Its about money

[Crossramwedge 10]

Here is an article about the BSA being pressured to cave in on its Gay policy.. Big name CEO's of large corporations are pushing it . BSA National is going to cave if we do not do anything about it. Here is the article. Go to it and read it yourself. Seems like we ought to do a little boycotting ourselves. According to this article ATT's CEO Randall Stephenson is pegged to be the new BSA Board President and is pushing it big time. Stinks to high heaven.

 

http://www.christianpost.com/news/boy-scouts-were-pressured-by-corporate-sponsors-to-change-policy-on-gays-89156/

 

[DeanRx 69]

Yeah, so what if its about money... BSA is a business. They have to stay fiscally solvent. If the majority of their big time donors have decided that their anti-gay membership policy needs to change, then it will change. Go ahead and try to put together an anti-boycott. The majority of Americans and the majority of American businesses DISAGREE with this stance. History and time has shown and will continue to show BSA to be on the wrong side of this issue. Those that wish for BSA to continue to die on this hill for this issue are really wishing for BSA to just die a slow death.

 

Eventually, BSA will loose enough clout and membership and it will cease to be a dominate youth organization in the USA. An interesting note, scouting in general (to include the UK - the real birthplace of scouting in the world) has not had this policy for the last couple DECADES. The US is so far behind the times regarding this issue compared to the rest of the world it is almost laughable, if it didn't continue to do so much damage financially and PR wise to scouting in the US.

 

Dean

[moosetracker 132]

Why would we fight or boycott something that is a good thing for the organization to do?

 

When they were refusing to change, the ones who did not want to change had no problem with telling us the reason they would not change was the financial backing of LDS churches.. It was no problem the organization wouldn't change due to groups financially backing this policy.

[jr56 92]

I think the policy of letting each chartering organization decide for itself is the best compromise solution in this instance.

[NJCubScouter 1389]

I think this is about morality, more than money. I believe it is wrong to force units to exclude people based solely on sexual orientation. If ending that policy also has a financial benefit, all the better.

 

Now that National has invited Scouters to tell them how we feel on this subject - they have done that, right? - rather than implying that those with the wrong opinions will find their membership terminated, I will indeed be writing to National with my opinion - and it won't be about a boycott.

[Callooh! Callay!1428010939 28]

 

"I believe it is wrong to force units to exclude people based solely on sexual orientation."

 

Is this what BSA does? It forces units to exclude people?

Where are these BSA units that were formed by force? Typically a unit becomes a unit in the first place not by having its members are forced into it... but rather by them volunteering for and paying money to become a part of an organization that has long discriminated based on both sex and sexual orientation. No one is forcing them to exclude anyone... they sign up willingly for it.

 

If excluding someone based on sexual orientation were an important issue for them, surely they'd not have chartered a BSA unit - unless they were willing to do something they know is wrong in order to get some benefit they think BSA will provide them.