And this is not a theoretical matter. The decision of the Boy Scouts that it is dangerous to have adult homosexuals as leaders is a matter of the safety of those in their care. Witness Gerry Studds (D-Mass) who actually seduced a young boy, and Mark Foley (R-Fla) who sent nasty messages to a boy.
The Scouts are right on the law, and right on the practicalities of the matter. The AP is being politically correct by avoiding the fact that adult homosexuals are dangerous to young boys.
Please see my most recent statement on running for Congress, here.
Do you happen to know, how long has it been that the Girl Scouts have allowed male leaders? I was amazed when this was pointed out to me. It's a bad idea, just as allowing homosexual males to lead Boy Scouts is a bad idea.
I thought about that. They definitely used the word to make an emotional point. But the AP statement is technically accurate. The policy is discriminatory. It is not morally, ethically, or legally wrong per se to discriminate in hiring. It depends on the nature of the thing and what group is involved.
Since the Boy Scouts discriminate against instating openly gay leaders, isn't that like the policy of the U.S. military (don't ask, don't tell)?
Actually, they are. "1 a : the act of discriminating b : the process by which two stimuli differing in some aspect are responded to differently 2 : the quality or power of finely distinguishing."
On the one hand, you have the a hoterosexual scout master. OTOH, a homosexual. Responding to those situations differently is the essence of discrimination.
The left has twisted the language. Intuitively, folks respond to the word discrimination as a bad thing. But the ability to tell the difference between good and evil is precisely what the left seeks by attacking the word "discrimination."
Discrimination exercised wisely is a good thing. Discrimation exercised foolishly . . .
I believe you're being somewhat disingenuous with that argument. Of course the Boy Scouts are "discriminating" by excluding homosexuals. Dale simply ruled that the First Amendment protected the right of the Boy Scouts to engage in that particular form of discrimination. Nothing in this decision is inconsistent with that ruling: the Boy Scouts have the freedom to associate, but the state is under no obligation to grant them preferred status if they engage in certain types of discrimination.
The Boy Scouts made their bed when they decided to fight this battle, and now they have to lie in it.
The Boy Scouts refuse to allow homosexuals as members or leaders because they are homosexual. That is the definition of discrimination, but as a private organization they do have the legal right to discriminate. That's what the Dale decision said and nobody is disputing that right.
But in accordance with California law, Berkley is exercising it's right to refuse to subsidize any organization, public or private, that discriminates. That is their right under the Constitution. And unless the Boy Scouts can show that they themselves were unfairly discriminated against by the Berkley council then the case stays where it belongs, as a state matter. If the people of Berkley disagree with the court decision then they can change the law. Not that that's going to happen, of course.