DO believe that scouting is a lifetime thing.)
I can’t believe it’s become this way. I ALWAYS thought that scouting was available to EVERY young man, regardless of any belief, lifestyle, color, etc.