From: Bruce E. Cobern (bec@PIPELINE.COM)
Date: Fri Sep 01 2000 - 17:38:36 CDT
> From: Scouts-L Youth Group List [mailto:Scouts-L@listserv.tcu.edu]On
> Behalf Of Steve Hoar
> Sent: Friday, September 01, 2000 3:30 PM
>
> Why is it necessary to first try to discredit the messenger before the
> dealing with the mail. How about considering another source for the same
> story. In this case, the source is CNN, which is certainly not 'to the
> right of the BSA'. Take a look at:
>
> http://www.cnn.com/2000/LAW/08/31/boy.scouts.discrimination/index.html
>
I don't think anyone is disputing that there has been a request from the
Bureau of Reclamation to the Justice Department concerning the relationship
of BSA's membership policies to a recent Executive Order concerning the
administration's policy not to discriminate on the basis of sexual
preference.
The difference is between the story carried by CNN above and the one
carried by FRC originally cited. The CNN story REPORTS that the request
for information has been made and provides context to the reasons for it.
The FRC story opens by categorizing the request as an attempt by the
administration to circumvent the SC decision. It is NO SUCH THING.
The BSA won the right to set its membership policies and to discriminate.
The government also has the right, if not the obligation under various
statutes, to decide that it does not wish, or is precluded from, supporting
organizations that exhibit certain discriminatory policies. This has
nothing to do with the SCOTUS decision, and is, in reality, a very logical
conclusion of the membership policies the BSA currently maintains and which
SCOTUS ratified their right to hold.
We can expect to see a significant erosion of support. Many governmental
organizations which are precluded by law from discriminating, either on the
basis of religious belief or sexual orientation, will have no choice but to
end their sponsorship. They most likely will also be forced to end any
preferential treatment given the BSA for the use of facilities and restrict
BSA's access to the same access provided others, whatever level that is.
We will also likely see many corporations whose corporate policies preclude
discrimination FORCED to cease support to the BSA or change their policies.
Same with UW's. Many of them have antidiscrimination policies which
preclude including certain types of organizations as beneficiaries. If the
BSA meets their exclusion definition they really have no choice, other than
to end their support.
it is interesting to see that many UW's, particularly in New England, are
merely shifting their support to LFL. If this allows funds that would
otherwise have been spent on LFL to be spent on traditional programs, then
the impact might be minimal.
Again, I think the objections to the FRC story were to the slant of the
article, not to providing a link to a story on the Interior Department
inquiry.
--
Bruce E. Cobern
mailto:bec@pipeline.com
