AZMike

In other words, due to the government's change in policy, the religious charities that contracted with the government were faced with acting in violation of their religious consciences, or losing their contracts. They chose the latter. I don't see how that is any better. And in fact, the executive order that President Obama will sign Monday will do just as I said. it "has two components: It prohibits federal contractors from discriminating against employees based on sexual orientation or gender identity -- a move that affects 24,000 companies employing roughly 28 million workers, or about

....

I understand that. My point was that the government provides support and officially recognizes the Boy Scouts, which DO discriminate against girls, as well as atheists. Why should they not be able to provide support, or charter, or be a chartering organization for a group that has membership requirements based on religion, including simple theism? The government enters into partnerships with other religious organizations that discriminate against atheists, such as the Catholic Church and various Jewish and Muslim charities, which receive grants and funding for a variety of services.

So, no local option. Re your question, I (unsurprisingly) wouldn't have a problem with it. Congress gave a charter to the BSA, and government entities offer use of government reservations and armories and equipment to Scouts knowing their policies. The agency would be within its rights to decide not to be a CO if they couldn't tolerate the membership requirements. They are already sponsoring an organization that discriminates against girls, and if a government agency supports the GSUSA, that organization discriminates against boys.

For those who support the "Local Option," at what point do you draw the line? Should COs be allowed to choose to include: Girls? Boys over or under the current age limits? Atheists? Transgenders (a girl who says she identified as a boy, or vice versa)? Adult leaders who were previously convicted of a child sexual offense, but are no longer required to register as a sex offender? An adult with a DUI who wants to drive kids to camp. If you feel gays should be allowed but not, say girls, or polygamists in Colorado City, why do you feel the CO should be able to change one n

So your position is that kind of public behavior (sadomasochism, bondage and domination, transvestitism, spanking, obscene signs) at an event where scouts participated is "not as bad" if it shows up further down in Google on whatever search-string you used on a particular day? Do you seriously intend that as a defense of this behavior?

Per Hailsmith's Facebook page, after her letter to the editor (which RememberSchiff quotes), she received the following email from the city clerk, John Odum, writing (I presume) in his official capacity: From: John Odum Date: Sat, Jul 5, 2014 at 1:11 PM Subject: very disappointed To: Gwendolyn Hallsmith Very ugly, classless, and willfully ignorant letter to the paper today regarding the scouts. I'm very disappointed. -John Her response was as follows, and she makes sense: John Odum, for those of you who don't know him, is the City Clerk in Montpelier, an elected p

Well, whoever owns this forum will probably appreciate the increased traffic to this site. There's that. Illuminating ideas? Well, the following were put up for discussion: Does the perverse sexuality displayed in gay pride parades represent a hostile environment for teen scouters who may be asked (or ask) to participate? Should the judgement of the scoutmaster or other adult leader who organized this be questioned in other circumstances involving questions of youth safety? Is it appropriate to post images of disturbing behavior at gay pride parades so that the parents of childre

And your point is...? How do those activities relate to transvestitism, bondage and domination, and obscene signs displayed in a parade in which Boy Scouts are marching? "Going out of my way" took about 10 seconds to type in the name of the parade that they boys participated on Google, clicking the images tab, and voila - something is displayed that probably doesn't fit the ideas of gay life that you have presumably formed solely from watching that nice gay couple on "Modern Family" each week.If you feel it is proper to expose young boys to that kind of event, don't you think it i

Would you bring Scouts to an event in that kind of biker bar?

That's pretty much a fall-back trope of the homophilic left, isn't it? If all other arguments fail, claim that because someone disagrees with the endorsement of homosexuality, that means you must secretly be homosexual, although the poster thinks there's nothing wrong with homosexuality, or, or....at that point their argument falls apart into circular meaninglessness. Or because someone googles the parade that someone else is endorsing, and finds photos of the kind of activity that scouts to which Scouts should not be exposed on the first page that Google returns, that must mean you spend all

Sounds like the Scouts are "going Galt."

So Scouts were taken into this environment, eh? Include me out, as Yogi Berra said...

Interesting. I didn't know that. Let me offer my thanks today and tomorrow to Messrs. John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, and George Washington.

I don't think any boy should participate in any OA "Ordeal" in your neck of the woods.

Sure it does. I raised the issue of how we would handle the (inevitable) desire to use Scouts in LGBT parades, and I was told that my ideas were based on "purely fear motivated nonsense," that I was fanning the "flames of panic and fear," and so forth. In other words, there's nothing to worry about. It Can't Happen Here, and if it does, why, the Local Option will make everything good. I can go back and find more comments that were made a few years back when a Canadian scout troop participated in an LGBT parade, and we were assured that It Can't Happen Here...if the moderators would f

I don't think you should stand there if someone is pitching at your head.

You should probably differentiate here - although some official representatives of various sects did participate, neither the One Holy Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church, nor the Eastern Orthodox Catholic Church participated - instead, you had a couple of groups of schismatics... I shudder to think of Scouts walking in a group with these guys: "it would be difficult to chastise the scouts and leaders for participation. We do have to practice what we preach ... A Scout is Brave. A Scout can face danger although he is afraid. He has the courage to stand for what he thinks is right ev

On 2/9/2013, I posted: 1) Participation in gay-themed events? Three scouts who have come out as gay join your troop. They want to participate in a local Gay Pride parade (such as this one: http://www.nytimes.com/2000/07/03/world/in-canada-gay-pride-can-be-part-of-scouts-honor.html) in uniform. Some of the straight scouts object to the unit appearing to support such an activity. It doesn't appear to be overtly political or partisan. You're a little uncomfortable yourself after looking at the themes of some of the floats in the parade, and some of the groups sponsoring the floats. Their parents

Sure. Can I ask your opinions on the issues raised by the photograph (use of LGBT rainbow paraphernalia as part of the "official" uniform as part of a partisan political event, first?

Kudos to the Associated General Contractors for making a principled stand: http://www.rutlandherald.com/article/20140701/NEWS03/707019948/1004

A letter from the local scout leader: http://www.timesargus.com/article/20...ON02/707019940 Another local letter to the editor: http://www.timesargus.com/article/20140630/OPINION02/706309940 Vermont is a famously progressive state, but attempts to make this a "teachable moment" (progressive-speak for "Change your mind and agree with me") have apparently backfired.

This is from the NY parade. I'm sure their participation was in no way "political." It's sad, but there were people arguing for admitting gays into the BSA on this forum who were insisting this kind of thing would never - never! - happen.