Boy Scout New Policy

[JJ Husker]

Someone- my basis was that you used viewing porn as a comparative alternative to being gay, engaging in an extramarital affair or any of the other 9 items on your list. And then you had the audacity to try to claim that people who engage in these behaviors, with no specificity to the degree, were just as worthy as gay people to be scout leaders. The more I think about it, the less clear your intended point becomes. I thought originally you were attempting to claim being gay should not disqualify a person but then you lumped them in with people who may get drunk everyday, view porn everyday, and have multiple affairs while married. Hint- It might be a sign your argument is flawed when you have to avoid direct questions to prevent looking like a doofus. And it's usually best to simply state your position instead of creating undefendable strawmen.

 

[JJ Husker]

We discriminated against kids who weren't exceptional hockey players.

This is different than what has been discussed, no? Employers everywhere "discriminate" against people who aren't good employees.

You're correct of course. Hockey skill is not a protected status. But we could've made the decision to not accept girls, not accept based on any number of things and still been within our 501c3 status. We could've related it to religion and mandated x amount of Bible study or you don't play/can't join. My point is that private organizations like this can stipulate many things. They do not have to be deemed acceptable by everyone or those who disagree with them. BTW- we did have a a small handful of girls participate. Not as tokens but because they earned their spot on the team and they also were afforded a one year advantage in the tournaments we played in.

 

[StPaulHusker]

We discriminated against kids who weren't exceptional hockey players.

This act of "discrimination" is known to most people in the sports world as try-outs. Now if you did not choose a kid because they had long hair or were Muslim, that would be discrimination.

 

[Someone]

Someone- my basis was that you used viewing porn as a comparative alternative to being gay, engaging in an extramarital affair or any of the other 9 items on your list. And then you had the audacity to try to claim that people who engage in these behaviors, with no specificity to the degree, were just as worthy as gay people to be scout leaders. The more I think about it, the less clear your intended point becomes. I thought originally you were attempting to claim being gay should not disqualify a person but then you lumped them in with people who may get drunk everyday, view porn everyday, and have multiple affairs while married. Hint- It might be a sign your argument is flawed when you have to avoid direct questions to prevent looking like a doofus. And it's usually best to simply state your position instead of creating undefendable strawmen.

I see you would like to make the discussion about me, not the topic.

The items I listed like obesity and tattoos and affairs getting drunk are all expressly prohibited in the Bible, which seems to be the official morality manual that BSA is looking when that stand in judgement of Gay scout leaders.

Your posts seem to have falsely linked pediophile behaviors to people who view porn.

Your posts seem to suggest that getting drunk, using porn and having affair(s) is morality issue that must be measured based on volume or frequency or if the behavior has end vs is continuing.

Do you see the morality of Gay people in the same way? Is a celibate gay male a less moral person than a former but reformed adulterer?

 

[Someone]

We discriminated against kids who weren't exceptional hockey players.

This is different than what has been discussed, no? Employers everywhere "discriminate" against people who aren't good employees.

I don't think it is called discrimination if a employee is fired for not being good at the job they were hired to do, or if a kid is not selected for the hockey team because he can't skate.

What skills do gay adults not have the makes them bad scout leaders?

 

[NUance]

We discriminated against kids who weren't exceptional hockey players.

This act of "discrimination" is known to most people in the sports world as try-outs. Now if you did not choose a kid because they had long hair or were Muslim, that would be discrimination.

Exactly right. In other words, JJHusker1’s hockey league wants players (and probably coaches) who are interested and skilled in hockey. Like the people who founded and run the organization. Perhaps the Boy Scouts want leaders who are interested in promoting the values of the people who founded and run their organization. Like traditional family values. And by traditional family values I mean a man who marries a woman, and together they have children. What would be wrong with allowing the Scouts to promote the values they believe in, without the need to accommodate every disparate view that comes along? It would be wrong if we—society, gov't, etc.—wouldn't allow those who have a different view of family values to form their own organization and promote their own beliefs.

 

[Someone]

The Boy Scouts of America is chartered as a 501(c)(3) organization, and as such, does not fall under the umbrella of Title VII (the Federal discrimination laws).

Fact checker:
Title VII is doesn't treat sexual orientation as a protected class.

Religious Organizations may be exempt from Title VII but not all 501©3 organizations are religious organizations. Boy Scouts of America is not a religion but a educational organization.

Title VII is more about employment discrimination. Volunteers are not afforded the same protections as employees.

 

[StPaulHusker]

I think this topic has been beaten to a pulp. All you have to know moving forward is that you do not have to accept what the Boy Scouts do by way of their rules and beliefs and in the same breath the Boy Scouts does not have to change their model of beliefs to appease the masses.

 

[Someone]

We discriminated against kids who weren't exceptional hockey players.

This act of "discrimination" is known to most people in the sports world as try-outs. Now if you did not choose a kid because they had long hair or were Muslim, that would be discrimination.

What would be wrong with allowing the Scouts to promote the values they believe in, without the need to accommodate every disparate view that comes along? It would be wrong if we—society, gov't, etc.—wouldn't allow those who have a different view of family values to form their own organization and promote their own beliefs.

Nothing. However, Boy Scouts of America receives public funding, specifically public funding through tax-exempt status and tax-deductible donations.

 

[sd'sker]

omg! who cares about the boy scouts?

 

[Someone]

omg! who cares about the boy scouts?

...said the poster who opened and posted in this thread.

I think this topic has been beaten to a pulp. All you have to know moving forward is that you do not have to accept what the Boy Scouts do by way of their rules and beliefs and in the same breath the Boy Scouts does not have to change their model of beliefs to appease the masses.

I can understand why you want the discussion to end.
Given your Augusta National reference, it seems clear that you don't understand a key aspect of the discussion. The Boy Scouts of America receives public funding: specifically public funding through tax-exempt status and tax-deductible donations.

Bob Jones University v. United States determined that discrimination based on an immutable minority trait bars taxpayer funding. Christian Legal Society v. Martinez comfirms that public funding can be withheld from organizations that discriminate based on sexual orientation.

 

[StPaulHusker]

We discriminated against kids who weren't exceptional hockey players.

This act of "discrimination" is known to most people in the sports world as try-outs. Now if you did not choose a kid because they had long hair or were Muslim, that would be discrimination.

What would be wrong with allowing the Scouts to promote the values they believe in, without the need to accommodate every disparate view that comes along? It would be wrong if we—society, gov't, etc.—wouldn't allow those who have a different view of family values to form their own organization and promote their own beliefs.

Nothing. However, Boy Scouts of America receives public funding, specifically public funding through tax-exempt status and tax-deductible donations.

Their public funding as you call it is by DONATION. To my knowledge, they do not receive tax dollars like other programs. And their tax-exempt status is because they are a NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATION. This is the case with a lot of organizations

 

[knapplc]

The Boy Scouts of America is chartered as a 501(c)(3) organization, and as such, does not fall under the umbrella of Title VII (the Federal discrimination laws).

Fact checker:
Title VII is doesn't treat sexual orientation as a protected class.

Religious Organizations may be exempt from Title VII but not all 501©3 organizations are religious organizations. Boy Scouts of America is not a religion but a educational organization.

Title VII is more about employment discrimination. Volunteers are not afforded the same protections as employees.

My post was intended to be ridiculously redundant in an already ridiculously redundant thread. Probably didn't come through very well in the sparse nature of the Interwebz, but it was supposed to be a joke.

This is why I don't do stand-up.

 

[Landlord]

The Boy Scouts of America is chartered as a 501(c)(3) organization, and as such, does not fall under the umbrella of Title VII (the Federal discrimination laws).

Fact checker:
Title VII is doesn't treat sexual orientation as a protected class.

Religious Organizations may be exempt from Title VII but not all 501©3 organizations are religious organizations. Boy Scouts of America is not a religion but a educational organization.

Title VII is more about employment discrimination. Volunteers are not afforded the same protections as employees.

My post was intended to be ridiculously redundant in an already ridiculously redundant thread. Probably didn't come through very well in the sparse nature of the Interwebz, but it was supposed to be a joke.

This is why I don't do stand-up.

I thought it was because you use a walker.

 

[knapplc]

Let's leave the AT-ATs out of this.