The Boy Scouts Lost
In 2000, the Supreme Court decided a case — Boy Scouts of America v. Dale — involving an openly gay scout from New Jersey who was barred from serving as troop leader. The court ruled in a 5-to-4 decision that, as a private organization, the group had a First Amendment right to set its membership rules.
The issue became a local concern in Philadelphia in May 2003 when the national Boy Scouts held their annual meeting in the city. During the conference, a local scout challenged the organization’s policies by announcing on television that he was gay and that he was a devoted member of the organization. He was promptly dismissed by the local chapter, which is called the Cradle of Liberty Council. [...]
“At the end of the day, you can not be in a city-owned facility being subsidized by the taxpayers and not have language in your lease that talks about nondiscrimination,” said City Councilman Darrell L. Clarke, who represents the district where the building is located. “Negotiations are over.” (source)
To me, this is a victory for justice. I have nothing against the Boy Scouts of America, per se. I have a big problem with an organization that is this discriminatory. Sure, they have a right to discriminate, as a private organization. That doesn’t mean that the taxpayers (people like me) have to tacitly support their discrimination through our tax dollars.
It’s nice to see that the laws are being enforced. It’s like the whole hate crimes issue. Many people argue that if you attack a person (gay or straight), it’s a crime, and there are laws that deal with those crimes. True. But that doesn’t mean that those laws aren’t selectively enforced. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve seen gay bashings go unpunished, even when the attacker confessed to the attack. Why? Because the cops didn’t see much wrong with beating the hell out of someone who is gay.
I do believe that attitude is changing in some parts of the country. In many parts, it’s still that way. But at least in Philadelphia, they are making it clear that this won’t be tolerated.
Jeff Jubelirer, a spokesman for the local chapter, said it could not afford $200,000 a year in rent, and that such a price would require it to cut summer-camp funds for 800 needy children.
“With an epidemic of gun violence taking the lives of children almost daily in this city, it’s ironic that this administration chose to destroy programming that services thousands of children in the city,” Mr. Jubelirer said. He added that the organization serves more than 69,000 young people, mostly from the inner city, and that its programming focuses on mentoring and after-school programs instead of camping trips. (source)
To imply that the city is being unfair to them is a cheap shot. If they are so concerned about the $200,000 they are going to have to now pay, and the 69,000 young people that benefit from their programs, then they should put their best interests ahead of their own discriminatory practices. This is all on the Boy Scouts of America, not the administration running the City of Philadelphia. They are merely enforcing the laws that have been put in place.
Will this change the Boy Scouts’ policy in the future? Probably not for a very long time. Discrimination dies hard.
1 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: The Boy Scouts Lost.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://billandkent.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/2333
PHILADELPHIA (AP) -- The local Boy Scouts chapter on Monday moved a step closer to being evicted from its city-owned home after ignoring a deadline to either reverse the organization’s policy on gay scouts or agree to pay $200,000 in... Read More
2 Comments
Leave a comment
That's exactly how I feel Doug.
Your comment reminded me of a comment a woman made concerning AIDS funding. This comment was made in the late 80's or early 90's when AIDS was thought to be a "gay disease". She said, "I don't want my tax dollars to go for treatment of a disease for THOSE people. They disgust me, and they deserve what they get."
I'm paraphrasing a bit because I don't have her exact quote anymore, but it was filled with the hatred that I expressed above.
This was printed in a newspaper. I responded to the ad by saying, "Is that really the kind of country that you want to live in? Because if it is, there's a whole host of diseases that my tax dollars go to that benefit women, in general."
You get the idea. If we get to pick and choose where our tax dollars go, well, AIDS funding just wouldn't happen. I always said, that funding for AIDS would come when the sons and daughters of people like her got AIDS. Then, they would change their minds. And, that's exactly what has happened.
I believe discrimination is a bit different though in that, what ever you believe about other programs, discrimination is more pervasive in the community. It can hit anyone at any time. If the Boy Scouts were denying membership to the black community, or Hispanics, how much traction to you think their discrimination would have? There would be an uproar like they'd never seen before. But, because it's against gay people, it goes unchallenged.
The challenge for the gay community is this. Don't be apathetic towards discrimination because it isn't happening to you. If my coworker is let go because she is black, then that's MY problem also.
And the black community keeps telling us that the "gay struggle" is nothing like the "black struggle" Oh really? We are beaten, fired, beaten to death, just like you were beaten, fired, and lynched. Try explaining that argument to any victim of discrimination or violence, and I doubt they are going to pick up the differences of being attacked or targeted because you are black, white, gay, or straight.
Discrimination against one has to be seen as discrimination against all. Otherwise, the kind of crap the Boy Scouts of America are practicing will never end. We all know what the Boy Scouts of America are up to. They are hiding behind the law by claiming "private organization" status. In the end, all they are doing is legal discrimination.
That's fine, I suppose. But they then shouldn't turn around and bitch about having to pay the $200,000 as a cost for that discrimination.
You said: "That doesn’t mean that the taxpayers ... have to tacitly support their discrimination through our tax dollars." I completely agree. This is what aggravates me about the faith-based stuff too - that I'm paying for things that are designed to work against me and my family. It's not that I feel I have to agree with everything that is tax-payer funded, and not to be overly dramatic, but it's like having Jews paying for Nazi day camp.