Alphagene has closed this thread with the suggestion that someone start a new one here in GD. Someone probably already has but I’m damned if I can find it, so here’s this one.
Continue.
Some Guy
Can’t speak for atheists, but the policy of excluding gays was NOT an official policy of BSA until 1978, and even then it was not publicly disseminated and BSA stated its belief that laws prohibiting sexual orientation discrimination would apply to BSA.
Quoting from the dissent in BSA v Dale:
cites omitted.
The dissent goes on to note
The idea that BSA went to court to defend some long-held principle of the organization would be laughable were it not for the fact that it prevailed.
IANAL but my understanding of the SC decision was that the BSA are free to set their own standards of membership, even if they were band new. The key is that they’re a private organization. They needn’t justify their standards, which is a good thing for the BSA, because they might well have failed that test.
I’d have to look it up to be sure of exactly how it was worded, but it wasn’t simply about whether the BSA is a private organization. Of course it is. So are the Kiwanis and so is a store or a restaurant. It was about whether it was the type of private organization that the public accomodation law could be applied to. The Supreme Court had to first determine if the BSA engaged in expressive activity and then whether Dale’s membership would burden that expression. If they either didn’t engage in such activity, or if Dale’s membership wouldn’t burden it, the law could be applied to the BSA. That’s where the questions about the policy come in. The majority opinion just accepted the assertion by the BSA that it teaches that homosexuality isn’t “morally straight” and that Dale’s membership would be a burden on that teaching, The dissent, however, questions how an organization can engage in expressive conduct regarding homosexuality, while never saying a word about it until after this case. I think the BSA should have lost- but not because I disagree with their standards (although I do). Had their applications contained questions about homosexuality,had their handbooks unequivocally said homosexuality is wrong,had leaders been advised to steer boys away from homosexuality (rather than refer a boy with a sexual question to his parents,minister,doctor etc),had they publicized this “teaching” as much as they have the one against atheists that would be a different story .I don’t much like that policy either, but at least they do actually teach it( religious awards program,vague religious requirements for badges at least in Cub Scouts,mention in the Scout Law)
To a large degree, BSA is restricted by their chartering organizations. The troop itself does not hold the troop’s charter; the sponsor does. Many of these are churches, who have an unquestionable right to define what is moral conduct on their property and using their resources, as repugnant as those standards may be to others, and as hypocritical an uncompassionate as they may be. Many other sponsors are public schools, restrained by nondiscrimination and church/state separation laws, even though there is a strong religious (though nonsectarian) content to the Scouts’ message. A national policy acceptable to everyone is pretty hard to define.
That said, it’s a shame the national organization has picked a policy that is so contrary to the spirit of the rest of their message. In all the time I’ve spent in the organization, the subject simply never came up. But if it did, I know it would have been dealt with openly and compassionately, not with moralizing condemnation.
Can someone explain something to me? I didn’t quite understand the point of the original thread. If the BSA has the right to make statements condemning homosexuals, don’t the rest of us have the right to make statements condemning the BSA? Or is freedom of expression something reserved to “patriotic citizens”?
It would seem to me that we are debating if the Boy Scouts organization has the right to exclude gay leaders and/or scouts.
My opinion would be that they have the right to do whatever they would like as a private organization. However, they should receive no government support and should not be able to use govt. buildings to conduct their meetings. I applaude Levi Strauss and United Way for considering and/or actually deciding to stop funding this organization and more so, the scouts and parents that have decided to resign from BSA because they have decided that intolerance is not a message they agree with.
It would seem that one of the main reasons the scouts are not willing to reconsider their policy is that the Mormons, which approx 20% of all scouts are, have threatened to end their support of BSA if this policy were to change. The Boy Scouts therefore are in between a rock and a hard place. Do they lose a large portion of their corporate funding or risk losing 20% of their members.
You actually hit on the most acceptable,least controversial national policy in your post- leave it to the chartered organizations.Although I have heard that the Mormons have threatened to leave if they are forced to accept homosexual leaders, I have not heard they threatened to leave if the Unitarians were permittted to.To tell you the truth, I doubt any of the chartered organizations are particularly interested in what standards other CO’s use , as long as they can use their own.And even if they are, why should the Mormons, or Catholics, or Jews, or secular organizations be able to impose their standards on all of the BSA? I don’t think that such a policy would have been made with regard to any other moral issue on which there is disagreement- I can’t imagine there ever being a policy against accepting as leaders people who ever drink alcohol,use birth control,dance,play cards,or women who wear pants (all of which are forbiddden by one religion or another).I suspect the people who decided on this policy truly expected that at least all of their chartered organizations and membership would agree. I’m sure they didn’t expect the arguements from the Unitarians,organizations dropping charters and at least one of their own Councils expressing the wish that the policy would change.
It was nine councils, representing New York City, Boston, Philadelphia, Los Angeles, Chicago, and San Francisco, Orange County, and Milwaulkee (or perhaps another city in that part of the country), that petitioned the National Council to allow chartering organizations to decide for themselves at their annual meeting this June. The Boston council has since decided to adopt a “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy, which seems to be within National’s regulations.
The driving force behind the current policy seems to be the LDS church, which will withdraw support if the Boy Scouts allow homosexuals. One of the articles I saw on the matter noted that ten members of the Boy Scouts’ Board of Trustees live in Salt Lake City, and thus are likely Mormons.
In the Pit thread I did note that W. Mitt Romney, now chair of the Salt Lake City Olympic Organizing Committee, and member of the Boy Scouts’ Board of Trustees (who is a Mormon), is opposed to the policy, and seems responsible for keeping the Boy Scouts from having any official presence at the Olympics. I figure if the policy is keeping the Scouts from volunteering in Salt Lake City, it’s a positive sign.