Boy Scouts win right to remain in building they built

[Quantum Windbag]

You fucking dumbass. The Cradle of Liberty Council is a BSA council, and it was created in 1996. Another whiner that doesn't know basic facts. You don't even understand my position or you wouldn't have said those things could happen "under my interpretation." Do you need more help with my position being spelled out?

Okay I see, so you don't know how the BSA functions. Let me help you.

How could the Cradle of Liberty Council have signed a lease in the 1920s? Oh they didn't. The BSA's national council did, they then subsequently charter local organizations to represent them. Therefor when the Liberty COuncil became the BSA's council in Philadelphia they got the BSA's lease.

Not that that has anything to do with anything.

The point is the BSA's first amendment rights as a group trump ALL laws. you can NOT outlaw someone's civil rights. PERIOD. The fact that you don't like how they are exercising their rights means NOTHING. The fact that you don't like that they are getting a good deal on some land from the city means NOTHING, they have a contract ie lease, and they have the CON.

Dumbass. Do you know any facts of the case? The lease was signed with the local chapter which was taken over by the Cradle Council formed in 1996. The Chapter rescinded their discrimination policy in 2003 but the national BSA office threatened to remove them from the National Charter if they didn't continue practicing bigotry. So under pressure the local chapter moved back to Bigotville.

Then the city should have renegotiated the lease in 1996 instead of letting it continue for 13 years and then trying to amend it. The jury disagrees with you, and your interpretation of the facts of the case. It is not clear from the article exactly what the local council's position is on gay membership, but it worked for 13 years until some sobbing crybaby progressive wanted it changed.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I'm not sure I agree, chanel. It's a bit disturbing to me that the Boy Scouts discriminates against gay youth as well as adults. I'm not at all sympathetic to the homophobic rejection of would-be gay scout troop leaders, but I can live with it. I wasn't aware, however, that the organization was asking children about their sexual orientation and rejecting those it deems "gay".

That seems terribly cruel to me.

The BSA does not prohibit any children from joining because of their sexual orientation. It might kick some out for their sexual activities though, since having sex with children is illegal even if the partner is a child.

Come again? The Boy Scouts have a policy of ejecting children who have suffered sex abuse? You cannot possibly be serious.

Where did you get that out of my post?

They have a policy of excluding people who abuse children, even if the abusers are children themselves.

 

[chanel]

And they won. As they have in almost every bogus lawuit brought against them. The BSA in Phila.serves ten of thousands of young men - mostly minority and many without fathers who desperately need male role models. Th left would rather see these boys running the streets than learning how to ski, surf, or help the disabled. Eff those kids. "We have an agenda and sometimes there is collateral damage"

 

[Madeline]

The BSA does not prohibit any children from joining because of their sexual orientation. It might kick some out for their sexual activities though, since having sex with children is illegal even if the partner is a child.

Come again? The Boy Scouts have a policy of ejecting children who have suffered sex abuse? You cannot possibly be serious.

Where did you get that out of my post?

They have a policy of excluding people who abuse children, even if the abusers are children themselves.

Merely because the adults come to believe that a sexually active child initiated the contact does not alter his status as a sex abuse victim. Severely disturbed, yes. Unsafe for other children to be near, yes. But a victim nonetheless.

 

[ConHog]

Hey guess what? Both Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts and church groups and ethnic groups and other "discriminatory" organizations use public property for their meetings, For free. Gasp - someone get the oxygen for curve.

I don't take issue with this, chanel. Freedom to assemble means, to me, freedom to exclude, to discriminate, etc. I don't even know if I feel the case was decided incorrectly. If the city has other such leaseholders who discriminate, and they have not sought to revoke those leases, I see no reason to single out the Boy Scouts. Personally, I think their position on homosexuality is wrong but this is America, and we get to act on our own values even if others don't share them.

My only issue is this business of ejecting or excluding certain children perceived to be gay. I'm not even sure I'd call it a legal or constitutional issue. But as a mom and a human being, I cannot tell you how disturbing it is to me to think the Boy Scouts (or any organization) is measuring the sexual orientation of children and ejecting or excluding those it finds wanting.

You and del keep saying this "rarely happens" or "never happens" and I'm just not altogether at peace with that reply. Why does the Boy Scouts have such a policy to begin with?

Madeline. I ask again. Why would ANYONE want to join an organization which openly doesn't want them?

 

[Madeline]

And they won. As they have in almost every bogus lawuit brought against them. The BSA in Phila.serves ten of thousands of young men - mostly minority and many without fathers who desperately need male role models. Th left would rather see these boys running the streets than learning how to ski, surf, or help the disabled. Eff those kids. "We have an agenda and sometimes there is collateral damage"

That's certainly one way of looking at it. But for the ten percent of children who are gay and will be gay adults, the Boy Scouts takes its success with others at their expense. Is the price too high? Does the end justify the means? Who can answer that? The Boy Scouts obviously does a great deal of good.

But please don't slam the motives of its critics, or close your eyes to the collateral damage the organization causes. Very few human groups are perfect, and this ain't one of them.

 

[boedicca]

Are there any instance of the Scouts ejecting children who "appear gay" (whatever that is)?

The Scouts forbid admitted homosexuals from leadership positions - that is quite different than rejecting kids who "look gay".

 

[ConHog]

Are there any instance of the Scouts ejecting children who "appear gay" (whatever that is)?

The Scouts forbid admitted homosexuals from leadership positions - that is quite different than rejecting kids who "look gay".

No of course there isn't , and whiners know this. but it sounds more awful to say "OMG they kick gay kids out"

Now there ARE some instances where Eagle Scouts have been kicked out for umm partaking during camp outs and such, but the BSA would equally kick them out if they were caught with females since they teach abstinence in accordance to their religious beliefs.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Come again? The Boy Scouts have a policy of ejecting children who have suffered sex abuse? You cannot possibly be serious.

Where did you get that out of my post?

They have a policy of excluding people who abuse children, even if the abusers are children themselves.

Merely because the adults come to believe that a sexually active child initiated the contact does not alter his status as a sex abuse victim. Severely disturbed, yes. Unsafe for other children to be near, yes. But a victim nonetheless.

What should the BSA do with someone who should not be near children? Keep in mind that it is essentially an organization of children. These pople might be victims, but the BSAs first responsibility is to prevent other children from becoming victims, not helping the person who is victimizing them, even if he is a victim himself.

 

[Madeline]

I don't know the answer to that, Quantum Windbag. I do know that if the child involved had heterosexual sex at his own initiative, my answer does not change.

I guess the decision what to do has to be made on a case by case basis, with a bias in favor of protecting other children....but that is a far cry from ejecting a child thought to be "gay".

 

[George Costanza]

I believe that the motivation of the Boy Scouts' policy is to protect the welfare of the boys who are members in a way that is consistent with their stated values.

You are beginning to sound like a real politician here.

The reason I question your sincerity on this issue is that you referred to "PC attacks" on the Boy Scouts for this policy. Whenever someone uses a phrase such as this, there is only one assumption that can be made - they feel the attacks are unfair and/or unwarranted. Calling something "Politically correct" is code for: "it's bull shit."

So I can only assume that you not only agree with the Scouts having a policy that is "consistent with their stated values," but also that you AGREE with those stated values, i.e., the Scouts SHOULD kick those little faggots out of the organization so that their "normal" boys won't have to be exposed to them.

No one will admit to bigotry, so I am not surprised at your reluctance to do so. That would be overt bigotry, and that is no longer socially acceptable. Today, we deal with covert bigotry which is supporting programs that make life more difficult for the targets of the bigotry, or which make it easier for bigots to take advantage of their targets.

I think the Scouts are imposing a policy of out and out bigotry if they expel gays from their organization. I will further say that anyone who supports such a program is also a bigot.

 

[boedicca]

Think that if it gives you comfort.

I'll stand by my record here. You won't find anything in my posting history advocating discrimination which violates someone's constitutional rights. Exercising one's freedom of association is not discrimination, no matter how the Progressives try to manipulate the definition. My concern in this case is that the rule of law and a valid contract not be voided for political purposes.

 

[George Costanza]

Subsidize bigotry? How much taxpayer money goes to the scouts? Vs. The NAACP for instance?

Let's get real. If gay leaders were allowed to camp with the boys, how many parents would sign their kids up? Yeah I'm sure all those anti scout haters would be flooding the troops and volunteering their time. Not.

Their goal is not equal rights. Their goal is to destroy the organization. Which is exactly what would happen.

Gays are not pedophiles you dumbass redneck red herring whore.

A few loons aside, this had nothing to do with the Scouts being afraid gays were going to start raping little boys. It's just their religious beliefs, and you have to respect that if you want YOUR rights respected.

No, I DON'T have to "respect" it. I have to TOLERATE it, but I don't have to respect it. And I most certainly do not respect the Scouts for taking a stance such as this.

They may be free to do it, but they must be prepared to pay the consequences when they do, and the consequences are, that it makes the entire organization look like a bunch of bigots who are teaching the WRONG message to their members.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I believe that the motivation of the Boy Scouts' policy is to protect the welfare of the boys who are members in a way that is consistent with their stated values.

You are beginning to sound like a real politician here.

The reason I question your sincerity on this issue is that you referred to "PC attacks" on the Boy Scouts for this policy. Whenever someone uses a phrase such as this, there is only one assumption that can be made - they feel the attacks are unfair and/or unwarranted. Calling something "Politically correct" is code for: "it's bull shit."

So I can only assume that you not only agree with the Scouts having a policy that is "consistent with their stated values," but also that you AGREE with those stated values, i.e., the Scouts SHOULD kick those little faggots out of the organization so that their "normal" boys won't have to be exposed to them.

No one will admit to bigotry, so I am not surprised at your reluctance to do so. That would be overt bigotry, and that is no longer socially acceptable. Today, we deal with covert bigotry which is supporting programs that make life more difficult for the targets of the bigotry, or which make it easier for bigots to take advantage of their targets.

I think the Scouts are imposing a policy of out and out bigotry if they expel gays from their organization. I will further say that anyone who supports such a program is also a bigot.

If I support their right to be a bigot why does it automatically make me a bigot?

Not that I am not a bigot, I freely admit that I discriminate all the time against people I don't like, just like everyone else in the world.

 

[George Costanza]

Think that if it gives you comfort.

I'll stand by my record here. You won't find anything in my posting history advocating discrimination which violates someone's constitutional rights. Exercising one's freedom of association is not discrimination, no matter how the Progressives try to manipulate the definition. My concern in this case is that the rule of law and a valid contract not be voided for political purposes.

And you can stick by this statement as well, if it gives you comfort.

But "freedom of association" seems to me to be the code phrase trotted out whenever an issue like this arises. Sure, people should be free to associate with whomever they please. But something like that in no way excludes bigots, now does it? And I would disagree with you when you say that exercising one's freedom of association is not discrimination. Many times, it isn't; but many times it clearly IS.

If you can honestly say to me that you are strongly opposed to discrimination against gays at any level - public or private - but, in spite of that, you also recognize the right of an organization such as the Boy Scouts to engage in a policy that produce exactly that result, I would understand.

Until then, my previous comments stand.

 

[boedicca]

Of course. Every time an actual phrase that means something is used, someone from the Left has to claim it is a code word for something nefarious.

 

[Madeline]

George, IMO there is a constitutionally protected right to assemble as a group that discriminates. Using government facilities to do so is less clear, and I assume the Boy Scouts won in part because they were able to show that other discriminatory groups did so as well.

I would like to see a complete end to government underwriting of the costs of anyone's bigotry, but we ain't quite there yet.

 

[Againsheila]

They should not have to pay rent since they did pay for the building, but the lesson the boy scouts are teaching the children is wrong. My son will never be in the Boy Scouts.

Are you sure you're not blonde? The Boy Scouts is one of the best organizations for youth in the world. Boys who have been boyscout have better grades in school, slimmer chances of committing crimes, and many other things I've forgotten since I was a cubscout leader.

 

[boedicca]

The won because they have a Valid Lease for the land upon which they constructed and maintain a building with their own money.

 

[boedicca]

They should not have to pay rent since they did pay for the building, but the lesson the boy scouts are teaching the children is wrong. My son will never be in the Boy Scouts.

Are you sure you're not blonde? The Boy Scouts is one of the best organizations for youth in the world. Boys who have been boyscout have better grades in school, slimmer chances of committing crimes, and many other things I've forgotten since I was a cubscout leader.

And that's the real reason for attacking the Scouts. They teach traditional, American values.