Quantcast
Opinion

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

Comments

Return To Article
  • Counter Intelligence Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 26, 2013 9:07 a.m.

    @Tolstoy
    "how is what the "liberals" doing any more trying to force others then what you are doing, please give me a specific example of how they are trying to take away rights in a way that you are not."

    Wow: what a vapid argument. No one is stopping you from creating an organization that meets YOUR membership requirements - You are advocating stopping an organization that wants to maintain theirs. (Doesn’t matter whether you approve of them or not - they may not like yours either) The Supreme Court has held that the freedom of association is an essential part of the Freedom of Speech. You don’t have to approve. I think the HRC is a hate group – so I don’t join – I don’t try to force them to alter their membership requirements to accommodate me.

    As usual: Myopic leftists demands tolerance and choice while being blatantly intolerant of any divergent choice. It’s your way or no way. You are the perpetrator here - not the victim

  • Open Minded Mormon Everett, 00
    Feb. 20, 2013 11:50 a.m.

    patriot
    Cedar Hills, UT
    re:Open Minded Mormon

    Forcing something to happen ONLY occurs when the majority vote and not from some vocal minority forcing their twisted views by threats and law suits as liberals always seem to do. Liberals are all for the majority rule unless it doesn't square with their ideology and at that point they resort to all sorts of blackmail, threats, boycotts, etc.....Of course liberalism is akin to hypocrisy... always has and always will.
    9:41 a.m. Feb. 20, 2013

    ===========

    OK, patriot,
    I'll play....

    55% of Americans say drop the Boy Scout gay ban, a much smaller and vocal 33% minority say keep it.
    85% of Americans support Immigration reform,
    60% want more gun control,
    89% of Americans support contraception,
    51% support legalizing marijuana,
    …and 59% are Pro-Choice,

    Oh yes, and speaking of hypocrisy and majorities:
    Pres. Obama still won 62%, vs. 38%.

  • George Bronx, NY
    Feb. 20, 2013 11:19 a.m.

    @patriot
    Lets talk protest, lets talk about,
    Conservative protest calling for AT and T’s CEO Randal Stehphansen to resign due to his support of gays in scouting.
    Conservatives protesting Lady Gaga’s bus due to her support for gay rights.
    JC Penny’s for using Ellen (openly gay) as a spokes person
    The Conservative organization American Family associations protest of an anti-bulling day because the people sponsoring the day wanted to extend anti bullying to include bullying against gay children and the children of gay parents.
    American Family Associations protest against Arlington National Cemetery’s recognizing gay spouses.
    Charlotte NC conservatives protested against “undeclared wars”
    Petitions to secede from the union following the presidential election
    Ongoing protest of abortion clinics across the country.
    Shall we go on?

  • George Bronx, NY
    Feb. 20, 2013 10:57 a.m.

    @patriot
    Short list of recent conservative lawsuits
    The Maine Heritage Policy Center sued claiming the MMA had violated the center's free-speech rights by opposing tax campaigns
    Teresa R. Wagner sued the Univeristy of Iowa law school claiming she was not hired because she was a republican.
    The conservative student publication that sued claiming that their free speech and been violated by Oregon State University.
    A conservative group named The Alliance Defending Freedom sued Minnisota to block funding of abortions.
    Texas Aggie Conservatives, a recognized student organization, filed a lawsuit against University President R. Bowen Loftin and several other Texas A&M University staff members. TAC claims its 1st and 14th Amendment rights were violated when it was denied funding based on its religious and political affiliations.
    Conservative policy grouop the Competitive Enterprise Institute filed suit against the government claiming the Dodd Frank Act was unconstitutional.
    Abigail Fisher is suing the University of Texas over affirmative action in college admissions.
    Over the past 20 years conservative Edward Blum has similarly launched at least a dozen lawsuits attacking race-based protections.

  • George Bronx, NY
    Feb. 20, 2013 10:33 a.m.

    @patriot
    Short list of current companies being boycotted by conservatives.
    AccuQuote Life Insurance, Allstate Insurance, AOL, Aquarium of the Pacific, Bare Escentuals, Bethesda Sedation Dentistry, Bonobos, Capital One, Carbonite, Cascades Dental, Citrix, Consolidated Credit Counseling Services, Constant Contact, Cunningham Security, Freedom Debt Relief, Geico, Girl Scouts, Goodwill Industries, Hadeed Carpet, JCPenney, Legal Zoom, Matrix Direct, Netflix, Norway Savings Bank, Philadelphia Orchestra, PolyCom, Portland Ovations, ProFlowers, Quicken Loans, Regal Assets, Reputation Rhino, RSVP Discount Beverage, Sears, Sensa, Service Magic, Sleep Train, Sleep Number, St. Vincent’s Medical Center, Tax Resolution, Thompson Creek Windows and Vitacost.

    Recent conservative Hollywood and TV boycotts
    Escape From Planet Earth - George Lopez,
Warm Bodies - John Malkovich,
Side Effects - Catherine Zeta Jones,
Movie 43 - Elizabeth Banks,
Parker - Jennifer Lopez, 
Gangster Squad - Sean Penn, Josh Brolin, 
Django Unchained - Jamie Foxx,
Les Miserables - Anne Hathaway,
Parental Guidance - Bette Midler
Promised Land - Matt Damon,
Texas Chainsaw 3D – Lionsgate,
The Impossible - Naomi Watts,
OWN: Oprah Winfrey Network- O. Winfrey ,
HBO - Real Time with Bill Maher

  • Tolstoy salt lake, UT
    Feb. 20, 2013 10:18 a.m.

    @patriot
    how is what the "liberals" doing any more trying to force others then what you are doing, please give me a specific example of how they are trying to take away rights in a way that you are not.

  • patriot Cedar Hills, UT
    Feb. 20, 2013 9:41 a.m.

    re:Open Minded Mormon

    Forcing something to happen ONLY occurs when the majority vote and not from some vocal minority forcing their twisted views by threats and law suits as liberals always seem to do. Liberals are all for the majority rule unless it doesn't square with their ideology and at that point they resort to all sorts of blackmail, threats, boycotts, etc.....Of course liberalism is akin to hypocrisy... always has and always will.

  • patriot Cedar Hills, UT
    Feb. 20, 2013 9:01 a.m.

    re:Tolstoy

    Correct! Just because an organization or an individual has the freedom to choose doesn't mean they avoid the consequences of their choices. Choices all have consequences. BSA can choose to have gay scout masters .. no one is stopping them from making that choice ... but they will then have to live with the results of their choice. I don't have to like their choice and neither do you. Liberals don't want to allow choice unless it fits with their agenda. The people of the US by a slim majority chose Obama for a second term but with that choice comes the nasty consequences of higher unemployment and taxes.

  • george of the jungle goshen, UT
    Feb. 20, 2013 7:11 a.m.

    It's not fair. Life just isn't fair. I don't care who gets the biggest piece of cake at the party. I could of not been invited. Don' take things to heart or personally. Sure I'm going to feel bad to be turn down for some thing Hay I'm O K. I can respect that.I would rather not been invited than shouldn't of been.

  • The Real Maverick Orem, UT
    Feb. 19, 2013 11:23 p.m.

    Is this really what is best for the kids? Because it seems like certain adults have completely forgotten abou5 the kids.

    Or is this just another lame attempt by the radical right to try and score points by hurting kids in order to salvage what has been a disasterous political football season?

    Please repubs, consider the children. Put politics aside.

  • Wally West SLC, UT
    Feb. 19, 2013 6:21 p.m.

    @ patriot

    Liberals don't have monopoly on conformity, you know.

  • Tolstoy salt lake, UT
    Feb. 19, 2013 6:21 p.m.

    @patriot
    care to answer spring streets question. I seem to remember you along with being among the people on past threads on this subject that stated you would withdraw your support if the boy scouts made the change.

  • Hank Pym SLC, UT
    Feb. 19, 2013 6:19 p.m.

    As Groucho Marx would quip after reading the title, "I would not want to belong to any club that would have me as a member."

  • patriot Cedar Hills, UT
    Feb. 19, 2013 5:25 p.m.

    You obviously need some re-education liberal style. Liberals are all about freedom to choose as long as what you choose meets their approval.

  • Ultra Bob Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Feb. 19, 2013 4:53 p.m.

    If the American concept of personal freedom is in conflict with your religious views, take your church and...

    The only thing is that, if everyone did that you might be left standing alone.

    For the most part the Boy Scouts are different things to different people. To the sponsoring organization, usually a church, the purpose is to impress a specific code of behavior consistent with the sponsoring organization. To the group leaders it is a job to be done. To the boys themselves, it is fun, fun learning experiences, fun games to play, fun of participation outside the family. And the drudgery is not noticeable.

    We have allowed churches and others to do this because it is good for the boys. And no matter what the original purpose was, it is still a valuable asset that helps conditioning boys to live in our world.

    All boys, especially American boys and those living in America, should have the right to the benefits of participation in the Boy Scouts. Just leave sex out of it.

  • airnaut Everett, 00
    Feb. 19, 2013 4:38 p.m.

    @Mike Richards
    South Jordan, Utah
    The Scout Oath:

    ...To keep myself physically strong,
    mentally awake, and morally straight."

    ========

    I keep thinking over and over again of your Scout Oath quote -
    and your mis-interpretation of "morally straight" as being subject only to sexual orientation.

    I've seen some pretty fat Boy Scouts (and Leaders) there Mike,
    are you saying the Boy Scouts should kick out the fat kids and fat leaders too?

    Your judgements on other people is simply staggering.
    It's not very Scout like, or Christ-like.

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    Feb. 19, 2013 3:56 p.m.

    "what is the difference between someone demanding they change and someone demanding that they not change their beliefs?"

    No one is asking anyone to change their beliefs. (or not change their beliefs)

    Heck, I am pretty sure that in Utah, there will be NO CHANGE whatsoever in the LDS troops.
    Yet Utah, will probably make the most noise about it.

    To me, what a great opportunity to teach a scouting lesson about acceptance and about how to treat people that are different from us.

    That, or just promote bigotry.

  • spring street SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    Feb. 19, 2013 2:26 p.m.

    a fair

  • spring street SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    Feb. 19, 2013 2:25 p.m.

    On the surface this seems like afair question but what is the difference between someone demanding they change and someone demanding that they not change their beliefs? either way you are trying to force them to adhere to your views instead of someone else's.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    Feb. 19, 2013 1:05 p.m.

    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."

    ============

    "To help other people at all times" -- includes gay scouts, at all times.
    Help them doens't mean label, castigate, and discriminate against them.

    "morally straight" is not solely defined as being only sexual Mike, and you know it.
    You are using moral relativism to suit your agenda, and you said you were against that.
    I know more Bankers and Lawyers who are morally "crooked" than Boy Scouts, and most are heterosexual.

    Gay Mormons can particpate in all LDS Church activities, as much as you disagree and judge so harshly against them.

    FYI - it took 50 years and the civil rights movement in America before black boys and black leaders could fully participate in the Boy Scouts of America.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    Feb. 19, 2013 12:59 p.m.

    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.

  • Darrel Eagle Mountain, UT
    Feb. 19, 2013 12:53 p.m.

    @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.

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    Feb. 19, 2013 12:44 p.m.

    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.

  • JMHO Southern, UT
    Feb. 19, 2013 12:36 p.m.

    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.

  • Open Minded Mormon Everett, 00
    Feb. 19, 2013 12:17 p.m.

    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.

    =======

    @Darrel
    Eagle Mountain, UT
    @Owl,

    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
    anti-Slavery,
    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".

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    Feb. 19, 2013 12:17 p.m.

    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.

  • Nonny in the House Kaysville, UT
    Feb. 19, 2013 12:12 p.m.

    Hey Furry1993 he wasn't talking about race.

  • The Real Maverick Orem, UT
    Feb. 19, 2013 11:39 a.m.

    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.

    Sad.

  • Chris B Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 19, 2013 11:25 a.m.

    @RAnch,

    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

  • Darrel Eagle Mountain, UT
    Feb. 19, 2013 11:02 a.m.

    @Owl,

    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.

  • Owl Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 19, 2013 10:27 a.m.

    Darrell,
    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.

  • Utes Fan Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 19, 2013 10:27 a.m.

    @KJB1
    "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.

    @Darrel
    "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.

  • Darrel Eagle Mountain, UT
    Feb. 19, 2013 10:05 a.m.

    @Sal

    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?

  • Sal Provo, UT
    Feb. 19, 2013 9:43 a.m.

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

  • KJB1 Eugene, OR
    Feb. 19, 2013 9:26 a.m.

    JoeCapitalist2:

    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?

  • RanchHand Huntsville, UT
    Feb. 19, 2013 9:21 a.m.

    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.

  • JoeCapitalist2 Orem, UT
    Feb. 19, 2013 8:58 a.m.

    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.

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    Feb. 19, 2013 8:56 a.m.

    "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)

  • KJB1 Eugene, OR
    Feb. 19, 2013 8:24 a.m.

    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?

  • Furry1993 Ogden, UT
    Feb. 19, 2013 4:52 a.m.

    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.