Comments about ‘Letter: Why force an organization or club to change in order to fit my personal beliefs?’

Return to article »

Published: Tuesday, Feb. 19 2013 12:00 a.m. MST

  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Ogden, UT

So Mr. May is saying that, for example, if an organization promotes racial discrimination and segregation, no attempts should be made to make it a more equitable and honorable organization to fit people's personal belifs about equality. Sad.

Eugene, OR

And if gay rights groups decide to create their own version of the Scouts they should be allowed to meet in public buildings and have their annual Jamboree on public lands for free. Deal?

Far East USA, SC

"why would I deem it necessary to try to force them to adopt my personal preferences?"

That is a good question indeed. But, a strawman argument.

However, when talking about the Boy Scouts, it looks to me like no one is "forcing" anyone.

Each Troop has the OPTION but not the mandate. It would appear that YOU are more intent on forcing others than they are.

Allowing the option certainly seems more reasonable than mandating.

I find it curious that the people that are the loudest on this issue will be affected the least (and probably not affected at all)

Orem, UT

KJB1: And exactly what is stopping them from doing that right now?

If gays want to start their own organization that only allows other gays to join, they are perfectly able to to that. Nothing prevents them from doing it. I'm sure they would be granted access to public facilities just like every other group as long as they conducted themselves in a civil manner while using them.

Huntsville, UT

So, a young boy of scouting age wants to participate in the same group his friends participates in. He's celibate, plays sports, loves camping, but because he's gay he isn't allowed to participate with his friends - most of whom probably already know he's gay.

Instead, he has to go find some group just for gays so that he can do what his friends do, but do it without having his friends there?

Bigotry is a very sad way to live a life Mr. May.

Eugene, OR


And what if that group specifically discriminated against straight and/or religious kids and forbid them from joining? Should they still be allowed to use public facilities for free?

Provo, UT

Those who demand tolerance rarely reciprocate. The attacks on people and organizations of faith will increase.

Eagle Mountain, UT


Those already enjoying rights and priviliges that others are being denied have no real right to claim intolerance from the other side.

The Mormons just wanted some tolerance in Missouri, and all the residents of Missouri were doing was to demand the Mormons be tolerant of their right to not accept them.

Kind of see how the the group with the rights cannot claim they are being persecuted as well?

Utes Fan
Salt Lake City, UT

"And what if that group specifically discriminated against straight and/or religious kids and forbid them from joining? Should they still be allowed to use public facilities for free?"


Yes of course.

"The Mormons just wanted some tolerance in Missouri, and all the residents of Missouri were doing was to demand the Mormons be tolerant of their right to not accept them."


Ridiculous comparison. We are talking about a boy scout organization. Not the right to private property or life.

Salt Lake City, UT

No, your knowledge of history is sadly deficient. The citizens of Missouri had a Mormon extermination order delivered to them. It was not an issue of "tolerance" or their right not to accept Mormons.

Eagle Mountain, UT


The Missourians were afraid of Mormons changing their way of life. As a rule they were opposed to slavery, and Missouri was a slave state. With the Mormons having the most populated county in the State, they were afraid.

I am simply drawing a parrallel. For much of their early history, the LDS church was simply not welcome were they went because they were different.

To claim that gays have to be tolerant of your right opinion is one thing. No one is forcing you accept them, or like them. However, what they are asking for is equal treatment under the law, and the claim they are being tolerant of your opinion they shouldn't have those rights is...well...absurd. The group that has the rights another wants has no moral ground to claim intolerance. Just as it would have been absurd for the Missourians to claim the Mormons were not tolerant of their views to hate them, it is equally absurd for us.

Chris B
Salt Lake City, UT


How would most of the young boys already know a kid was gay? When I was in scouting I never once told another young boy I had chosen to be a heterosexual. Are you suggesting the gay boy scouts would make it obvious they are gay, by the way they act? I agree with you such is the case. Usually the liberals try and argue that point though. Funny you now agree.

I'm glad the boy scouts is putting scout safety #1.

I would not wany my nieces camping together in tents with adolescent boys.

Similarly, we should protect the hetersexual boys just as we protect young girls by not having them share tents with straigth boys. The girls have their own scouts.

The gays should do the same

The Real Maverick
Orem, UT

Where have we heard this type of dialog before? Ahhhhh yes, the Civil Rights Movement. People like this letter writer who supported the "Separate" but "Equal" monstrosity in the deep south. Don't you dare mix colored folks with our white schools. If colored folks want to have education, they can create their own schools and organizations!

Hateful, bigoted, and intolerant attitudes pervade even in this great enlightened period.


Nonny in the House
Kaysville, UT

Hey Furry1993 he wasn't talking about race.

USS Enterprise, UT

To "Furry1993" would you want to force the KKK to accept gays, Jews, and blacks? Why do you want to create further resentment by mandating that people no longer have the freedom of association.

To "RanchHand" think of it this way. If you had a handicap child with no legs, would you want them to compete on the track team with the other kids that have legs?

It isn't that the scouts prohibit gays because they hate them. It is a matter of protection for all of the kids involved. Unfortunately it means that some will have hurt feelings because of their gendera attraction.

To "The Real Maverick" actually, this is quite different. This is not a matter of civil rights and "Separate but equal" type laws. This is purely about protection.

Open Minded Mormon
Everett, 00

If the guiding principles, rules or philosophies of an organization or club don't align with my personal beliefs, why would I deem it necessary to try to force them to adopt my personal preferences?

Because this is America - we a not the Ku Klux Klan, the Nazis, or a Cult.
That's why.


Eagle Mountain, UT

The Missourians were afraid of Mormons changing their way of life.


Why do Conservatives keep trying to associate the Missouri mobs with Liberals, and the Mormons as the Conservatives? --

When it was exactly 180 degrees OPPOSITE?.

The Mormons were
Pro-Women's Rights,
Promoted Universal Wealthfare,
a re-distriibtution of Wealth,
Unorthodox marriages,
and Pro-Immigration stance,
to name just a few of their liberal views...

But you did get the fact that the Missouri mobs were afraid of change, maintaining the status quo, and being anti-Progressive.
FYI - that would be the very definition of "Conservative".

Southern, UT

I find it interesting that on another story the following comment appeared:

Open Minded Mormon

Everett, 00

If you don't like it - don't go.

Mike Richards
South Jordan, Utah

The Scout Oath:

"On my honor I will do my best
To do my duty to God and my country
and to obey the Scout Law;
To help other people at all times;
To keep myself physically strong,
mentally awake, and morally straight."

Anyone who wants to "change" things that violates the Scout Oath has his own interests in mind, not the interests of the boys who count on leaders to live and emulate the oath that they all take every week in their troop meeting.

Redefining "morally straight" is not an option when the lives of our boys are at stake.

Eagle Mountain, UT

@Open Minded Mormon

I never associated one as a liberal, or the other as Conservative. If I conveyed that message somehow, let me apologize, for such was not my intent. For what it's worth I agree with you. The Mormons in the 1800 were way ahead of their time politically.

On a personal note, I tend to agree with the vast majority of your posts. I try avoid labeling people as "Liberal", "Conservative", "Red", "Blue", etc... because no one person fits the cookie cutter definition of any label. I tend to agree with the "liberal" point of view more often than not (a lot more often in fact).

I simply try to live my life the best I can, and allow others the same. I think most people try to do so, but how to go about doing it is where we most often disagree.

USS Enterprise, UT

To "Open Minded Mormon" you are not exactly right.

The early Mormons were not anti-slavery. There were some early Saints that owned slaves, and had rules for how the slaves were to be treated.

They did not promote "Universal Wealthfare". They did not promote tax breaks to the middle and upperclass. They promoted equality.

Polygamy was not "unorthodox" either. The practice was common among European trappers, the native americans, and muslims. Throughout history it has been a common practice. Uncommon yes, unorthodox, not really.

There was not a redistribution of wealth. There was a charitable giving of your excess, and you still owned your property.

The things that you claim as belonging to "liberal" views today would be considered conservative views. You claim them, but the modern liberals do not believe in them nor do they implement them.

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments