Supporting the Boy Scouts of America

[Eonwe]

This is in response to this thread about the BSA, and in particular, some comments made by purplebear. I posted it here instead of in that thread in an attempt to follow Coldfire’s hint about appropriate posting.

I also realise there’s anothe Boy Scouts thread going on right now, but this one deals specifically with the following comments.

a few extremists come along and decide that they must change, they must, for no other reason than to become ‘PC’, homogenize themselves, turn themselves into a parody of all the organization has stood for.

First of all, calling those who are against the policy of discrimination against gays (and athiests, for that matter) extremists is completely unfounded. In what way are they (and I) extreme? I would guess that a significant number of people believe this way; enough that we should not be called extremists. Can you even say as a fact that more than 50% of the population supports discriminatory practices by the BSA? If not, don’t call the opposite view extreme.

each and every one of us, has the RIGHT to worship as we see fit.

Very true. And as you, I would defend this right with vehemence.

Since when did it become okay to tear down, belittle, and attempt to destroy any organization or group which dares to disagree with the allpowerful Gay Community?

Tear down and attempt to destroy? I believe that people have made a choice not to support an organization that fights for its right to descriminate. This is their right, to not participate. And to voice their concerns. Do not yourself belittle them for exercising that right.

Also, the “allpowerful Gay Community” is not so powerful as I think you would like to believe. And at any rate, being the minority that they are, there are a significant number of straight people who also are against the BSA policies. It is not a straight vs. gay war here, this is not a crusade on either side; it is an argument over the right for a private institution to discriminate.

And how DARE all of you assume that because the BSA policy will not allow homosexual members or leaders that ANYONE and
EVERYONE in the group MUST be Bigots and Homophobes.

I know you were responding to someone else’s comments here, but at least from my perspective, someone who supports a biggoted organization knowingly is participating in that biggoted behavior. You can’t say, “I’m not implementing the policy, I’m just giving the administration money, so I don’t have responsibility.” That is just plain wrong. How many historic examples are there of people who gave silent acceptance to hatred and discrimination? If a person is educated and informed and yet still participates in and financially supports a discriminatory organization, that person is also culpable for the results of that practice.

I am so sick and tired of the Gay community forcing their lifestyles on the rest of us, and insisting that if we don’t bow down to them and give in on every whim and grant them more and more special favors, then those of us who dare to disagree with them on those issues must automatically be bigots and homophobes and all sorts of nasty, unsavory characters. Yet, I don’t hear anyone coming to the defence of other groups, other religions or lifestyles. It’s okay to bash everyone else, just not gays. Horse manure.

The next time a gay person forces you or anyone else to be gay, let me know.:rolleyes:
Seriously, the gay “lifestyle” is not being forced on anyone. Certainly forcing the BSA to accept gays into their organization does not qualify.

Give in on every whim? Grant them more and more special favors? I know this was posted in MPSIMS, but I’d be interested to know what all the unreasonable whims and special favors the gay community has recieved. They must be living the high life these days, what with all us straight people bowing down to their every petty demand.

And, if you don’t hear anyone coming to the defence of other groups, religions and lifestyles, does that mean that it’s okay to bash gays? This argument just doesn’t hold water:

People, A, B, and C are discriminated against

Noone is standing up for the rights of people A and B

Therefore, the rights of person C should not be supported

???

This just doesn’t make sense, unless you disagree with the premise that person C is being discriminated against, or that person C deserves to not be discriminated against.

When it comes down to it, the question is whether any private organization has the right to employ discriminatory hiring practices. I think the answer is no. Business are not allowed to turn down applicants strictly based on skin color, sexual preference, blah blah blah. This does not infringe on the rights of the business, this supports the rights of the individual to be allowed to pursue life, liberty, and happiness. This is not possible if, for example, all private businesses decided they didn’t want to hire gays. Therefore, the private sector is not allowed to discriminate. Why should they be?

[musicguy]

Eonwe,
Great Post!

I just want to add that one of the continuously perpetuated myths that complicates this matter (and annoys the hell out of me)is that of the so-called “Gay Agenda”. I am gay and have no agenda that wants any special rights of any kind. My “agenda” is simply that people be treated fairly and respectfully. The BSA is unfortunatly reenforcing the idea that some people are not as deserving of fair treatment as others to the very impressionable youth that are their members. Anyone that criticizes the BSA becomes some kind of gay operative with a secret agenda.

The stories are starting to emerge though of the families that don’t want this idea taught to their children and are distancing themselves from the organization, sometimes even at the request of the child. At least some people have the abilities to think with their hearts, as well as their heads.

What a shame that an organization that has many positive aspects to it can be so backwards in its attitude towards equal, not special, rights.

[RoboDude]

Purplebear:

And how DARE all of you assume that because the BSA policy will not allow homosexual members or leaders that ANYONE and
EVERYONE in the group MUST be Bigots and Homophobes.

I don’t recall anyone saying anything to that effect. Where was this?

a few extremists come along and decide that they must change, they must, for no other reason than to become ‘PC’, homogenize themselves, turn themselves into a parody of all the organization has stood for.

As a former Scout, I can say with 100% certainty that homophobia was never one of our core ideas at the troop level. The “no gays” policy is merely the result of bigotry on the part of the powers that be.

The bigoted hicks at BSA headquarters have taken an organization that has been revered for providing boys with all sorts of positive experiences and allowed their personal prejudices to cause it to be seen my many as little more than another hate group. Calling them “un-PC” is like saying that Hitler “wasn’t a very nice person”.

Unless they see the error of their ways, it’s only a matter of time before their only support comes from Mormons and others like them.

[ITR_champion]

I think there’s widespread misunderstanding about what’s at issue in the Boy Scouts case. Obviously, private institutions such as churches are not being forced to hire gays. The Boy Scouts, however, are not a private institution since they are supported by and often work together with government-funded entities such as police and fire departments or public schools. The movement to bar discrimination in the Boy Scouts is not an attempt to force any lifestyle on anybody, it’s just homosexuals saying that their tax dollars shouldn’t be used to finance discrimination.

[MEBuckner]

Wow. There’s a boatload of provisions in the U.S. Code referring to the Boy Scouts. To pick a few examples:

10 U.S.C. 2544 – The Secretary of Defense is hereby authorized, under such regulations as he may prescribe, to lend to the Boy Scouts of America, for the use and accommodation of Scouts, Scouters, and officials who attend any national or world Boy Scout Jamboree, such cots, blankets, commissary equipment, flags, refrigerators, and other equipment and without reimbursement, furnish services and expendable medical supplies, as may be necessary or useful to the extent that items are in stock and items or services are available…

16 U.S.C. 539f – Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary of Agriculture is directed to waive annually without charge all or a portion of payment or rental fees required under terms of a permit for use of certain lands of the National Forest System as organization camps by local units of the Boy Scouts of America or such other nonprofit organization when such local units of the Boy Scouts of America or such nonprofit organization are willing to perform services, as the Secretary prescribes and determines will yield a valuable benefit to the public and to the program of the Secretary of such lands. If the Secretary determines that a local unit of the Boy Scouts of America or such other nonprofit organization has not fully performed such services, such organization shall not be entitled in the subsequent year to waiver under the provisions of this section.

(Okay, 16 U.S.C. 539f does also theoretically allow for this deal to be given to the Godless Homosexual Scouts of America, if the Secretary of Agriculture is willing I guess, plus the Boy Scouts and/or Godless Homosexual Scouts have to mulch the national forests or something.)

A number of sections (e.g., 10 U.S.C. 4682) make reference to selling obsolete military stores to the Boy Scouts. Most of these specify “fair market value”, so it isn’t too much of a sweetheart deal, but on the other hand, only the Boy Scouts are named in that section. 10 U.S.C. 7541 allows for outright gifts under some circumstances, but also cuts the “Naval Sea Cadet Corps” and the “Young Marines of the Marine Corps League” in on the deal. 32 U.S.C. 508 authorizes National Guard members to provide various services to the Boy Scouts (and a whole bunch of other specifically named non-profits, like the YMCA and the Campfire Girls, plus anyone else the Secretary of Defense feels like), provided the taxpayers don’t get too seriously hosed and it doesn’t put anybody who might be giving Congressional donations out of business and it helps the National Guard train or something.

There are over 70 specific references to the Boy Scouts in the U.S. Code. I didn’t read them all, so I don’t know if there are any provisions making them the government in the event of nuclear war.

It does seem a tad disingenuous to say “Oh, but they’re just a private organization–they should have the right to conduct their affairs however they want!”

[Eonwe]

I agree, MEBuckner, but I also think that it is important to remember that private organizations do not have the right to discriminate!

On the site of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, they make clear that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964…

prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.

This applies to the private sector as well as the public. Now, this does not cover sexual preference, which I suppose is why we have this issue with the Boy Scouts, but it is obvious that private or public, there is definite prescident for government prohibition of discrimination. The argument that “we’re a private institution, we can hire whomever we want” just doesn’t hold water.

[armedmonkey]

ahem. First off, I don’t have much of an opinion on this issue. I would just like to point out that title VII:

*Originally posted by Eonwe *
**

prohibits employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin.

**

never mentions sexual orientation. It has yet to be amended to include homosexuals. Therefore, it does not bar discrimination against homosexuals.

[armedmonkey]

*Originally posted by Eonwe *
Now, this does not cover sexual preference, which I suppose is why we have this issue with the Boy Scouts

uhh, next time I’ll read the whole post, I promise.

[waterj2]

This was not the issue in the Dale case. New Jersey’s public accomodations law does prohibit discrimination against homosexuals. Therefore, the Scouts were told they had to reinstate Dale by the New Jersey Supreme Court.

The US Supreme Court then ruled that requiring them to reinstate Dale would abridge the Boy Scouts’ right to free expression (under the doctrine of “expressive association”). That is, since the Boy Scouts teach that one must be “morally straight,” allowing homosexuals to join would be contrary to their teachings, and thus limit their freedom to express themselves.

Over in the MPSIMS thread linked in the OP, I have explained this a bit better, starting towards the bottom of the first page, and including a link to the Dale case in the post at the very bottom of the first page.