Who else but liberal California would force, by law, someone to think and act
that they do. The BSA has been around for a very long time and has time-tested
values that have worked for many years. This will mean the end of the BSA in
California as we know it.
California's intolerance towards Christian believers. Typical!
Time for the LDS Church to part ways with the Boy Scouts.
This is about scout safety. Men dont go on campouts with little
neighbor girls.Men who may be attracated to boys shouldnt do the
same with neighbor boys.
Gone fishin:While I would love the BSA to drop its ridiculous positions
excluding gays, I'm not sure this is the right direction to go. I'm
much more in favor of getting this changed from within. However, I'd point
out that you are basically accusing "liberal California" of the exact
same thing people level against "Mormon Utah"--using laws to force
people to act like you do--see: Utah's liquor laws and cities banning any
businesses from being open on Sundays as just two examples. In both cases, you
are legislating beliefs.Also, "time-tested values that have
worked for many years" is not, in itself, a valid argument. It's the
same argument given for slavery, which dates back to at least ancient Greece.
That something produces a desired result does not mean it can't produce
that result by other means. You need to establish that lifting the ban would
make the BSA unable to achieve its mission.
It would "deny tax-exempt status to nonprofit youth groups that discriminate
on the basis of gender identity, race, sexual orientation, nationality, religion
or religious affiliation."So unconstiutional on so many levels.
Think about it... freedom of association, both boys' and girls'
groups, ethnic/cultural organizations, any religious group... This is extremist
hhmmmm....that is really weird. I could swear all of the "gay marriage"
supporters swore up and down that they wouldn't go after folks to force
them to accept gays into their organizations. They claim they wouldn't
force the LDS church or other churches to perform gay marriages in their
temples, churches or synagoges, but it is "ok" to deny the Boy Scouts
their freedom of association guaranteed by the 1st amendment? Seems like if it
is ok to tax the Boy Scouts for not agreeing with the gays, it is only a hop,
skip and a jump to do the same thing to churches and other tax-exempt entities
to force them to "behave" as well.If you are a "gay
marriage supporter" and you are not against this act of the Cali
legislature, then you can no longer use the excuse that "gay marriage"
won't be forced on churches. This is exactly why the churches are fighting
Chris B:The BSA currently has no policy against women acting as
adult leadership. Here's the policy in question: "Two registered adult
leaders, or one registered leader and a parent of a participating Scout or other
adult, one of whom must be 21 years of age or older, are required for all trips
and outings." That's because being hetero doesn't mean a grown
woman will try to be with a young boy. Likewise, being gay is not the same as
being a pedophile. In fact, the vast majority of men who have abused boys
identify as hetero (about 97%), thus the current ban does nothing for child
protection because they wouldn't be excluded on grounds of sexual
orientation.Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't there
always Priesthood leadership at Girl's Camp? If so, then grown men do go
camping with neighbor girls.
@OHBU"You need to establish that lifting the ban would make the
BSA unable to achieve its mission."Incorrect. The BSA needs to
prove nothing. It's a private organization that can admit whoever it wants
for whatever reason it wants. Think of it this way: Augusta National country
club doesn't allow women, although they could certainly "achieve their
mission" (providing golf) if women were allowed. So are you suggesting that
no group may exclude anyone from anything unless they can prove it would keep
them from achieving their mission? You've lost the script I'm afraid.
Otherwise there will soon be boys joining Girl Scouts.
@Fred Vader"I could swear all of the "gay marriage" supporters
swore up and down that they wouldn't go after folks to force them to accept
gays into their organizations. They claim they wouldn't force the LDS
church or other churches to perform gay marriages in their temples, churches or
synagoges, but it is "ok" to deny the Boy Scouts their freedom of
association guaranteed by the 1st amendment? "As a gay marriage
supporter I oppose this proposed bill.
“The legislation, also known as the Youth Equality Act, would deny
tax-exempt status to nonprofit youth groups that discriminate on the basis of
gender identity, race, sexual orientation, nationality, religion or religious
affiliation.”Clearly a violation of the 1st amendment. But
the US Constitution does not matter to liberals.
Re: "[Long Beach Democrat] Sen. Ricardo Lara [said] 'Our state values
the important role that youth groups play in the empowerment of our next
generation . . . .'"While it may be true that the real
people of the state of California value that important role, Democrats continue
to make it clear they do not. And that they will punish anyone who disagrees
with their deranged notions of some new morality that should replace everything
tried-and-true.Democrats are stumbling over one another to prove to
real people that they've become the party of brutal, intolerant bigots.
Interesting OHBU: "Mormon Utah"--using laws to force people to act like
you do--see: Utah's liquor laws and cities banning any businesses from
being open on Sundays as just two examples."The only places the
"Utah Mormons" insist are closed on Sunday are businesses that occupy
the land and the malls which the Mormons own! And, yes, the Scouts are
going after all the Churches which will not preform gay marriages!
@OHBUYou must be the King/Queen of false analogies.First, comparing the regulation of alcohol in Utah to California denying tax
exemption to a private institution does not equate. This is called a logical
fallacy.But while we are on the topic of legislation, didn't
the Supreme court affirm that as a private institution, the Boy Scouts of
America can set their own membership standards. So let's leave it up to
them--there are very capable people on the National Executive Board, and
I'm sure they want to make a decision that is best for the organization.Next, comparing priesthood leaders holding a devotional during the
evening at girls camp to homosexuals camping out with young men, I'm sure
you weren't being serious.
It is a TAX bill being proposed by a group of California grandstanders. It has
to get through the committee before it gets to the floor for a vote, where it
will need a minimum ⅔ vote to pass each legislative body. It is weird in
the language that says it goes into effect immediately (instead of some fiscal
year)--- which would create additional bean-counter challenges.
Pretty good indication of the bill being punitive in nature.
Brave Sir Robin,As you'll notice, I'm not in favor of
making the BSA do anything it doesn't want to do. However, you have to
realize that there is a large faction within its own organization that wants
this ban lifted. I would like the BSA to recognize this on their own. In the first post, however, Gone fishin attempts to make an argument for
why the BSA should keep it. I merely pointed out that their argument was does
not pass the muster, and if they want the ban to stay in place, they are going
to need to convince the organization that changing the policy would be
harmful.As a sidenote, Augusta has now admitted women into the
country club. Also, they didn't have tax exempt status in the first place.
@fred vader While i think it is a bit of a stretch to claim that
removing the boy scouts tax exempt status is the same as forcing churches to
marry gay couples, I can says someone that supports gay rights this bill does
make me uncomfortable so please try not to lump us all in with this one senator.
Fred Vader: I, like you, wanted to believe the continued affirmations that no
one would be "forced"... Force comes in many formats. Wait for
it....Wait for it... The headline coming soon: "California lawmakers are
considering taking some tax exemptions away from ... groups that do not accept
gay, transgender or atheist members — a move intended to pressure ...
Catholics, Mormons, Jews, Moslems," ... take your pick.
sorry that was suppose to be "as someone that supports gay rights"
Then it's time for the BSA to leave California altogether. Again, is there
any reason why any good-standing Mormon should feel so inclined to be a
democrat? Another abuse of power given by the people. Unfortunately, those
people are lacking in clear judgment.
If this goes into law (which I don't think it will) then the logical next
step would be for churches to lose their tax-exempt status as well. This would
not go over well in predominantly black churches who overwhelming voted for Prop
8 in California. I know the BSA and Scouts was added to the headline to drive
interest and add shock value, but as stated in the article, the YMCA and other
youth organizations would also be effected.
OBHU,Nice try but your thinking is terribly flawed, just like the liberal
thinking in California. There is NOT a large contingent of people inside the BSA
that want this bill to pass. Just a vocal minority. The BSA, as pointed out,
is a private organization. Just because liberals think something is right does
not mean it is so. Since when can the government dictate moral standards or
even worse the gay community. As similar bills have passed the liberal senate
of California this probably will as well since there are a number of state
senators that are gay or gay supporters. When it passes you will see many
families withhold their boys from BSA programs and will also see many financial
supporters withdraw their support essentially ending the BSA as we currently
know it in Califirnia. The BSA has already lost valuable financial
support and will continue to do so in the near future. Becaue of people that
think like you the end is near for decent and moral things of this world.
How can people call legal discrimination against gays ok and then make it
believe that it's an attack on Christian values?Tolerance goes
both ways - unless some people chose to disregard Gen. Conf.
tolstoy,no, not much of a stretch. it won't take them long,
and there are examples of them already going there. Churches lose tax exempt
status because they refuse to allow gay couples to rent church owned pavilions
for their receptions while the church does allow heterosexaul couples to rent
the property, etc.church owned hospitals required to perfomr
abortions if they accept medicare (meaning they cannot treat the elderly unless
they perform abortions) leftist and gay agendas are crushing the 1st
amendment rights garanteed people of faith. Obamacare is another perfect
Nagap,You failed to show where the fallacy in my logic lies. In
both instances, you have a group who holds a certain belief system, and tries to
enforce those through legislation. Alcohol regulation is one thing, but in Utah
it is very different than the rest of the nation--and you're seriously
arguing that this has nothing to do with the LDS population?! I'm merely
pointing out the hypocrisy of looking at a place like California, where people
believe differently than you, and saying they should live and let live, and then
when it comes to these issues in Utah, the answer is "if you don't like
it, move." Also, removing tax exempt status is not the same as
forcing an organization to admit gay members. I don't support this
legislation, but it's not actually a Constitutional issue. Now, if they
sued those groups in addition to revoking tax exempt status, you've got a
case. Per LDS website about Young Womens camp (pg 86):
"...adult Priesthood leaders should be at camp at all times..." Not
just for devotionals, but camping all week long.
OHBU,It doesn't matter what people "identify" as. It
matters what they ARE.Most people in jail don't
"identify" as criminals. But they are.And any
man who has sexual relations with another male is either homosexual or
bisexual.That is what they are:100% of men who have
abused boy scouts are homosexuals are bisexuals.That is just by
Hey if you don't like California get out...wait, I already did.
Oh, if it weren't for taxes! What a thorn!! It's not that California
would force gay leadership/membership of the BSA, but would take away their
tax-exampt status if they keep status quo. If you paid attention to
the arguments in the Supreme Court a couple of weeks ago with regard to DOMA it
hinged on a tax case. Being ruled a "tax", is how the
Supreme Court gave us Obamacare.Inevitibly, taxes are what will
overrule the underpinnings of the Constitution. It's already started. In
fact it started 100 years ago!
wow - big surprise that the 'gay capital' of America would be trying
to punish BSA for not submitting to their will.
@atl134 and Tolstoy:I am glad you are "uncomfortable" or
"oppose this bill". However, it is the folks that sponsored this bill
and support it that has the churches worried, and the reason they oppose
"gay marriage".Although, any influence you have over the
Cali legislature to defeat this "tax" bill would be appreciated by the
Boy Scouts and the churches, I'm sure.
@loatOnce again all of the exaples you give are organizations that
where required to perform the duties they agreed to when they entered into civil
contracts for which they received public money so not the same thing and you
Tolstoy,Churches recieved public money to buy and maintain their
pavilions? I don't think so. And you know that, too. You're saying
Catholic hospitals MUST perform abortions to treat the poor and elderly? Who is
forcing their morality onto others - KNOWINGLY?
@lostAs you have already been told that church received public land to
build that pavilion with the understanding it was open the public and as we have
discussed before the Catholic Hospitals received payment out of public funds to
treat the poor and elderly they where not doing it out of the kindness of their