(A)Berkeley protects sodomy.
(B)Scouts are against sodomy
(C) Therefore Berkely is against Scouts!
Posted on 02/28/2003 2:36:31 PM PST by laureldrive
Edited on 04/14/2004 10:05:53 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
The idea that the BSA is wrong to demand that leaders lead a moral life (openly) is one of the most ludicrous things I have ever observed in my lifetime.
If the government cannot constitutionally take a stand on anything regarding morality, then the government has no business sticking its nose in ANYTHING having to do with children. Nothing is more basic than that.
Gays do not have a constitutional right to raise kids that are not their own. Every kid that is their own was the result of heterosexuality. Nature itself has weighed in on this issue. I will fight until I die over this one!!!!!!!!! Divide the country. Let's get a national divorce over irreconcilable differences. Let's have another civil war. I will take ANY answer over caving in on something as fundamental and right as the BSA's moral leadership policy. Freedom is MEANINGLESS is they do not have that right, and no city should discriminate against morality!!!!!!!
Let gays be scout leaders to all children produced from gay unions. The right of parents to choose moral leaders for their kids is FUNDAMENTAL! And it is right.
(A)Berkeley protects sodomy.
(B)Scouts are against sodomy
(C) Therefore Berkely is against Scouts!
The Civil Rights Act of 1866, which is the foundation of all other equal rights acts, says "full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of persons and property as is enjoyed by white citizens". Ergo, whites cannot be included, since they are the baseline measure. Unfortunately, nobody foresaw 137 years ago the stunning reversal of racism that the race-baiting lobby was going to do to this country.
Ah, but that was the crux of the case. They were arguing that their alcoholism was a status, like homosexuality, and that they were illegally being punished for it. That's why I felt comfortable using the same analysis here.
Unlike being drunk in public,
Like I said, the distinctions are tough to draw sometimes... you'll notice that your comparison is off. You compare an status with a condition. Properly put, you should have typed, "being a drunk in public". (That is a status, like being a homosexual.) There are also no laws against being a drunkard and being out in public while they are sober.
being a gay person in public is not a crime.
But that is not what is being debated here. Nobody has said that gay potential Scout Leaders should be imprisoned or fined, only that the private organization has the right to exclude that group. Consider the nasty problems that arise if/when a gay Leader improperly touches a child, and the BSA is sued for putting the children in harm's way. This is the exact liability that they are attempting to avoid. If, by law, you force the BSA to take those Leaders, you can't hold the BSA liable for their acts, because their only other option is to disband entirely... and that changes yet another entire area of jurisprudence.
A hypothetical: Men's clubs who refused to hire women are forced to do so via lawsuit. A member sexually harasses (or worse) the female employees. Should the Club now be free of liability because they were forced to hire the females? Are they no longer responsible for their safety? Of course not! Clubs, employers, and private citizens have responsibility to do so because they have the power to do so. If you take away their power to protect their charges, you also remove their responsibility.
You may not like the choices that others make, but if you force them to make the choices you want, you also take away their freedom, their responsibility, and the consequences for their actions. Not a good exchange by any measure... especially because that power will eventually affect you and your choices in a similar fashion. (Here's an example: can the majority now tell gays who they can and can't associate with in their private associations and clubs, and have the force of law behind them? Shall we say a limit of one gay man per room? No? Well then, why can gays tell the BSA who they can choose to be Leaders? Heh-heh, I can't wait to see the first KKK meeting where they are required to admit Black Panther members. I hope there are enough federal agents on sight to stop THAT skirmish!)
I see. So you have no problem with a group that comprises 30% of the population suffering under laws that favor everyone BUT them? Jim Crow was a success in your eyes?
I do not lack sympathy for those who are today being denied jobs, contracts, scholarships, and opportunities for the color of their skin, just because they happen to be white. Everyone has their own hurdles in life, and you don't get an easier road in America today just because you're a white male... there are plenty of down-and-out white males, too. However, EVERY other group IS protected/preferred/accomodated in one way or another, and THAT is overt discrimination. It is a shame that you would support such inequity in the laws of this great nation.
One nation, one set of laws for every citizen of that nation. Anything else is BS.
That's already been shown.
Just by the way, I note that Berkeley council gives away $145,000 in grants annually for the 'arts.' What do you think is of more value, to the community? Scouts, or some crappy modern 'art'?
Of course not.
I'm simply saying, look to your own intolerance, before addressing your perception of it in others.
Arts is a broad term. If that includes funding for a symphony or ballet or opera then that's money well spent. The Boy Scouts seem to do OK raising money on their own.
That's what it was. The vote was five to four in support of the Boy Scouts. Rehnquist, O’Connor, Scalia, Kennedy, and Thomas were for, and Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer voted against.
...and where do you think the Berkeley Council directs their funding, bud? 'Symphony, ballet and opera'?
I can predict without checking that their funding will be weighted towards the self-indulgent PC ugliness that passes for 'art', amongst their kind.
Madg, could I respectfully ask you to put the gay victimology on hold, for the duration of this discussion?
It's not about you, it's about the Scouts.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.