Log In | Register
The Boy Scouts will be evicted from a Philadelphia municipal building for refusing to denounce the organization's policy of prohibiting homosexuality.
Boy Scouts Lose Philadelphia Lease in Gay-Rights Fight
Seeded on Thu Dec 6, 2007 4:22 AM EST
Article Source: The New York Times- Enjoy this article? Help vote it up the 'Vine.
- Public Discussion (22)
Many scout leaders that I've known over the years do not think the national leaders are right about barring homosexuals from being members. My belief is that as many of the national BSA leaders are Mormon their religious beliefs are the driving force behind this, not any historical idea from the founders of the organization.
- 3 votes
#1 - Thu Dec 6, 2007 7:33 AM ESTI don't know much about the organization since I quit after being a cub scout. I think it's tragic that an organization that has done a lot of good in the past risks falling out of favor entirely.
I'd be interested to know whether you're right, steveoutdoorrec. I'm sure the constitution is online somewhere, and the leaders of the organization are also likely listed online. I'll take a look.
- 2 votes
#2 - Thu Dec 6, 2007 10:15 AM ESTWe have changed from a country where religion was protected and lauded to a country where the application of religious principles results in active persecution.
Note that the only requirement for the Boy Scouts to remain in the building is that they renounce their principles.
- 3 votes
#3 - Thu Dec 6, 2007 10:46 AM ESTNo, the requirement was that the local chapter change its policy regarding homosexuals or become a full-paying tenant.
If they had done the latter, they would have been free to continue using the space and keep their policies intact.
It is not acceptable for the government to fund discrimination- and, by allowing lease of the space at a token of $1 a year instead of the estimated $200,000 a year value it has, that is what the government would be doing.
- 3 votes
Of course, the city provides no low rent housing for any organization which discriminates for any reason.
I'm sure they have no low rent arrangements for housing for abused women, for example.
Doubtless they avoid arrangements with gay rights groups because such could be construed as discriminating against non-gay people.
I am certain they have no programs to assist black people.
- 2 votes
You can't see a difference between programs aimed at a group that is at a disadvantage in some way and programs that exclude a group of people for "moral" reasons?
- 2 votes
Of course. Discrimination is OK if it is PC discrimination. If it is not PC, then it must be squelched.
- 2 votes
You're blurring a few lines in order to press your point, jpark, and I don't think you really need to do so. The Scouts don't have to renounce their principles. They provide valuable services to their community, and I think this mitigating factor should be considered when deciding what they should pay for the use of city property.
On the other hand, in order to protect our freedoms our laws renounce discrimination in any form. Organizations benefitting from government sponsorship must adhere to these laws.
Providing services to underpriveleged communities is not discrimination and has nothing to do with political correctness. By including services for abused women, you speak too broadly and weaken your argument.
I think the city could have compromised given the services that the Scouts provide the community, but on principle (the city's and the Scouts') they must be made to pay a reasonable fee.
- 1 vote
Cities which provide services for abused women seldom provide services for abused men. Discrimination includes preferential treatment.
The Boy Scouts do provide useful services and have provided useful services to the city in exchange for the site.
When cities, states and the federal government say an organization must renounce their principles in order to receive the same benefits as organizations which have no principles, they (the government entity) are discriminating.
Private organizations are allowed to discriminate, but government establishments are generally prohibited from discrimination.
The Boy Scouts is an organization which believes in God and in the moral principles of the bible. The city is discriminating against them on the basis of their belief in God.
If they were godless or believed in any god except the god of Abraham, they would not be facing this problem.
- 2 votes
Cities which provide services for abused women seldom provide services for abused men. Discrimination includes preferential treatment.
Surely that's the result of statistical outcomes... there being many abused women needing assistance and relatively few men. If the need was great enough and became known to public health officials, I'm sure services specifically for men would be created.
When cities, states and the federal government say an organization must renounce their principles in order to receive the same benefits as organizations which have no principles, they (the government entity) are discriminating.
What principles are we talking about here? ACLU believes in the Bill of Rights and defends them strenuously. NAACP helps black individuals and communities better their lives. This list could go on... These organizations all promote their principles.
If they were godless or believed in any god except the god of Abraham, they would not be facing this problem.
This has nothing to do with the organization's origin in an Abrahamic faith. They discriminate against homosexuals. Any organization with a basis in any faith, be it Abrahamic, animist, wiccan, whatever that discriminates against homosexuals would be facing the same penalty.
We live in a pluralistic society, and in order for that to work we must protect the rights of minorities within our society.
- 1 vote
I don't know if the ACLU was involved in this particular case, but they have sued to remove the Boy Scouts of America from numerous publicly owned sites because of their belief in God.
I am unaware of a single case where the ACLU sued to remove any group or expression on public grounds except when that group or expression was associated with the God of Abraham.
- 2 votes
Ok I was unclear. By mentioning the ACLU and NAACP I only meant to illustrate that most every organization has principles upon which it functions. It was a confusing, lousy response, sorry.
I have no idea if the ACLU has anything to do with this.
They don't. And the ACLU has only been involved in trying to oust the scouts because of their discriminatory practices against homosexuals while utilizing public funds.
Fair enough. The point stands though, discriminatory practices shouldn't be subsidized by the government, and giving the BSA preferential treatment and heavily discounted public land-use rates is just that.
- 1 vote
I'm very glad to see Philadelphia taking this stand. It's ludicrous that a skilled, caring, and devoted scout leader can be removed from the organization just because he is gay. In 30 years we will look back at the discrimination of homosexuals in the same shameful way as we look back at Jim Crow and the institutionalized racial discrimination of the 20th century (and earlier, of course).
- 1 vote
#4 - Thu Dec 6, 2007 11:49 AM ESTI hope we reach that point as well, although I don't know if it'll happen in my lifetime.
I don't understand why this was seemingly a non-issue for the Girl Scouts, in contrast the all of the hub-bub we've seen with the Boy Scouts.
- 1 vote
The Girl Scouts are not controlled by the Mormon church, that's why.
Non issue for the Girl Scouts because they don't ban anyone for their sexuality.
Boy and Girl Scouts in America are two different organizations. What most Americans don't realize is that in every other country it is just Scouts. Both boys and girls are in the organization.
I assume that the rest of the world may not know that here the organizations are vastly different.
I'm a registered Boy Scout leader as well as a registered Girl Scout adult. My wife is the reverse and both our kids are active in one or the other.
- 1 vote
As a former scoutmaster I could care less what another person believes about a god or what they do in their bedroom. What matters is that they want to teach young men how to be leaders and develope a working ethical thought process.
What caught my eye in the article was this
Municipal officials drew the line at the Beaux Arts building because the city owns the half-acre of land where the building stands. The Boy Scouts erected the ornate building and since 1928 have leased the land from the city for a token sum of $1 a year.
The scouts OWN the building that they built using donations from some pretty well known people as well as funds I'm sure were raised by boys and their troops. It was built on city owned land and that land was leased to the scouts for $1. Somewhere there's a piece of paper or newspaper article that says this.
So to my mind if the city doesn't own the building they can't kick the scouts out. They can say, move or tear the building down. But the courts say different.
For those wanting to know who the headmen are in the BSA go here
- 1 vote
#5 - Thu Dec 6, 2007 12:26 PM ESTThe scouts OWN the building [...] if the city doesn't own the building they can't kick the scouts out.
That's a good point, steveoutdoorrec. I imagine that property law has some way of handling this, but it makes sense that if they payed for the design, construction and maintenance of the building then they should be recompensed if they must leave.
Thanks for the link.
- 1 vote
You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead. |
As a new user, you may notice a few temporary content restrictions. Click here for more info.
