Boy Scouts vs. Philadelphia

[NJCubScouter 1389]

Ed, Merlyn is correct about the time frame. I have been on this forum for more than six years (with a two-year break) and I am sure I have been reading about this Philadelphia thing for almost that whole period.

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

Here's a thread from five and a half years ago when the C of L council backtracked on their nondiscrimination policy and kicked out Gregory Lattera, and the second comment is from Ed:

http://www.scouter.com/forums/viewThread.asp?threadID=31006

 

See Ed? You really can't learn things. You can't even be convinced that something took 6 years when you commented on that very issue 5.5 years ago.

[evmori 11]

I'm not denying it took 6 years! I'm just stating the only reason it happened was politics! And it isn't over yet!

[emb021 16]

"in their [bSA] rush to become a private, discriminatory, religious organization."

 

The BSA has always been a private organization. Nothing has changed there.

 

I have yet had anyone explain what a 'public organization' is, btw.

 

The BSA has (like many organizations) had a membership policy about who can join. Other then dropping their restricitions on positions for women, the rest hasn't changed.

 

Calling their policies 'discriminatory' is obviously an attempt at being inflamitory, especially in light of the fact that there is nothing illegal about their membership policies.

 

As I think I've noted in the past, when people speak of a group being a 'religious organization' it usually means:

 

1) the group expouses a particular religious belief (whether it be something specific such as Baptist, Catholic, or the like, or more broadly such as Protestant or Christian).

 

2) and requires that its members accept that particular religous belief.

 

The BSA has NEVER expoused any religious belief, and has only required that members hold some kind of religious belief. What that belief is up to its members to define.

 

Calling the BSA a 'religious organization' is thus incorrect, regardless of whether that was said by people within the organization or outside of it.

 

 

 

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

The BSA's status wasn't clear until Dale; New Jersey said the BSA was a public accommodation, which would make it subject to nondiscrimination laws. Plus, as I have pointed out before, when you have thousands of public schools running your clubs, you aren't private.

 

Calling their policies "discriminatory" is not being inflammatory, it's being accurate.

 

The BSA says it's a religious organization. Argue with them.

[NJCubScouter 1389]

Ed, if you want to call a city enforcing its policies "politics", you can. I am not sure what it adds to the discussion, though. What exactly do you mean by politics, anyway?

[Beavah 205]

The BSA's status wasn't clear until Dale

 

Horse hockey. Da BSA's status was always clear. Even "public accommodations" are private entities eh? And da NJ ruling was spurrious.

 

Plus, as I have pointed out before, when you have thousands of public schools running your clubs, you aren't private.

 

Horse hockey. Da BSA is a materials and program provider. Tens of thousands of other private materials and program providers contract with public schools every year. Textbook publishers, lab equipment manufacturers, consultants, food service contractors and da like. All private.

 

Only time you'll see when a government enterprise contracts exclusively with other "public" entities is when we finish becoming a socialist state. Right now we're only 45% there. Well maybe more after we finish nationalizing finance and da auto industry.

 

Beavah

 

[evmori 11]

Enforcing a policy decades after it was put into place is, to me, selective enforcement! The BSA has had the same membership requirements for a long time! Politics!

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

Beavah, the Dale case decided whether the BSA was a public accommodation or not. If it had been ruled a public accommodation, they could not legally exclude Dale for being gay under NJ law.

 

And no, the BSA did NOT just furnish materials for cub scout packs; the BSA required that public schools discriminate on the basis of religion, which is unlawful.

[Beavah 205]

Merlyn, da Dale case turned mostly on freedom of expressive association, and there are all kinds of public school programs where protected classes are discriminated, from single-gendered sports to experimental single-gendered schools to voucher programs for religious schools to public schools targeting the special needs of minority groups (includin' religious minorities like the Amish).

 

Da line ain't really so bright, eh? And our nation would be a poorer, more polarized place if it were.

 

B

 

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

Beavah, freedom of expressive association, for public accommodations, can be limited by laws. That's why public accommodations can be subject to laws, like not discriminating on the basis of race or religion, that private groups are immune to.

 

As for public schools, atheists have equal rights. Public schools can't own & operate "no atheists" private clubs, period. You're right that it's polarizing when one group tries to violate the rights of others, though. Some people fight for civil rights.

[NJCubScouter 1389]

Ok, Ed, so let's say it's politics. So what? The BSA still shouldn't expect special deals from a governmental entity when it is violating that entity's policies for getting a special deal. If the BSA got a "pass" for 6, 20 or 50 years, it should be happy it got the pass, but now it has to deal with the consequences of its decisions. I don't see why that is such a difficult concept when, presumably, it is similar to ideas that we teach our children. Or do you instruct your Scouts that if they break the rules, but get away with it for a long time, when they finally get caught, they should plead "selective enforcement"?

 

(The fact is, by the way, that if this lease was created in 1928, nobody had any idea what the BSA policy was towards gay leaders. They didn't need a policy, because sexual orientation was something that "just wasn't discussed." And besides, Philadelphia probably had no policy prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation until the 1980's or 90's. I suspect there were very, very few states or cities that had such policies before that time. New Jersey's anti-discrimination statute, the one that produced the Dale case, was not amended to deal with sexual orientation until around 1990, and Philadelphia was probably on the same general schedule. And it was in the same general time frame that the BSA began discussing internally what their policy was on gay leaders, and the details of the "policy" changed a few times until it was "announced" in the early 1990's. All this has been discussed before, but apparently some have forgotten.)

[skeptic 997]

NJ; thanks for the reminder. "Sexual orientation was not an issue until sometime in the late 20th century; and then 'Somebody' made it an issue.! Wonder who that was?

 

Also, I rather wonder why someone that is so upset about this to take away the privilege is not also suing to make the Council stop starting all their meetings with an invocation. Isn't that somehow also not legal?

 

Inquiring minds want to know.(This message has been edited by skeptic)

[NJCubScouter 1389]

NJ; thanks for the reminder. "Sexual orientation was not an issue until sometime in the late 20th century; and then 'Somebody' made it an issue.! Wonder who that was?

 

Yeah, I know. Imagine those uppity gays, demanding rights and stuff. You'd think they were human beings or something.

 

Also, I rather wonder why someone that is so upset about this to take away the privilege is not also suing to make the Council stop starting all their meetings with an invocation. Isn't that somehow also not legal?

 

You do realize that makes no sense at all, right? Well, no, you probably don't.

[evmori 11]

The BSA still shouldn't expect special deals from a governmental entity when it is violating that entity's policies for getting a special deal.

 

Well the culpability is on both sides, NJ. The BSA had the same membership requirements for a long time & if the City of Cheese Steak gave them a special deal without knowing that then it is the City of Cheese Steak who is violating it's own policies! Wonder how many other "special" deals the City of Cheese Steak has out there that violate policy? Since Fast Eddie the Thug was the mayor for awhile, I'd bet there are a lot!