AZMike

Comment:

They do that quite frequently. They just fought a legal battle with SCOTUS over their desire to discriminate against the religious owners of Hobby Lobby, in violation of a statute signed into law by President Clinton. They have ended contracts with Catholic adoption agencies over their commitment to abide by their religious beliefs.

Reply:

No, the Catholic adoption agencies ended the contracts, because the government would not grant those contracts to agencies that excluded gays as potential adopters. Those agencies could have either agreed to the contracts, or continued without government funding.

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 one-fifth of the nation's workforce -- and it explicitly bans discrimination against federal employees based on their gender identity. Senior administration officials outlined details of the executive order in a Friday afternoon call. To the relief of the LGBT community, there is no sweeping religious exemption in the executive order." http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/18/obama-gay-rights_n_5600100.html

(I note that the question didn't say boo about adult sex offenders),

....

AZMike:

• "Adult leaders who were previously convicted of a child sexual offense, but are no longer required to register as a sex offender?"
  

 

First, it's a Venture Crew - they allow girls.

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.

Second, you didn't really answer my question -- what should the BSA do?

Advise them that someone can't be a member of the crew and be an atheist, and if the CO isn't willing to abide by the agreement, cancel their charter.

As an aside, no government agency can decide to discriminate on the basis of religion.

They do that quite frequently. They just fought a legal battle with SCOTUS over their desire to discriminate against the religious owners of Hobby Lobby, in violation of a statute signed into law by President Clinton. They have ended contracts with Catholic adoption agencies over their commitment to abide by their religious beliefs. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 requires the federal government to recognize religious belief as a protected class, and while LGBT, ethnic, and other groups have received official recognition days, weeks, and months, they have failed to provide similar status for Christians or to provide programming where prominent Christian ministers and priests are invited to government offices to discuss their beliefs, to be webcasted to the agency's population at large.

What kind of government agency is doing this? Federal, State, County, City, Tribal? Or is this a hypothetical?

• Girls?
  I would say yes, but that would conflict with the agreement the GSUSA has with the BSA
  
• Boys over or under the current age limits?
  No, except for the current exception
  
• Atheists?
  Yes
  
• Transgenders (a girl who says she identified as a boy, or vice versa)?
  Yes
  
• Adult leaders who were previously convicted of a child sexual offense, but are no longer required to register as a sex offender?
  No
  
• An adult with a DUI who wants to drive kids to camp.
  No
  

Here's a question for you, AZMike (or anyone) -- I know of a Venture Crew chartered by a government agency. What should happen if the national BSA discovers an atheist as a member of that Crew?

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 national membership requirement, but not another one that displeases you?

Horizon' date=' you have it so wrong. From the posts in this and other threads a female in a swimsuit only sends the message "I want to swim". A male in a swimsuit sends the message of moral depravity and is political. Still not sure where anyone plans to swim in a parade.[/quote']

 

How about a male in a swimsuit sprawling on the ground so he can be spanked by passersby? I think that was the issue under discussion.

The issue of some of the types of displays that AZMike likes to post did not show up until page 4 (or page 4 based on my settings that is).

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 position. In this position, he is responsible for implementing the vendor permit policy I discussed in my letter to the editorof the Times Argus (which I also copied to Facebook and my Montpelier mailing list). The letter suggested that if the city wanted to deny vendor permits on the basis of the civil rights policies of the businesses and organizations applying, they should make that a clear review criteria in the vendor policy.

I think it would be a good idea to conduct that type of qualitative review, which might include other city priorities as well. How much food do vendors buy locally? Do they pay their workers a livable wage? There are lots of things that could be considered, in addition to their track record on civil rights.

Think about how a civil rights clause in the vendor policy might apply… does the Catholic Church ever apply for a vendor permit? They don't allow women to be priests. According to Maxine, a local woman who used to be a nun, they fire people from jobs with the church if they're openly gay. But if you turn their permit down, you open the debate about separation of church and state. So it’s not a simple question.

Food vendors that come to town - do we ask them to show the city their affirmative action/equal opportunity policies as part of the application?

Unless these criteria are actually part of the official public policy, which has been duly adopted through the process of public notice and comment, denying anyone a permit on that basis is, in a word, illegal. Subject to court action...just last year, the U.S. Park service had no choice but to grant a permit to the Klu Klux Klan to march in Gettysburg, for example. New York City lost a case to the Klan back in 1999; cities in Virginia lost parade permit cases to them in the 1980s.

The Supreme Court has ruled that permit policies that vest government decision-makers with uncontrolled discretion is unconstitutional. They base their decisions on the equal protection clause of the constitution, and other constitutional guarantees like freedom of expression and assembly.

Despite all that, our City Clerk seems to think that my discussion of the constitutional constraints on his office is "ugly, classless, and willfully ignorant." He is "disappointed" in me for writing it. When I read his note, I had to ask myself why he sent it – what did he think he was gaining by clicking that “send†button? Were other people blind copied on it?

Given that it was arguably his responsibility to point out the problems with using a city vendor permit to make headlines about the Boy Scouts when Mr. Guerlain originally raised the issue, was it just easier for him to send off a nasty letter to the city's favorite scapegoat – yours truly - than was is to look in the mirror? We all deserve better from our public officials than this.

Awwww, Skeptic....you're trying to make all this into something serious. I guess I could use Scouter99 as a model and respond: nya, nya, nya!

Do you not see the irony in all this? When this thread was started, 6 out of the first 10 threads in I&P had been started by AZMike.Yes, I counted them. And he has been successful in drawing many forum members to these flames. To what end? What illuminating ideas have come to light as a result? Hello? Anyone there?

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 children who may be asked to participate are fully aware, or is this somehow not cricket and unsporting to our gay brethren (and sistern)?
  
• Should the instances of simulated S&M, transvestitism, ritual humiliation, B&D, spanking, fire-jumping in underwear, etc. at packsaddle's campouts be equated to the adult behavior at Pride Rallies, or is this a specious comparison?
  
• What the hell is going on at Packsaddle's campouts and King Ding Dong's OA ordeals, anyway?
  
• If one is uncomfortable with the posting of photographs of bizarre behavior at a rally where children may attend, is the correct response to imply that anyone who is posting them must be a closet homosexual? (Not that there's anything wrong with that.)
  
• Did Presbyterian "Womanless Weddings" presage the current Presbyterian acceptance of gay marriage, gay ministers, and the boycott of Israel, or what?
  
• How many times can packsaddle type "LOL" to simulate nervous laughter before we suspect he is actually a teenage girl? (j/k)
  

Look, I understand that there exist members who harbor all sorts of nightmarish fears and concerns about 'you-know-what'. I get that. Anyone who doesn't by now should probably be practicing their alphabet. To me the irony is that YES, those parades are about all sorts of things including in-your-face displays designed to shock some of us and, judging from the obsessiveness I've observed here, it's working. But WHY then would those who are obsessed with it then continue the aim of those they are obsessed about and continue to display those 'shocking' images to others?

See points 1 - 3, supra.

I guess it could be for the same reason I think Scouter99 should be allowed to spew whatever passes for thought from his mind onto the rest of us. But I'm not repeating it for him. AZMike....IS. That is the irony to me. He seems to be promoting that which he objects to by copying it again and again for everyone in these forums (including the boys) to see and react to. Why? To change minds? Unlikely. To express outrage? I think everyone gets that already. To provide illuminating ideas and thoughtful discussion?....well....make me! (sorry, couldn't resist) Why? To change minds? Unlikely. To express outrage? I think everyone gets that already. To provide illuminating ideas and thoughtful discussion?....well....make me! (sorry, couldn't resist)

So..........you do find pride parades an inappropriate place for Scouts? Isn't that why you find the photos disturbing? That's kind of the point of this discussion. Or do you just feel the rest of us are too bourgeois to appreciate the Rabelaisan charms of such gatherings?

Mike, There is not one word in the post I had made in an earlier thread that mentions a parade or even relates to a parade - not one single word. Why am I not surprised that you got it wrong.

 

Straight parades? How about the St. Patrick's Day parades in Boston and New York City that refuse to allow gay and lesbian units march? Ever been to a parade with Shriners zipping around on little carpets or go carts wearing fezes? Ever been to a parade with a "precision lawn mower drill team" complete with marchers wearing bermuda shorts and black socks? Or maybe a precision lawn chair drill team? Yeah - you can't get any straighter that that.

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?

One more thing - I never have understood how people who claim to be so opposed to and upset with Pride Parades can go out of their way to search out, download and post pictures from Pride Parades. For some reason the word Repression comes to mind and I don't mean it in the sense of one group of people trying to repress another group of people - I mean it in the sense that someone is trying, and failing, to repress their own emotions and personality.

"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 is appropriate to spend ten seconds finding out what kind of things are going on in it, CalicoPenn?

So because you are both made uncomfortable by the images of the event, you and packsaddle have gone out of your way to set up shop as parlor psychologists and imply that you think I'm a closeted homosexual, in violation of this site's TOS to which you agreed when you signed up. Personal attacks are not allowed.

First, you both needn't worry that my attorney will subpoena the site administrator to request your IP addresses for a defamation lawsuit. The courts now hold that implying that someone is a homosexual, or stating that they are a homosexual, is no longer grounds for libel. I also prefer to deal with idiotic personal attacks in the same way you would deal with a similar attack from a 6th grader - the class of person who usually makes that argument. I point out that I am a healthy, normal heterosexual, as I presume you both are, and call upon you to act and write according to the normal standards of adult conduct and maturity that we would expect from you both.

Second, why would you have a problem with that if I was?

If you have a problem with the idea that I might be a homosexual, closeted or not, what does that make you? A "fag-basher"? A "homophobe"?

Or do you have a problem with the idea that I could be a hypocrite? I state that homosexual behavior is wrong and that while one should hate the sin but love the sinner, one should not condone the behavior or hold it up as a standard for a youth leader. Because you are apparently prone to seeing a homosexual hiding in every closet, and because it apparently makes you uncomfortable to see the kind of things that are visible at every gay parade and rally, you conclude that I must be a "closet queer," and so must be a hypocrite.

Unfortunately for your argument, that implies that my moral stance is correct. You see, CalicoPenn and packsaddle, we only accuse someone of hypocrisy if the moral stance they are suspected of failing to uphold is moral.

Suppose I was a Nazi officer in WWII. I espouse the principles of National Socialism, but secretly feel sympathy for the Jews and work to shelter them and help them escape the country. Would I be called a hypocrite for not living up to the odious ideals of Hitler? Clearly not.

Suppose I was an Ayn Rand-style Objectivist who was an atheist and insisted that one should not give charity to those who cannot provide for themselves. But instead, I secretly give my wealth to the poor and indigent and work in a church's soup kitchen in a disguise. Would I be accused of hypocrisy? No.

In both cases, I am acting morally, in contradiction to my stated beliefs.

A claim of hypocrisy only works if the moral stance that is advanced is a good one. If you claim that I am a hypocrite, you are endorsing the moral righteousness of my stated position.

So both of you, drop the outdated 1950s attempts at psychological analysis and act like gentlemen.

Heh, heh, the thought just occurred to me...there seems to be only one forum member who is so obsessed with this that he not only visits the sties with these photos...he also downloads them and shares them with us here.You just never know what things dominate the thoughts of other persons, lol. Makes for an interesting forum though.

(BTW, I can show you similar images if you'll visit the local biker bar near my home...and I suspect [but I could be wrong]...that very, very few of them are gay...summer just seems to bring out the best/worst/whatever in us somehow)

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

That's my favorite, Calico, anyone who thinks pervs shouldn't go down the road wearing leather thongs must be gay.

I guess since I think SMs shouldn't shower with Scouts it must mean I really want to take showers with Scouts. But that's better than just going ahead and doing it.

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 your time trolling the Internet for such pictures...which aren't at all objectionable, according to the left...or something.

You can't object to the content of the photos of the event you endorse, so attack the fact that the photos were posted.

It's easier to make such vacuous, sophomoric sniggering defensese than to try to engage with the argument: Why would you trust a scoutmaster (and we're not talking about the risk of molestation by the scoutmaster, we're just questioning his/her common sense) who brought their scouts into such an environment? Why would you trust them to make any decisions regarding safety?

Sounds like the Scouts are "going Galt."

The LondonPride event made front page on the UK Scout Association website http://www.scouts.org.uk and a full news item here:

http://scouts.org.uk/news/2014/06/scout-pride/

 

text from above link:

 

 

Scouts took part in a fantastic London Pride celebration on Saturday. It’s the sixth year that we’ve attended this LGBT event, and the turnout was bigger than ever.

 

We were there to show the thousands of spectators that Scouting is diverse, inclusive and welcoming to people from all walks of life. For the first time, we were joined by young people between the ages of 16 and 18.

 

The revellers at Pride were in high spirits despite some drizzly weather. Almost 90 people – including volunteers, young people and staff – represented Scouting in the parade through central London.

 

They were decked out in bright purple I-scout T-shirts and some dressed up as adventurous Scout activities, wearing kayaks and tents. This year Scouts were at the head of the parade, with an eye-catching, decorated Scout-branded coach (courtesy of our partner National Express).

 

For the first time we held a pre-Pride event. Dean Jefferys (Regional Commissioner for London), Matt Mills (Regional Commissioner for East of England) and author and campaigner James Wharton set the scene on why Pride is so important. There was also the opportunity to network and find out about our team of Specialist Advisers in Inclusion and Diversity.

 

Our attendance at Pride was organised with FLAGS, the National Scout Active Support Unit which supports LGBT adults in Scouting. As part of our commitment to diversity, we’ve created new resources on gender identity and sexual orientation in partnership with the charities Stonewall, The Gender Trust and Mermaids.

 

Watch our

, shown in Trafalgar Square during the celebrations.

 

Check out our Facebook album of Pride photos.

So Scouts were taken into this environment, eh?

Include me out, as Yogi Berra said...

Couple of things to point out though. 1) The UK Scout Association did not unilaterally decide to allow gay adults to be leaders. Tony Blair's left wing government passed legislation forcing them to comply. 2) If you make any statements about homosexuality being immoral in the UK you risk a visit from Plod investigating a hate crime.

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 shudder to think of Scouts walking in a group with these guys:" I have seen scarier OA costumes.

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

Until pride parades are rife with other youth groups (4-Hers' date=' GSUSA, Boys and Girls Clubs, etc) I don't see a need to include the Boy Scouts. Churches, VFW Posts, political parties, civic groups, are adult organizations. If the BSA is the only youth group there, something is wrong.[/quote']

 

Agreed. If an adult leader knowingly allows boys to enter into a parade filled with that kind of deviancy, why would you trust him to lead them safely on a canoeing trip or trek? What does it say about his (or her) judgement and stability?

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 fix the freaking search function on this site, which doesn't access all the posts before the software changeover. I think I've demonstrated my point sufficiently enough with more recent posts that it is not worth the time for me to go back and reread every LGBT post on this forum just to provide more evidence, especially as I doubt that you will change your mind even if I take the time to do so, and as you still have not responded to the simple question I asked you. My free time is not inexhaustible.

The 'brave' reaction by the troop would have been to shrug off the small-minded gesture by the city and do the service anyway - and teach the city some humility. They missed that opportunity to 'teach' as well as to 'demonstrate' the true scout spirit.

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

 

They can. Many units choose their own, and many units allow Patrols to make their own as well. Great way to show pride in your group.

 

Oops. I used the word pride. Can't have that.

 

I note the word "partisan" as well. Not sure what is partisan, other than that the Democratic Party has recently tried to jump on the bandwagon (Obama was against gay marriage before he was for it after all. Eric Holder defended DOMA, then supported gay marriage. etc).

 

The Boy Scouts for Equality (the name of their group per the NYC Pride page) was joined by Corporations (Wal Mart, Chipotle, Macys, Marriott, Penguin Random House), some sports leagues (soccer, rugby and softball at a glance), Religious groups ( Eastern Orthodox, A Baptists, Catholics, several Jewish groups), plus the usual politicians. The Democratic Party did appear to have more marchers - not surprised for both a gay event and one in New York City. Disappointed the Log Cabin Republicans were not there.

 

You can peruse the list of marching groups here: http://www.nycpride.org/uploads/Orde...hbySection.pdf

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 even if others laugh at him or threaten him."

I don't think I want one of these guys to be a Leatherwork MB Counselor...

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 are okay with their participation, and are encouraging them to march. They want to hand out recruitment flyers for your troop as they march. Do you say okay? If not, why not?

The response:

CalicoPenn: I thought about responding to each point but frankly most of your questions and concerns are based on a flawed initial premise in the first place - that homosexuality is intrinsically about sex - that it's just not worth it. Instead, I would ask, how will you deal with people that show such an abundance of ignorance that they come up with this kind of bigotry cloaked in "concerned questions".

TwoCubDad: A lot of your stuff is pretty out there, Mike. Fact is with a local option you get to decide what's over the line. BLT (whatever) parade? No. Transgender girl? No. Creepy adult. No. You can beat around all the political issues you like, but the bottom line for me is THIS IS A FRIGGIN' SCOUT TROOP and I don't get paid to deal with all the fallout and crap which will come from the above.

CambridgeSkip: Gay Pride etc. To be honest this has never come up. I've never had scouts that want to go. If I did I guess I would risk assess it like I would any other activity or event. What will happen there? What is the likely age range? What are the numbers like? How many adults will I need? Is it appropriate? I am aware of gay pride events that are relatively conservative in nature which I think I would be happy for them to attend and equally I know of events that are overtly sexual in their nature where I don't think I would happy for them to go as I don't think it is appropriate. Take it as it comes.

[i would note that these are some of the photos from the event the BSA troops participated in New York. Does this look like an event that is relatively conservative in nature?]





[i apologize if these are offensive and moderators can feel free to remove them if they violate TOS. But ask yourself the question: If these (and the many photos too disgusting to post of nudity, men wearing leather chaps and nothing else, various S&M accoutrements, etc. which were easy to find by googling "New York Gay Pride Parade 2014") are too offensive to post on this site - then WHAT THE %^#$ WERE THOSE SCOUTS DOING MARCHING IN THE PARADE? WHAT WERE THE ADULT LEADERS THINKING???]

Packsaddle: Referring to the OP again, I think most of the problems will be with the adults and the adult perceptions. All this worry over tenting, camporees, adult appearances, etc. seems to be mostly a search for problems as opposed to solutions.

Moosetracker: Thanks Cambridgeskip, you throw a bucket of reality upon the flames of panic & fear..

BadenP: AZ Mike - Your premise is purely fear motivated nonsense. Local Option means that the units leadership and CO will set the parameters of what is or is not allowable activities. National is abdicating that responsibility because they have lost their vision and lack the guts to declare what scouting should be on a National basis. IMO it is the most cowardly and gutless move National has ever done, and it shows me Nationals professional scouting has reached its end and is time to dissolve it once and for all. The last thing anyone needs to fear is a sudden overwhelming mass of gay youth and adults rushing to join the BSA...[in a later post] AzMike, It is not prudent discussing how we individual units will make our determinations of what is proper or not proper activities. Local option means exactly that, it is for the owners of the units to decide and not a concensus of the entire membership. As I said since National has lost their decision making ability and buried their heads in the sand it is now in the hands of the CO's to be the guardians of the units scouting values. In the long run this could result in scouting becoming a stronger organization but it is going to be a long and bumpy road.

[The answer of many of you posting at that time was that the holy grail of the Local Option would solve all problems. So, if Scouters in New York want to have their Scouts march in a parade of nutjobs like the ones posted above under the hypothetical local option that never happened...what does that do to the "brand" of scouting overall? Do those photos have an impact on how Scouts in your local troop will be perceived?]

Fehler: Scouts and Scouters cannot use the uniform of Scouting in political events or to promote political campaigns. Is a Gay Pride Parade a political campaign? I don't think so, no more so than a Latin American cultural event is the same as a pro-immigration rally, or any 4th of July parade is just a collection of politicians walking three blocks throwing stale candy at a bunch of sweaty babies. Now, if the event was a rally in support of specific gay rights/marriage legislation, I would remind those taking part that they may perform civic activities (lead a flag ceremony), but after that the uniform shouldn't be used.

DadScouts: I agree the practical problems mentioned will, in 99% of all cases, either not be a problem or the problem is easily solved or decided upon.

Now, I can post more on the responses to concerns on BSA participation if you want me to, and can make this my hobby for the next week or so. The search engine for this site is lousy, and many posts from years back are corrupted, as I found when I looked. Do you really want to deny that people pooh-poohed the idea that this was coming, though?


 

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.