Boy Scouts win right to remain in building they built

[Madeline]

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.

All that is likely true, Againshelia. But it doesn't change the fact that the values they teach include intolerance based upon ignorance. For many parents, including me, that would be a deal breaker.

 

[bodecea]

A Philadelphia jury has ruled in favor of the Boy Scouts, meaning they will not be evicted from their home or forced to pay rent, at least for now.

Outside the courthouse, a lawyer for the Boy Scouts, Jason Gosselin, told Fox News the Scouts won on the most important issue, that of First Amendment rights. The jury found the city posed an unconstitutional condition on the organization by asking it to pay $200,000 annual rent on property it was leasing for a dollar a year, in a building the Scouts built and paid for themselves, all because the city felt the Scouts were in violation of Philadelphia's anti-discrimination laws.

Boy Scouts Win Battle in Court Liveshots

Common sense and decency prevails in Philadelphia. At least today.

So, they get to keep their cake and eat it too. Stand by for other private organizations to demand the same sweetheart deal...I sure would.

 

[bodecea]

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.

Horrible lesson.

Scout Oath (or Promise)

On my honor I will do my best
To do my duty to God and my country
and to obey the Scout Law;
To help other people at all times;
To keep myself physically strong,
mentally awake, and morally straight.

Scout Law

A Scout is trustworthy, loyal, helpful, friendly,
courteous, kind, obedient, cheerful, thrifty,
brave, clean, and reverent.



Awful. Just awful stuff.

Tell that to kids who are all those things....but...they and their parents are atheists.

 

[bodecea]

A Philadelphia jury has ruled in favor of the Boy Scouts, meaning they will not be evicted from their home or forced to pay rent, at least for now.

Outside the courthouse, a lawyer for the Boy Scouts, Jason Gosselin, told Fox News the Scouts won on the most important issue, that of First Amendment rights. The jury found the city posed an unconstitutional condition on the organization by asking it to pay $200,000 annual rent on property it was leasing for a dollar a year, in a building the Scouts built and paid for themselves, all because the city felt the Scouts were in violation of Philadelphia's anti-discrimination laws.

Boy Scouts Win Battle in Court Liveshots

Common sense and decency prevails in Philadelphia. At least today.

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.

Everyone seems to focus on the gays (probably to inflame) but let us not forget that they also reject children of atheists too.

 

[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.

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.

In the 1950's, you could be an open racist in many areas of the country, and no one would say boo to you - in fact, you would probably be applauded. In the decades that followed, our country became educated to a degree on the issues of racism and bigotry. The Civil Rights Act played a large part in that education.

As a consequence of this evolution of thought, it became socially unacceptable to be an open racist. And so, people began to back off on expressions of open racism uttered to others. Did that mean that racism and bigotry no longer existed? Of course not - it just went underground.

And so, overt racism came to be replaced with covert racism. Now, instead of openly stating racist beliefs, the covert racist does things behind the scenes that will accomplish his goals. He pushes for policies that will make life more difficult for the objects of his hatred. He elects officials he knows share his views. He votes for laws that he knows are designed to hinder the progress of those he despises.

No one is going to stand up today and say: "I am a racist. I am a bigot." But they are still here.

If you support the right of the Scouts to be bigotted, the next question to ask is why? Why do you support that right? If you can honestly say you are strongly opposed to such a policy, but nonetheless recognize their right to do it under our existing laws; if you can honestly say you think they are a bunch of bigotted bastards and you have zero respect for them - then I would say good on ya, mate!

On the other hand, if you are saying that you hate gays yourself and think they have no business associating with normal people in an organization such as the Scouts, and THAT is why you are in line with what they are doing, then I would say that you truly are a bigot.

This is beginning to sound like that tired, old conservative wheeze that "no one has the right not to be offended" - God, what a rationalization for all kinds of rude, obnoxious behavior.

So - what's it gonna be, QW?

 

[bodecea]

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.

They do not own the property the building sits on and that is the problem. If an organization wants the right to discriminate it should be prepared to pay for the rights they demand instead of asking all taxpayers to subsidize their bigotry. Fucking hypocrites.

It's not discrimination, it's limiting membership of a private organization and any private group has the right to do it.

Absolutely...but private organizations don't get sweetheart deals with municipalities either. The BSA went to all the trouble to get themselves officially declared a PRIVATE organization...but they cry, moan, groan and sue when they find out that they don't get any special deals with government property anymore. BOO HOO.

 

[George Costanza]

Boy Scouts Win Battle in Court Liveshots

Common sense and decency prevails in Philadelphia. At least today.

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.

Everyone seems to focus on the gays (probably to inflame) but let us not forget that they also reject children of atheists too.

Why doesn't that surprise me? What lessons would our children learn from an organization such as that? Certainly not tolerance.

 

[boedicca]

Imposter:

Do you believe that the government has the right to void binding agreements because the members of a organization wishes to exercise their rights to freedom of association?

 

[bodecea]

Gays are not pedophiles you dumbass redneck red herring whore.

Spoken like a true hater. Where did you learn your values? Juvie?

I did not say they were pedophiles (although there have been a few) Girl Scouts arent permitted to camp with heterosexual males. Boy Scouts should not camp with homosexual men. It's inappropriate.

A person who supports organizations that promote good citizenship in young people is called a teacher, a parent, and a human being, not a "dumbass redneck red herring whore" .

By that logic gay men should be in the Girl Scouts. Do you support that?

The BSA does not promote good citizenship by discriminating based on sexual orientation. It's inculcating bigotry into young minds. You're a dumbass redneck red herring whore because you tried to deflect by mentioning the NAACP. Then you make yourself look even more foolish by trying to claim the goal is to destroy the BSA. I make childish name calling posts but at least I'm not a hypocritical dishonest bigot.

The Girl Scouts do not discriminate against gays and atheists.

 

[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.

All that is likely true, Againshelia. But it doesn't change the fact that the values they teach include intolerance based upon ignorance. For many parents, including me, that would be a deal breaker.

What, because they have to say they believe in God? What's wrong with that? You don't believe in God, don't join. The gay thing is a red herring. I never ran into the situation in the 3 years I was a leader. We never talked about it, never referred to it. We never went around asking the boys "Do you like boys or girls?" and then kicking them out if they gave the wrong answer. As for the leaders, we were required to have TWO at every meeting to make sure there was no inappropriate behavior by any of the leaders. We taught them how to care for the elderly, making gifts and doing Christmas Carols at the local nursing home. We taught them how to care for the poor, collecting food for the food bank door to door. We taught them how to make little racing cars that they could race. We taught them archery. We taught them to respect the flag, and the meaning of the Pledge of Allegiance. We taught them how to use a pocket knife, and the rules that went along with having a pocket knife. Yeah, it's a horrible organization. Good thing you wouldn't let your kids join.

 

[boedicca]

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.

Everyone seems to focus on the gays (probably to inflame) but let us not forget that they also reject children of atheists too.

Why doesn't that surprise me? What lessons would our children learn from an organization such as that? Certainly not tolerance.

Then here is a big clue: don't let your kids join the Scouts.

It's really easy.

 

[bodecea]

Do you believe that the government has the right to void binding agreements because the members of a organization wishes to exercise their rights to freedom of association?

The government is asking that the BSA pay the going rate for PRIVATE organizations to lease city property. The BSA doesn't want to do that, so they sued.

 

[boedicca]

Do you believe that the government has the right to void binding agreements because the members of a organization wishes to exercise their rights to freedom of association?

The government is asking that the BSA pay the going rate for PRIVATE organizations to lease city property. The BSA doesn't want to do that, so they sued.

The BSA has a valid lease with a stated rate in perpetuity. The city is trying to violate that lease because it doesn't like the Scout's agenda. It's PC vindictiveness.

 

[ConHog]

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.

George, as a lawyer, I don't know how you can say such things. And you know I repsect you, but come on. I have to be a bigot myself if I support their fight?

Give me a break George. I support the COTUS first, foremost, and last. We have rights, and defending the rights of those we despise most is sometimes the cost of doing business.

I have and do admit that I find homosexuals disgusting, but they have rights. None of those rights however include the right to join a private "club". They just don't have that right. The fact that this particular group has a building on public land is immaterial to the conversation. The rulings are clear. a private group DOES have the right to exclude members they deem undesirable to their standards. Even if those groups are protected. Likewise , nothing is stopping them from forming their own group and excluding heterosexuals.

And I have asked this before, why would anyone want to join a group who explicitly says "we don't want your kind?" , Good God man, could it be any clearer that the BSA values stand in direct opposition of homosexuality? Logic and common sense dictates that the ONLY reason gays are even trying to join is in an attempt to weaken the BSA , and why those homosexuals who just want to live their lives and be left alone continue to let these whackos make them look bad is beyond me.

 

[RadiomanATL]

Do you believe that the government has the right to void binding agreements because the members of a organization wishes to exercise their rights to freedom of association?

The government is asking that the BSA pay the going rate for PRIVATE organizations to lease city property. The BSA doesn't want to do that, so they sued.

They can ask, the BSA said no, we'll stick with the original contract thanksomuch. Then the city sued to try and get the contract broken.

As I said earlier, remove the homosexual aspect of it. It's irrelevant. It's a contract issue, and the city shouldn't be able to decide to break it at will when the other party has upheld their portion of the bargain.

 

[ConHog]

Do you believe that the government has the right to void binding agreements because the members of a organization wishes to exercise their rights to freedom of association?

The government is asking that the BSA pay the going rate for PRIVATE organizations to lease city property. The BSA doesn't want to do that, so they sued.

if you rent a house from me for $1 a month in perpetuity, I won't have a case if in 80 years I come and say "I don't like what they are doing so I want to raise the rate."

A lease is a contract.

 

[bodecea]

Do you believe that the government has the right to void binding agreements because the members of a organization wishes to exercise their rights to freedom of association?

The government is asking that the BSA pay the going rate for PRIVATE organizations to lease city property. The BSA doesn't want to do that, so they sued.

They can ask, the BSA said no, we'll stick with the original contract thanksomuch. Then the city sued to try and get the contract broken.

As I said earlier, remove the homosexual aspect of it. It's irrelevant. It's a contract issue, and the city shouldn't be able to decide to break it at will when the other party has upheld their portion of the bargain.

Are we removing the atheist aspect also? BTW, the city has a LAW that they cannot discriminate due to sexual orientation or religious belief in their property...it is their property...just like you would have to follow the rules of your landlord, the BSA (if they want to lease city land) have to follow city laws. They can always buy their own land and do what they will.

 

[bodecea]

Do you believe that the government has the right to void binding agreements because the members of a organization wishes to exercise their rights to freedom of association?

The government is asking that the BSA pay the going rate for PRIVATE organizations to lease city property. The BSA doesn't want to do that, so they sued.

if you rent a house from me for $1 a month in perpetuity, I won't have a case if in 80 years I come and say "I don't like what they are doing so I want to raise the rate."

A lease is a contract.

If you lease land to someone with the understanding that they will follow the LAW and they do not....now what?

 

[boedicca]

It's not against the law for the Scouts to require that members uphold the values upon which the organization is based.

Nor has any proof been offered that there is a clause in the lease allowing the city to break it if the Scouts violate some such future law that was not in effect when they signed the lease.

 

[RadiomanATL]

Are we removing the atheist aspect also?

Sure. It's irrelevant.

BTW, the city has a LAW that they cannot discriminate due to sexual orientation or religious belief in their property...it is their property...just like you would have to follow the rules of your landlord, the BSA (if they want to lease city land) have to follow city laws. They can always buy their own land and do what they will.

Obviously it was determined that this law did not apply in this case.