Boy Scouts being discriminated against?

[CCTAU 3,336]

Sometimes I wonder what city governments are thinking. How many more kids will be hurt from this than one gay leader helped? Seems like we are being forced to comply with the minority no matter what.

Boy Scouts' Rent Hiked Over Gay Ban

PHILADELPHIA (AP) - The city has decided that the Boy Scouts chapter here must pay fair-market rent of $200,000 a year for its city-owned headquarters because it refuses to permit gay Scouts.

The organization's Cradle of Liberty Council, which currently pays $1 a year in rent, must pay the increased amount to remain in its downtown building past May 31, Fairmount Park Commission president Robert N.C. Nix said Wednesday.

City officials say they cannot legally rent taxpayer-owned property for a nominal sum to a private organization that discriminates. The city owns the land on which the council's 1928 Beaux Arts building sits.

Scouting officials will ask the city solicitor for details on the appraisals that yielded the $200,000 figure, said Jeff Jubelirer, spokesman for the Cradle of Liberty Council.

The higher rent money "would have to come from programs. That's 30 new Cub Scout packs, or 800 needy kids going to our summer camp," Jubelirer said. "It's disappointing, and it's certainly a threat."

The Supreme Court ruled in 2000 that Scouts, as a private group, have a First Amendment right to bar gays from membership.

The council adopted a nondiscrimination policy in 2003 but was ordered to revoke it by the National Council, which said local chapters cannot deviate from national rules barring participation by anyone who is openly gay.

The Cradle of Liberty Council serves about 64,000 scouts in Philadelphia and its suburbs. LINK

[TexasTiger 12,965]

Discrimination? "Plain wrong?" How is making a private group pay fair-market price for publicly owned space discriminatory? How is it wrong? The real question is why a private group has had the taxpayers provide them with prime real estate for so long.

Sometimes I wonder what city governments are thinking. How many more kids will be hurt from this than one gay leader helped? Seems like we are being forced to comply with the minority no matter what.

Boy Scouts' Rent Hiked Over Gay Ban

PHILADELPHIA (AP) - The city has decided that the Boy Scouts chapter here must pay fair-market rent of $200,000 a year for its city-owned headquarters because it refuses to permit gay Scouts.

The organization's Cradle of Liberty Council, which currently pays $1 a year in rent, must pay the increased amount to remain in its downtown building past May 31, Fairmount Park Commission president Robert N.C. Nix said Wednesday.

City officials say they cannot legally rent taxpayer-owned property for a nominal sum to a private organization that discriminates. The city owns the land on which the council's 1928 Beaux Arts building sits.

Scouting officials will ask the city solicitor for details on the appraisals that yielded the $200,000 figure, said Jeff Jubelirer, spokesman for the Cradle of Liberty Council.

The higher rent money "would have to come from programs. That's 30 new Cub Scout packs, or 800 needy kids going to our summer camp," Jubelirer said. "It's disappointing, and it's certainly a threat."

The Supreme Court ruled in 2000 that Scouts, as a private group, have a First Amendment right to bar gays from membership.

The council adopted a nondiscrimination policy in 2003 but was ordered to revoke it by the National Council, which said local chapters cannot deviate from national rules barring participation by anyone who is openly gay.

The Cradle of Liberty Council serves about 64,000 scouts in Philadelphia and its suburbs. LINK

[AFTiger 282]

Although I am a very strong supporter of Boy Scouts, I am going to have to agree with TexasTiger, for different reasons. Philadelphia supports many private groups with taxpayer money, but only those that toe the dictated line.

Boy Scouts has a very strong moral code that has been under attack by the secularists and homosexuals. I believe the Scouts should distance themselves from any amoral or immoral government such as the one in Philadelphia and depend on their own resources.

The principles of Scouting were once held to be the ideal in this country, but since this country has lost its compass, Scouting must serve as the beacon. To submit to the demands of immorality will only serve to diminish Scouting.

"When good negotiates with evil, good becomes less so and evil never changes." --Uncle Earle

[TitanTiger 20,499]

It's a double edged sword. I think the city government is advocating an immoral position. But they are within their legal rights to do this.

What needs to happen is, those who support the mission of the Scouts as it is right now need to step up and either provide the money to pay the market rent or donate office space for a new headquarters.

It's a shame that governments resort to tactics like this to enforce conformity on issues like this, but it is what it is. The Boy Scouts have contributed a lot of good to the communities they are in over the years. If the city can't see that and believes that cramming homosexuality down their throats by means of rent pressure, let God handle them. Those who believe in the Scouts need to step up.

[TexasTiger 12,965]

This is what happens when tax dollars are used to fund the operating expenses of private groups. People in the taxpaying public disagree on what groups to support and not support. But to characterize this as "cramming homosexuality down their throats by means of rent pressure" is off-base. Many cities, states and the federal government have anti-discrimination laws. Tax dollars aren't allowed to support such discriminatory behavior under such laws. Frankly, it is hypocritical for a organization to say "we're private so those laws don't apply to us but the public should subsidize our operating expenses to a significant degree." A dollar a year rent? Please. One need not embrace or celebrate homosexuality to be in compliance with the law. The scouts could speak out against it as immoral, but not prohibit people who have that status and be in line with the law. Or they can do what they've done-- say no gays may join. That's their right. But it is not their right to be funded with tax dollars regardless of whether they do it or not.

I think God will "handle" those who reject people based on their sexual orientation. Christ would not have rejected them. Whether he would have spoken out against the behavior is an open question since we have no record of him addressing it, but I don't think he would have shunned them from association. He didn't shun prostitutes.

But you're right that those who support this view should support it financially instead of expecting the tax paying public, including tax paying gays and lesbians, to support it.

It's a double edged sword. I think the city government is advocating an immoral position. But they are within their legal rights to do this.

What needs to happen is, those who support the mission of the Scouts as it is right now need to step up and either provide the money to pay the market rent or donate office space for a new headquarters.

It's a shame that governments resort to tactics like this to enforce conformity on issues like this, but it is what it is. The Boy Scouts have contributed a lot of good to the communities they are in over the years. If the city can't see that and believes that cramming homosexuality down their throats by means of rent pressure, let God handle them. Those who believe in the Scouts need to step up.

[AFTiger 282]

This is what happens when tax dollars are used to fund the operating expenses of private groups. People in the taxpaying public disagree on what groups to support and not support. But to characterize this as "cramming homosexuality down their throats by means of rent pressure" is off-base. Many cities, states and the federal government have anti-discrimination laws. Tax dollars aren't allowed to support such discriminatory behavior under such laws. Frankly, it is hypocritical for a organization to say "we're private so those laws don't apply to us but the public should subsidize our operating expenses to a significant degree." A dollar a year rent? Please. One need not embrace or celebrate homosexuality to be in compliance with the law. The scouts could speak out against it as immoral, but not prohibit people who have that status and be in line with the law. Or they can do what they've done-- say no gays may join. That's their right. But it is not their right to be funded with tax dollars regardless of whether they do it or not.

I think God will "handle" those who reject people based on their sexual orientation. Christ would not have rejected them. Whether he would have spoken out against the behavior is an open question since we have no record of him addressing it, but I don't think he would have shunned them from association. He didn't shun prostitutes.

But you're right that those who support this view should support it financially instead of expecting the tax paying public, including tax paying gays and lesbians, to support it.

It's a double edged sword. I think the city government is advocating an immoral position. But they are within their legal rights to do this.

What needs to happen is, those who support the mission of the Scouts as it is right now need to step up and either provide the money to pay the market rent or donate office space for a new headquarters.

It's a shame that governments resort to tactics like this to enforce conformity on issues like this, but it is what it is. The Boy Scouts have contributed a lot of good to the communities they are in over the years. If the city can't see that and believes that cramming homosexuality down their throats by means of rent pressure, let God handle them. Those who believe in the Scouts need to step up.

So taxpaying heterosexuals should pay for homosexual activities?

[TexasTiger 12,965]

This is what happens when tax dollars are used to fund the operating expenses of private groups. People in the taxpaying public disagree on what groups to support and not support. But to characterize this as "cramming homosexuality down their throats by means of rent pressure" is off-base. Many cities, states and the federal government have anti-discrimination laws. Tax dollars aren't allowed to support such discriminatory behavior under such laws. Frankly, it is hypocritical for a organization to say "we're private so those laws don't apply to us but the public should subsidize our operating expenses to a significant degree." A dollar a year rent? Please. One need not embrace or celebrate homosexuality to be in compliance with the law. The scouts could speak out against it as immoral, but not prohibit people who have that status and be in line with the law. Or they can do what they've done-- say no gays may join. That's their right. But it is not their right to be funded with tax dollars regardless of whether they do it or not.

I think God will "handle" those who reject people based on their sexual orientation. Christ would not have rejected them. Whether he would have spoken out against the behavior is an open question since we have no record of him addressing it, but I don't think he would have shunned them from association. He didn't shun prostitutes.

But you're right that those who support this view should support it financially instead of expecting the tax paying public, including tax paying gays and lesbians, to support it.

It's a double edged sword. I think the city government is advocating an immoral position. But they are within their legal rights to do this.

What needs to happen is, those who support the mission of the Scouts as it is right now need to step up and either provide the money to pay the market rent or donate office space for a new headquarters.

It's a shame that governments resort to tactics like this to enforce conformity on issues like this, but it is what it is. The Boy Scouts have contributed a lot of good to the communities they are in over the years. If the city can't see that and believes that cramming homosexuality down their throats by means of rent pressure, let God handle them. Those who believe in the Scouts need to step up.

So taxpaying heterosexuals should pay for homosexual activities?

I have no idea what you are talking about.

[TitanTiger 20,499]

So let me get this straight...

...taxpayer dollars funneled through the NEA for "art" that denigrates Christianity and promotes homosexuality such as the Magglethorpe exhibit, "Piss Christ" and so on: OK.

...taxpayer dollars that benefit the Boy Scouts who hold a morality clause that goes against homosexuality: not OK.

...use a city posting board on the internet to promote a group in favor of gay marriage: OK.

...use the same posting board to promote a group in favor of traditional marriage between one man and one woman: not OK.

Is that how it works?

[TexasTiger 12,965]

That sounds more like an AFTiger post. Are you saying that's your view? I haven't said that's mine. Assuming you're directing this post at me, exactly what have I said that you are referring to?

As far as the NEA goes, using tax dollars to fund art is inherently risky for reasons such as the example you cite. While, theoretically, having a government support "art" may have value, it is certainly risky. Christian taxpayers have a right to be indignant over "Piss Christ" in my opinion.

But back to the actual topic of this thread. Using tax dollars to signifcantly support a private group that advocates a view that many tax payers may have a problem with is inherently problematic whether that group is "conservative" or "liberal". Using tax dollars to signifcantly support a private group that explicitly prohibits a segment of that tax-paying society from even joining it is even more problematic. I think that is basic common sense.

I think my position on this is actually the most Conservative, not that that term means much any more.

Nobody is stopping the Boy Scouts from espousing their view and practicing their beliefs. That is their right. But why should they get by rent free at taxpayer's expense? Nobody is "cramming" anything "down their throat". I'm frankly amazed that a typically rational guy like yourself can't see that.

So let me get this straight...

...taxpayer dollars funneled through the NEA for "art" that denigrates Christianity and promotes homosexuality such as the Magglethorpe exhibit, "Piss Christ" and so on: OK.

...taxpayer dollars that benefit the Boy Scouts who hold a morality clause that goes against homosexuality: not OK.

...use a city posting board on the internet to promote a group in favor of gay marriage: OK.

...use the same posting board to promote a group in favor of traditional marriage between one man and one woman: not OK.

Is that how it works?

[TitanTiger 20,499]

I see what you're saying. But what I'm saying is that the application of things like this doesn't seem to be anywhere close to even. If I felt the principle were being applied evenly across the board, I wouldn't be complaining. But it isn't. So as long as we're infringing on freedom of speech for those with traditional values on marriage or funding explicit portrayals of the most perverted images of homosexuality and denigrations of Christianity, I think allowing the Boy Scouts some leeway on this, even if it involves taxpayer money, is only fair.

Demonstrate to me that the viewpoints are being treated equitably when these taxpayer money or facility issues come into play and I'll be fine with it.

[TexasTiger 12,965]

I appreciate that that is your perception. There are a handful of well-publicized examples, such as Mapplethorpe, which was actually several years ago. I'm not sure the reality, however, squares with your perception.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...7062500531.html

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washingt...sed_initiative/

I see what you're saying. But what I'm saying is that the application of things like this doesn't seem to be anywhere close to even. If I felt the principle were being applied evenly across the board, I wouldn't be complaining. But it isn't. So as long as we're infringing on freedom of speech for those with traditional values on marriage or funding explicit portrayals of the most perverted images of homosexuality and denigrations of Christianity, I think allowing the Boy Scouts some leeway on this, even if it involves taxpayer money, is only fair.

Demonstrate to me that the viewpoints are being treated equitably when these taxpayer money or facility issues come into play and I'll be fine with it.

[TitanTiger 20,499]

I appreciate that that is your perception. There are a handful of well-publicized examples, such as Mapplethorpe, which was actually several years ago. I'm not sure the reality, however, squares with your perception.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...7062500531.html

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washingt...sed_initiative/

Two links, both having to do with the same issue, don't exactly comfort me that things are playing out evenly.

[TexasTiger 12,965]

I appreciate that that is your perception. There are a handful of well-publicized examples, such as Mapplethorpe, which was actually several years ago. I'm not sure the reality, however, squares with your perception.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...7062500531.html

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washingt...sed_initiative/

Two links, both having to do with the same issue, don't exactly comfort me that things are playing out evenly.

Well, then hang on to that submerged crucifix example from the 80s, brother.

[otterinbham 0]

So guys, it's very simple. If there are government funds, there are strings attached. Period.

It means that your organization lives or dies at the whim of whatever some political hack thinks.

I also believe that government funding for the arts should be prohibited. Not because I don't love the arts. But because government funding has made the arts lazy in this country.

Case in point? I've sat on the board of two different arts organizations in Birmingham. In both cases, the entire focus of the organizations was not reaching out to the community to create a stronger base of fans. Instead, the focus was getting local funding for the arts. It's really a corrupting influence, one that really encourages inertia.

Further, it used to be that it was wholly unnecessary. I would argue that the arts in this country were far more vital and innovative before the NEA came along.

[BZ770 2]

They should let them in, They would all probably get their butts kicked and teased enough that they wouldn't want to hang out with the other scouts.

[Tiger Al 0]

I see what you're saying. But what I'm saying is that the application of things like this doesn't seem to be anywhere close to even. If I felt the principle were being applied evenly across the board, I wouldn't be complaining. But it isn't. So as long as we're infringing on freedom of speech for those with traditional values on marriage or funding explicit portrayals of the most perverted images of homosexuality and denigrations of Christianity, I think allowing the Boy Scouts some leeway on this, even if it involves taxpayer money, is only fair.

Demonstrate to me that the viewpoints are being treated equitably when these taxpayer money or facility issues come into play and I'll be fine with it.

Titan, isn't the Boy Scouts exclusion of homosexuals more than "speaking freely?" It's one thing to say "I disagree with XYZ," but, it goes beyond free speech to say, "Not only do I disagree with XYZ, but, I'll do everything I can to exclude XYZ's participation in my organization." In my opinion, an organization is free to take either position. If Augusta National Golf Club wants to deny membership to women as Shoal Creek Country Club excluded blacks, that's fine. I disagree with both views, but, as they are private clubs not dependent on tax dollars, they can do that if they like. If you accept public funds, though, the rules change and it goes beyond simple First Amendment rights.

As for viewpoints being treated equitably, religious organizations have long been given preferential tax treatment and, when that's not enough, they can go to the Center for Faith-Based and Community Initiatives (Federal government) to receive more taxpayer funds.

[otterinbham 0]

I see what you're saying. But what I'm saying is that the application of things like this doesn't seem to be anywhere close to even. If I felt the principle were being applied evenly across the board, I wouldn't be complaining. But it isn't. So as long as we're infringing on freedom of speech for those with traditional values on marriage or funding explicit portrayals of the most perverted images of homosexuality and denigrations of Christianity, I think allowing the Boy Scouts some leeway on this, even if it involves taxpayer money, is only fair.

Demonstrate to me that the viewpoints are being treated equitably when these taxpayer money or facility issues come into play and I'll be fine with it.

Titan, isn't the Boy Scouts exclusion of homosexuals more than "speaking freely?" It's one thing to say "I disagree with XYZ," but, it goes beyond free speech to say, "Not only do I disagree with XYZ, but, I'll do everything I can to exclude XYZ's participation in my organization." In my opinion, an organization is free to take either position. If Augusta National Golf Club wants to deny membership to women as Shoal Creek Country Club excluded blacks, that's fine. I disagree with both views, but, as they are private clubs not dependent on tax dollars, they can do that if they like. If you accept public funds, though, the rules change and it goes beyond simple First Amendment rights.

As for viewpoints being treated equitably, religious organizations have long been given preferential tax treatment and, when that's not enough, they can go to the Center for Faith-Based and Community Initiatives (Federal government) to receive more taxpayer funds.

I tend to agree. You can't accept government money and be exclusive.

[CCTAU 3,336]

They should let them in, They would all probably get their butts kicked and teased enough that they wouldn't want to hang out with the other scouts.

They didn't say no gay kids, just no gay leaders.

Now as we look at this and notice that the youth in America are always looking for something to hold their attention, do we just look at the bottom line and say that gays are more important than helping to keep boys off the streets and out of trouble. As a community leader, are you not always looking to increase and/or maintain all organizations that promote less crime. So if the Boy Scouts in this city has to shut down, are you, as a community leader, really taking the best approach to this. I guess the only way to really know is if it happens and crime increases. Then it would be too late, but at least we made the gays happy?

[channonc 466]

Now as we look at this and notice that the youth in America are always looking for something to hold their attention, do we just look at the bottom line and say that gays are more important than helping to keep boys off the streets and out of trouble. As a community leader, are you not always looking to increase and/or maintain all organizations that promote less crime. So if the Boy Scouts in this city has to shut down, are you, as a community leader, really taking the best approach to this. I guess the only way to really know is if it happens and crime increases. Then it would be too late, but at least we made the gays happy?

Wow! This statement is absolutely ridiculous. This is about using taxpayer money to fund a group that discriminates against who can and cannot be a part of the organization. If a group like this (aiming to keep kids "off the streets") were getting this kind of taxpayer support and not allowing Christian leaders, you would be ranting and raving about how they receive taxpayer funding.

BTW- I have a hard time believing that they would allow an openly gay boy to join, seeing their policy on openly gay men being troop leaders.

My $0.02, is that taxpayer money should not go to fund organizations that discriminate.

[CCTAU 3,336]

Now as we look at this and notice that the youth in America are always looking for something to hold their attention, do we just look at the bottom line and say that gays are more important than helping to keep boys off the streets and out of trouble. As a community leader, are you not always looking to increase and/or maintain all organizations that promote less crime. So if the Boy Scouts in this city has to shut down, are you, as a community leader, really taking the best approach to this. I guess the only way to really know is if it happens and crime increases. Then it would be too late, but at least we made the gays happy?

Wow! This statement is absolutely ridiculous. This is about using taxpayer money to fund a group that discriminates against who can and cannot be a part of the organization. If a group like this (aiming to keep kids "off the streets") were getting this kind of taxpayer support and not allowing Christian leaders, you would be ranting and raving about how they receive taxpayer funding.

BTW- I have a hard time believing that they would allow an openly gay boy to join, seeing their policy on openly gay men being troop leaders.

My $0.02, is that taxpayer money should not go to fund organizations that discriminate.

Just trying to point out how most libruls would rather watch the whole country go down the shitehole fighting for one gay rather than being concerned for the future of many young men. All you see is an organization that holds true to their principles and will not cave to the dims. I see a very strong organization who has developed many very successful leaders of this country. Do we throw that away and try to force this organization into what is popular rather than what is right?

Famous Boy Scouts

[channonc 466]

Now as we look at this and notice that the youth in America are always looking for something to hold their attention, do we just look at the bottom line and say that gays are more important than helping to keep boys off the streets and out of trouble. As a community leader, are you not always looking to increase and/or maintain all organizations that promote less crime. So if the Boy Scouts in this city has to shut down, are you, as a community leader, really taking the best approach to this. I guess the only way to really know is if it happens and crime increases. Then it would be too late, but at least we made the gays happy?

Wow! This statement is absolutely ridiculous. This is about using taxpayer money to fund a group that discriminates against who can and cannot be a part of the organization. If a group like this (aiming to keep kids "off the streets") were getting this kind of taxpayer support and not allowing Christian leaders, you would be ranting and raving about how they receive taxpayer funding.

BTW- I have a hard time believing that they would allow an openly gay boy to join, seeing their policy on openly gay men being troop leaders.

My $0.02, is that taxpayer money should not go to fund organizations that discriminate.

Just trying to point out how most libruls would rather watch the whole country go down the shitehole fighting for one gay rather than being concerned for the future of many young men. All you see is an organization that holds true to their principles and will not cave to the dims. I see a very strong organization who has developed many very successful leaders of this country. Do we throw that away and try to force this organization into what is popular rather than what is right?

Famous Boy Scouts

Unlike what you choose to think, I actually think the Boy Scouts are a great organization. I just disagree with them getting public funding for their headquarters.

[autiger4life 3]

No one is arguing that the boy scouts aren't a good organization, or that they haven't created leaders, people are arguing that tax payers shouldn't pay for a group who discriminates. I wouldn't want to federally fund a group that said no blacks even if their goal was to lessen crime, I wouldn't want to federally fund a group that says no Christians, even if it is a group of atheist fighting for animal rights, just like I wouldn't want to federally fund a group who promoted leadership if they can't accept gays. I like the boy scouts, and they do good things, that doesn't mean they should get federal funding, especially if they discriminate.

Titan, I also agree with you that it is a double-edged sword. Seems there are plenty of federally funded homosexuality groups and I don't agree with that either.

[Tigermike 3,041]

Don't fool yourself. This has nothing to do with public monies going to the Boy Scouts. It has everything to do with the Boy Scouts not allowing gamy men as leaders. If they would only let the gays have access to the boys all would be fine. The public monies is just the means to an end for the Leftist Thought Police.

This is somehow different from the dimocrats in Massachusetts not allowing Catholics to run adoption agencies how? This has nothing to do with what is right for the children and everything to do with the dims pandering to gay rights activist. All you dims admit it, children don't mean $hit to the dims, they can't vote. The only time children mean anything to the dims is when they are running a whiney ad and want the sympathy vote.

[CircleDrill 178]

City officials say they cannot legally rent taxpayer-owned property for a nominal sum to a private organization that discriminates.

Well, I don't see anything wrong with this. It is unconstitutional for the city property to be used to discriminate against the taxpayers that pay for it. Why not build white and colored restrooms in there while you're at it?

I was a scout and have some friends who are my age (30s) and are still active in the scouts and love helping the boys. I am a supporter of anything like that where positive role models have the chance to impact young men.

[autiger4life 3]

Don't fool yourself. This has nothing to do with public monies going to the Boy Scouts. It has everything to do with the Boy Scouts not allowing gamy men as leaders. If they would only let the gays have access to the boys all would be fine. The public monies is just the means to an end for the Leftist Thought Police.

This is somehow different from the dimocrats in Massachusetts not allowing Catholics to run adoption agencies how? This has nothing to do with what is right for the children and everything to do with the dims pandering to gay rights activist. All you dims admit it, children don't mean $hit to the dims, they can't vote. The only time children mean anything to the dims is when they are running a whiney ad and want the sympathy vote.

Another excellent rebuttal by TigerMike, oh wait no never mind. See TigerMike you just like to fool yourself into thinking that anytime someone sticks up the for the gays then it can't be good in any way for the country or it can't be right by our law(not your religon, but by the US law) But see here is one of those situations that the government makes the right call and you shoot it down. Tax payer money should not go to pay for a private organization that discriminates against people. It really isn't a difficult subject. If you want to say that you agree with the discrimination of gays based on your religon then that is of course fine, donate to the boy scouts, but the government shouldn't positively enforce the discrimination.