Do Boy Scouts and Liberals Mix?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Do you realize that, under federal law, every employer or other entity has the "legal right" to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation? THere is no protection under any of the federal laws. Granted, some states and municipalities include GLBT as a protected category, but my point is the the Supreme Court didn't just decide that the BSA had some right that no one else did.

Really? No I did not know that.

A federal employee can be fired simply because someone finds out he is gay?

I thought that was just in the military.

[Anonymous]

Boy Scout popcorn stinks. And Troop 500 loooooves tacos.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Do you realize that, under federal law, every employer or other entity has the "legal right" to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation? THere is no protection under any of the federal laws. Granted, some states and municipalities include GLBT as a protected category, but my point is the the Supreme Court didn't just decide that the BSA had some right that no one else did.

Really? No I did not know that.

A federal employee can be fired simply because someone finds out he is gay?

I thought that was just in the military.

YES. Gay people can be fired in the majority of states from both public and private employment for the sole reason that they are gay. Technically it is currently against President Obama's executive order to fire employees of the federal government on the basis or sexual orientation, but it is not illegal and the next president, simply by repealing the executive order, could permit firing to resume.

Likewise gay people can in the majority of states be denied housing (as in it is permissible to refuse to sell or rent or lend to or even evict) from public and private housing (including hotels and section 8) for the sale reason that they are gay.


And yes, every single day in this county gay people are fired from their jobs and evicted from their homes on the sole basis that that are gay.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Private clubs, groups, organizations get to make their own rules. Don't join if you disagree but STFU this has gone on for 10 pages and you have accomplished nothing but showing that most PPs are as intolerant as the organization they are complaining about.

I agree with the 23:48 poster. We're intolerant of discrimination.

Courts have ruled that all-white country clubs are legal. That doesn't make it right.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:how can a "child" possibly be an athiest or agnostic? he doesn't know enough to make his own decisions - that is just brainwashing by the parents.

scouting is a wonderful opportunity to grow, to learn the outdoors, to bond with other boys and really grow confidence and learn useful like skills. My fondest memories from childhood were my hiking, camping and canoeing trips away from the big city.

Just like religious parents brainwash their children into following their beliefs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Private clubs, groups, organizations get to make their own rules. Don't join if you disagree but STFU this has gone on for 10 pages and you have accomplished nothing but showing that most PPs are as intolerant as the organization they are complaining about.

OP asked a question. People are discussing. This is a discussion board. Is there anything else you need explained?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm sure you pay a fee to be in that troop and a portion of that fee goes to the national organization, which quite publicly frowns upon homosexuality. To a SMALL extent this is like the people who watched the Jews get carted away in Nazi Germany but didn't say anything because it didn't affect them personally. If you want to participate in Boy Scouts that's your right, but don't try to pay lip service to being tolerant because you're not.

That analogy doesn't work because the BSA (AFAIK) isn't doing anything with their money other than running the BSA. It's not like you'd be funding protests or something.

I think the better reason to boycott would be to help the development of alternative organizations or to pressure the BSA to change its policies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't get why people...liberals....refuse to tolerate a group they claim doesn't tolerate others. You are doing the very thing your claim to be protesting.

It's amazing how often one encounters this idiotic argument.

A: "Black people suck."
B: "Racists like you suck."
A: "Hypocrite! You're discriminating against racists!"

[Anonymous]

I've just read the whole thread; it's surprisingly interesting, in particular the disagreement about whether to boycott or change from within. I came in on the boycott side, but it's hard to criticize the reported activities of the Cap Hill troop.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That letter went out 10 years ago. What has happened since?

Didn't you read what I wrote? Ten years ago we promised we'd do four things. I am very proud to say that for ten years and into the future, we pursue those four things all the time. We meet with the dunderheads at BSA HQ. We promote our position at meetings with other BSA adults leaders. We publicize our position in the community. And we do not discriminate against anyone on the basis of sexual orientation, ever.

We are a Scout-run organization, and each cohort from Webelos who enter Troop 500 understand part of the responsibility of being a Scout on Capitol Hill is to continue to pursue the goal of changing National BSA policy, just like they pursue the goals of being Trustworthy, Loyal, Helpful, Friendly, Courteous, Kind, Obedient, Cheerful, Thrifty, Brave, Clean, Reverent.

The question was, "Do Boy Scouts and Liberals mix?" On Capitol Hill, yes. Even if it's difficult some of the time. Probably because it's difficult, the boys really throw themselves into it.

I have tremendous respect for you and what you're trying to do. I wish my local chapter functioned with the same openness, because I do think that BSA is the "gold standard" when it comes to mixing outdoors learning and community service principles in a structured kids organization. It beats Girl Scouts, and Camp Fire kids by a mile.

My local troop is an interesting mix of people. I feel certain that at least some of them (perhaps most?) are "gay-friendly," and probably resent the BSA's policies on gays. But I think some of the parents are anti-gay. These are educated but religious people who are generally tolerant of others, but feel firmly that homosexuality is a sin. Although I disagree with that position, I can respect it in the context of thinking human beings who are also conscious of the fact that that is "their" opinion, and don't feel a need to try to save or bash gay people.

I think my son would really like scouting. And there are some BS principles that I would very much like him to learn. I've wondered in the past whether, with the right local troop, I could overlook the national organization's policies. I think if I were on Capitol Hill, where the troop openly discusses and objects to BSA's policy, I could. But my local troop seems to take the approach of quietly abiding by the anti-gay policies. I don't think they'd rat out a suspected gay parent or troop leader... I don't think they're anti-gay. But the fact that they're going along with scouting and just pretending the policy doesn't exist -- well, perhaps that isn't good enough for me. My son will not be joining BSA. And it's a shame. It's a great organization in many ways.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't get why people...liberals....refuse to tolerate a group they claim doesn't tolerate others. You are doing the very thing your claim to be protesting.

It's amazing how often one encounters this idiotic argument.

A: "Black people suck."
B: "Racists like you suck."
A: "Hypocrite! You're discriminating against racists!"

No, you're mischaracterizing the argument. Everbody (well almost everybody except one poster) says that the Scouts' policy against gays is bad. The argument is over HOW TO CHANGE it - whether to boycott the BS, or to work for change from within.

And it's on the "how to effect change" argument that you've proven yourself a complete jerk. Mainly, you refuse to see validity in anybody else's point of view but your own. Specifically, you refuse to see any merit in arguments that some people are earnestly working from within.

And your MO is to post 5 times in a row in response to every single post that you disagree with (and some of your links are starting to look repetitive). I agree with the poster who said it's time for you to STFU.

[Anonymous]

8:25 again. I should add that I'm on "your" side wrt getting rid of the anti-gay policy. I just don't think you're helping anything by being a jerk, and by sneering at the idea of working from within.

[Anonymous]

Again, it is NOT just one person posting the links and arguments against your point of view.

It is at least two people, probably more.

Personally, I do respect the approach of the BSA Troop 500. I think it is highly likely to be ineffective at this point, but at least they took a stand.

I'm glad whoever posted the information about the stand Troop 500 is taking has no fear that posting that refusal to follow BSA policy in an open public forum (it's one thing if the prpotest is behind closed doors, all-in-the-family kind of thing) will have any negative repercussions for the troop from BSA. That must mean the climate is changing, however slowly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

YES. Gay people can be fired in the majority of states from both public and private employment for the sole reason that they are gay. Technically it is currently against President Obama's executive order to fire employees of the federal government on the basis or sexual orientation, but it is not illegal and the next president, simply by repealing the executive order, could permit firing to resume.

Likewise gay people can in the majority of states be denied housing (as in it is permissible to refuse to sell or rent or lend to or even evict) from public and private housing (including hotels and section 8) for the sale reason that they are gay.


And yes, every single day in this county gay people are fired from their jobs and evicted from their homes on the sole basis that that are gay.

OK, I don't know that much about law. But wasn't the Supreme Court case about the fact that there was a state or local law in place barring discrimination against gays in public locations, but the Supreme Court ruled that the Boy Scouts had a first amendement right to free association, and therefore could use public meeting space and not be held to the state or local law?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't get why people...liberals....refuse to tolerate a group they claim doesn't tolerate others. You are doing the very thing your claim to be protesting.

It's amazing how often one encounters this idiotic argument.

A: "Black people suck."
B: "Racists like you suck."
A: "Hypocrite! You're discriminating against racists!"

No, you're mischaracterizing the argument. Everbody (well almost everybody except one poster) says that the Scouts' policy against gays is bad. The argument is over HOW TO CHANGE it - whether to boycott the BS, or to work for change from within.

And it's on the "how to effect change" argument that you've proven yourself a complete jerk. Mainly, you refuse to see validity in anybody else's point of view but your own. Specifically, you refuse to see any merit in arguments that some people are earnestly working from within.

And your MO is to post 5 times in a row in response to every single post that you disagree with (and some of your links are starting to look repetitive). I agree with the poster who said it's time for you to STFU.

Hey, Crazy:
1) I posted the post you quoted. I had just minutes before read the entire thread, so I'm not who you think I am. I did in fact post three times in a row, because this board doesn't have a "multi-quote" function, so it's a pain to quote multiple posts at once. The third of my three posts said that I had just read the thread recently, so if you noticed that I posted multiple times quickly, you should have noticed that. It also said that I found the statements about the Cap Hill troop very convincing.
2) I'm not mischaracterizing anything. I understand your argument; it's not the same one as made by the person I quoted. (Unless that person was you, which would leave me really confused.) The person I quoted very clearly equated intolerance of intolerance with intolerance of homosexuals and atheists/agnostics. Are you supporting that position?
3) I hate the anonymity on this board and I understand some confusion, but I don't know why you seem to have trouble understanding that at any time you may be interacting with multiple people with similar views.