Scouts unbowed by Berkeley bullies

Orange County Times ^ | Feb. 28, 2003 | Harold Johnson

[Stone Mountain]

So why don't they define it? Good question. I don't know. Ask them.

I think we both know. Creating objective criterion for being an "avowed" homosexual would mean that they would have to live by those criterion. The BSA is clearly not ready or capable of doing such a thing. For that matter, is there any kind of consensus out there as to what an "avowed" homosexual is? As it is, the BSA can interpret to mean whatever they want it to mean. Giving an interview to a paper, attending a parade, whatever - much more flexible that way.

[Stone Mountain]

Was he a practicing homosexual

We don't know. That is my point.

[RAT Patrol]

The Supreme Court said that he doesn't have a constitutional right to be a Boy Scout leader. Period!

[BallandPowder]

Powder..Patch..Ball FIRE!

More than 100,000 Sea Scouts volunteered after Pearl Harbor. Admiral Chester Nimitz reportedly said that the Sea Scouts were crucial to the Navy's ability to regroup after that disaster

I didn't know this fact and it makes me even prouder of the Scouts I know, including my son who just joined a "trekker troop" because he thought the traditional troops in the area were just a little to soft for his tastes...

[BallandPowder]

Powder..patch..Ball MISFIRE!

a little to soft for his tastes

That just didn't come out right...no wait
Their activites just weren't what interested him!!(smacking head against cubical wall....)

[jimt]

So should my local GLBT political caucus group be forced to accept straight people? Particularly, straight people as leaders? Particularly those straight people who feel homosexuality is immoral?

I can tell you for a fact they are treated as "public" organization and are given accomodations paid for by tax dollars.

[jimt]

And if the Scouts choose to discrimnate, as is their right, then why can they complain when some organization chooses to discrimate against them?

Any private group has the right to discriminate against the Scouts. No goobermint has the right to discriminate against anybody.

[jimt]

All of the GLBT groups that I know of are open to all.

And I'm sure an openly proselytizing fire-and-brimstone preacher would be welcomed with open arms, right?

You are saying that a POLITICAL group is tax subsidized? I find that hard to believe.

C'mon now, if we're going to stretch "public accomodation" and let Berkely slap down the Scouts, we need to go all the way.

The GLBT has speakers at PUBLIC events. They are given space at PUBLIC rallies and meetings. If I remember right, they meet in a PUBLIC building.

None of these do I object to - except as what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

Berkely should leave the Boy Scouts alone and quit playing leftist politics with children.

[churchillbuff]

No goobermint has the right to discriminate against anybody.

Well, at least they can't discriminate against constitutionally protected expression.

[jimt]

Whoa, hang on a second. If you are talking equal access then that is NOT subsidy.

Just as much as allowing the Scouts access to moorage is NOT subsidy. (Goose and gander.)

Berkeley is legally and ethically enforcing its own policy.

Currently legally, yes. As far as ethically, no way. That's what we're discussing.

[Stone Mountain]

The Supreme Court said that he doesn't have a constitutional right to be a Boy Scout leader. Period!

I completely agree with that. That wasn't what I was discussing though...

[jimt]

There is nothing unethical with the city enforcing its own policy. In fact, it would be unethical if they did NOT.

Sorry, harassing the Boy Scouts because they don't admit avowed homosexuals or people who don't believe in God is unethical.

Berkely could (and they often do) enact any silly ass policy they want - that does not make it moral or ethical.

BTW, if your logic is correct, the Scouts should have to admit folks into bestiality or necrophilia or sado-masochism or any other "preference", shouldn't they? And they should also have to accept me, an agnostic, to lead religious observances on campouts, right?

Obviously not.

[jimt]

Furthermore, nobody is being "harassed," unless you consider equal treatment to be "harrassment."

Berkely is restricting access to public facilities from this group because it's currently politically incorrect to treat homosexuals as anything other than another protected "minority", and the BSA does not subscribe to that politically correct viewpoint. They have excellent reasons for doing so.

Because the Berkely city council is notoriously leftist, it was virtually inevitable that they would seek to harass the BSA over their policy. I fully expect them to employ further punitive measures should the BSA ever eschew bestiality or sado-masochism.

Their policy can be called nothing other than harassment.

I can't say whether or not it's Constitutional. It is currently legal. It's also immoral and unethical, unless we want to give the words "moral" and "ethical" entirely new meanings. I also see it as mean-spirited, petty and anti-family.

They should treat all non-profits alike. Passing a rule obviously aimed at the core beliefs of ONE non-profit is not treating them all alike, no matter how often you say it is.

(Signing off for a bit.)

[laureldrive]

Nowhere have I said that the BSA should be "forced" to accept ANYBODY

No, you're just saying that unless they admit gays they should be treated differently by government - - and charged to use things that other groups may use without charge. Saying that it doesn't violate their rights to be discriminatorilty charged to use facilities is like saying that poll taxes don't violate a voter's right - because he can still vote as long as he pays the poll tax. Or maybe you think poll taxes for people you don't agree with would be fine and dandy?

[laureldrive]

Why can't you just let the Boy Scouts have their beliefs and stop penalizing them. Nobody's penalizing you for having YOUR beliefs. Let's live and let live, OK?