This is about scout safety folks. I dont think a guy should be taking my young
nieces on campouts with him.similarly, a man who might be attracted
to little boys shouldnt take them camping. common sense people.
Wow. Now a private non-profit organization is not allowed to have it's own
rules. I guess all black colleges are going to have to start allowing other
races in. All girl schools will need to allow boys to attend. Boy scouts and
girls scouts will need to allow both genders to choose which organization to
attend.The funny thing is, gays are allowed to be in scouts.
They're asked to be scouts and follow the scout rules if they want to
participate. However, preaching and becoming a scout to shove their own personal
views down all of the scouts throats isn't part of the program.What we need to pass is getting rid of tax breaks for unions, movie makers and
other tax breaks given to the elite in -$176.6 Billion california. Why can the
state discriminate with the tax breaks for their wealthy?I think the
scouts should just become a for profit organization. Keep the gays from openly
being gay in scouts. Then be a political force and fund candidates and delve
into politics. Time to play the liberal game.
It does indeed punish them for their beliefs. When those beliefs are bigoted
and illegal it only seems reasonable that there might be consequences. The boy
scouts aren't a religious organization, after all, despite what Utahns
In case California hasn't heard. The Supreme Court upheld the Boy Scouts of
America in that they do not have to admit gays into their organization. They
have a constitutional right to run their organziation as they see fit.Then again, California is soo backwards they actually believe their $176
Billion of debt is wealth. They believe they can tax their way out of a spending
problem (like a drunk can drink his way to sobriety).One more reason
California is nuts. They keep reelecting Nancy Pelosi. Actually, believing that
"we need to pass the bills to find out what's in it" mentality.As long as they get their welfare Californians are happy giving their
wealth to movie stars and liberals. Maybe they need a few more earthquakes to
wake them up.
The entire concept of tolerance is that you must respect decisions by people who
have different opinions than you: If an organization protected by the right to
freedom of association and speech is punished because they don’t have
politically correct views – then by all means also punish the HRC, NOW,
PP, MOVEON – because I find their extremism deplorable (even though they
hate and discriminate for all the fashionable reasons). Controlling thought via
tax code is the ultimate Orwellian anti-speech cowardice. If
California does not have to be tolerant of diverse opinions – then why
should anyone be held to a different standard? And why should I respect those
who advocate tolerance – but are loathe to actually practice it? My experience with gay fundamentalism is that they are even more rigid than
those they claim to oppose - which is why - even though I am homosexual - I
cringe at the label of "gay"
There is no way this bill would pass Constitutional scrutiny
Man...If I lived in California, I would be getting out as soon as possible. in California it is now illegal for those with same sex attraction to
even receive counseling or therapy that might help them become attracted to the
opposite sex. There is no evidence that such therapy causes any harm whatsoever
to anyone, but it's not politically correct. So, even if someone really
wants it, that option is not available to him/her because it's not
politically correct.Now California is trying to punish private
organizations if they don't have the politically correct point of view.Based on the current trend, I don't know how much time is left for
our society, but I would get out of California as fast as I could.
The intent of the bill is not to force the Boy Scouts to admit gay people. The
aim of the bill is to remove non-profit tax breaks the orginization receives due
to their prejudicial policies. This appears to be in perfect alignment with what
the founding fathers had in mind when this great and secular nation was created.
People with religious beliefs ought to stand on their roof tops to applaud this
measure as it is in line with protecting the religious freedoms they so enjoy in
this great democratic secular republic.
I wouldn't mind my boys spending the night in the woods with gay scouts
and/or leaders. What could possibly go wrong?
"If California does not have to be tolerant of diverse opinions – then
why should anyone be held to a different standard? And why should I respect
those who advocate tolerance – but are loathe to actually practice
it?"Amen! To seek to punish a specific organization
for believing something different than you is the epitome of closed
mindedness. I grew up in California and, in my youth, loved the
diverse and openminded nature the state represented. It is so sad to see the
shell of a state it has become under the insanity of liberal, socialistic, and
Looks like California is once again proving their bigotry towards Christians who
embrace morality. Economically how is California doing? hahaha. I
guess all those tax increases don't work!
Tax exempt status SHOULD be removed from organizations that cannot serve the
entire tax-paying population.Makes perfect sense to me.
California needs more taxes?
@Bob A. Bohey@A ScientistI belive the point of PRIVATE
organization is they are PRIVATE,The point of givng tax exempt
status to organzations is the fact they are NON-PROFIT.This bill is
hightly unconstitutional, and assault anyone that has a voice or conscience
differnet than the government's, some loudly complaing minorty.The founding fathers did not have this mind when founded this nation built on
freedom of the people, and that government answers to the people not vice
versa.BTW we are not secular any more than we are non secular, but
this nation is whatever The People decide it is,but that the
constitution would be wholly inadequate for any but a religious and moral
people.For any other you ccould never make enough laws to control
and force everyone to be good or least how government defines 'good'.
@A Scientist Are you saying that churches in the state where SSM is
already legal be required to marry them or lose their tax exempt status?
This doesn't even make sense from the political point they're trying
to make about the Boy Scouts and discrimination since it would also remove the
status from the more inclusive Girl Scouts as well. @Cats"There is no evidence that such therapy causes any harm whatsoever to
anyone"There absolutely is. The suicide rate of people in those
programs is sky high.
This is scary. If this passes, it could help pave the way for a bill that would
remove the tax exempt status of a religious organization for the same reason,
which would be yet another very bad road for America to go down. Of course,
those that know the constitution know that this would be unconstitutional. But
since when do liberals care about the constitution? To them it is an obstacle in
their way, and they have already shown that they are not adverse to trampling
all over it to get the horrible policies of theirs through. These are scary
times we live in, when the very principles this nation was founded on are mocked
and the moral values that made it great are scorned by many.
And they shall call good evil and evil good.Now they want to punish
people for being good.
The BSA can run a private for profit organization any way they want.
Conservatives love stories like this. It gives them another excuse to whine and
play the victim.If you want to discriminate, don't expect tax
breaks. What's so hard about that to understand?
JimmyJackJohnJones: if you don't know that scouting is a religious
organization, you need to check out why Lord Baden Powell founded it in the
first place, and why "Duty to God" is the first point of the Scout Oath.
It's not just Utahns that know this; many of the chartered organizations
are religions outside the LDS Church that sponsor scout troops. Scouting from
the beginning has been designed to be a support to organizations with similar
ideals as the scout oath and law, which are ethical if not religious in nature.
Mr. Bohey's comment previously couldn't be farther from the truth on
this matter. This type of law sets a precedent that the government can be
preferential towards any non-profit based on its definition of morality. When
this is applied to any church that discriminates towards gays in any way
you've suddenly created a situation in which the the first amendment is
violated. You can't treat one religion different than another based on
As some others have pointed out, the liberalism is completely non-liberal when
it comes to any ideals that clash with its own. In this case, the ideal of
freedom of assembly and association as explicitly outlined in the 1st
Amendment.Folks, the warfare over freedom has never and will never
be over. There always have been and always will be forces attempting to abridge
or abolish each and every freedom that has been fought for and, so far,
maintained in our country. But, are no guarantees. If you want them,
you've got to fight for them. Just like it's always been.
Bad idea. If the BSA admits gays, they will do so because they feel like they
have made the decision on their own. Trying to strongarm them into doing what
the California legislature wants will more likely backfire. Nobody likes to be
A Scientist,Wouldn't that mean every religious organization
would be unable to qualify as tax exempt?Could organizations
providing support services to (only) the disabled qualify?What about
low income housing limited to elderly residents?Many charitable
organizations would not qualify under your criteria.
As I have said, 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 it.The "gay marriage" movement
is not about "equal" marriage rights, it's about forcing everyone
in America to accept their lifestyle, and then to punish those who, like
churches, teach that their behavior is sin. Freedom of Religion is a clearly
spelled outright in the Constitution.. "Gay marriage" is not. This so called "tax" legislation is exactly why churches
campaigned for Prop 8, and the anti-prop 8 folks called their campaigns
"lies".Who was it that actually wasn't telling the
One more attempt to limit the freedom of those who hold traditional values,
while protecting the extremists. The atheists and amoralists are making it
harder to follow the religious and moral principles upon which our nation was
@ Jjjj have you ever read to boy scouts oath ?If so how can you say it's
not a religious group . Unless it has changed since I was a kid. Don't it
say something about duty to God an country. What part of God is not religious?
Taxing the boy scouts for standing u p to their beliefs. Is just the beginning.
We will all need to stand up to our faith.Stand for something or sit through it
all. The chooses we make dictates the lives that we live.
BSA continues to lose thousands of members with declines year over year.
THAT'S A FACT. Leave them alone, let them be, they're rotting well
enough on there own.
There is a doctrine that laws can not be written to isolate or impact a singular
class of people. This same measure to pass constitutionality would need to
apply to all like organizations - such as churches as well. All private
organizations would not be allowed to limit or discriminate in their membership.
Women could sue religions for not ordaining women priest using this a
precedent.While I do believe things like gay marriage will
ultimately be granted by the Supreme Court.... there is a lot of precedent that
the supreme court holds very carefully the right of religions to operate without
interference from the government. While gay marriage may become the law of the
land - the courts will not force religions to perform gay marriages.This will likely be the same precedent here. Boy Scouts is a private
religious organization. No group should be discriminated for their beliefs.
Jehovah's witnesses have been granted great latitude by the courts. Like
wise, scouts should be given the same latitude to follow beliefs.
Another of many reasons why I choose to live outside of California and why I
refuse to even visit it.
Scientist: The U.S.S.R. was dissolved years ago. I'm sorry your
aspirations for such are somewhat limited here. However, look at it this way.
You are allowed to express your opinion here.
Californians should still be able to donate to their churches and have them
support the BSA. Most United Way branches still support the BSA so Californians
can donate to them specifying that their donation support the BSA. United Way
donations will be deductable on their state taxes.
I wouldn't worry about this becoming law folks. The California Legislature
is remarkably similar to the Utah Legislature in that they often waste time and
money on unconstitutional message bills that have no chance of getting past the
most idiotic of federal judges. I think if the politicians on both sides of this
issue just back off, the BSA, parents, and the boys themselves will make
decisions that will be more inclusive and make more sense than anything
pandering politicians come up with.
This legislation will pass because it is California and voters there are too
ignorant to recognize bad, immoral and unconstitutional law.The good
news is that lawlessness is reaching a crescendo and lines in the sand are being
drawn. The real question is, will the forces of reason and common
sense be strong enough to overpower the forces of ridiculousness, ushering in an
era of sanity?
Strange. It is illegal to discriminate on the basis of religion and sexual
orientation. So when a religion follows centuries old tenants that run counter
to what the Gay community desires they retaliate by discriminating against the
religion.An illegal act.As Frederick Bastiat, author of
"The Law" stated in the opening paragraph:"The law
perverted! And the police powers of the state per-verted along with it!
The law, I say, not only turned from itsproper purpose but made to follow
an entirely contrary purpose!The law become the weapon of every kind of
greed! Instead ofchecking crime, the law itself guilty of the evils it is
My guess is this won't go anywhere since the application can be broadly
applied, and i don't know why they wouldn't just wait to see what the
BSA decides. There is no shortage of stupid ideas in state
legislatures across the country. Like a bill proposed in TN which would cut aid
to families based on their children's grades. Or UT, passing an open carry
firearm law. That said,Nobody should have to lie or cover-up
their identity. Love one another, love our neighbors as ourselves.
I think the boy scouts has more to worry about than this. For example, my son
just informed my wife that he wishes to no longer attend any boy scout functions
or associate with them because "they discriminate against gays and those who
choose not to believe in God" - he didn't hear that from us. I think
the first one will be an issue sooner than later, most young adults and those in
the coming generations will have a hard time with any organization that
discriminates in this way. For example, recent polls show that 81% of young
adults ages 18–29 years old support the rights of gay couples to marry.
The age groups of those who are against gay marriage have the highest mortality
rate in the country if that tells you anything. My point is that if the boy
scouts wants to retain and attract new members, they had better be willing to
"evolve" to some point on this issue, that or face extinction.
Boy Scouts of America should be allowed to stay the course and remain steadfast
to the principals in which this organization was founded. For a state to put
restrictions on them and try to force the BSA by removing their non profit tax
status is extortion.
Fortunately the 1950s are over and organizations - which declare themselves to
be private – (although the Boy Scouts hardly seem like a private
organization), will face more and more scrutiny in the public place (as they
should). If the LDS Church lets gay people in and allows them to hold callings
(with specific conditions) is the Boy Scouts any different - as someone before
me once said "what would Lord Baden-Powell think?" I doubt the
movement’s founder would have much sympathy for any non-inclusive
VST - from BSA directly we have,""Declaration of Religious
Principle. The Boy Scouts of America maintains that no member can grow into the
best kind of citizen without recognizing an obligation to God. In the first part
of the Scout Oath or Promise the member declares, ‘On my honour I will do
my best to do my duty to God and my country and to obey the Scout Law.’
The recognition of God as the ruling and leading power in the universe and the
grateful acknowledgment of his favours and blessings are necessary to the best
type of citizenship and are wholesome precepts in the education of the growing
members."So no, it is not a religion....but its foundation is
based on religious principles, like the original YMCA. Boy Scouts has morphed
to accommodate other faiths other that christianity, but "spirituality"
is still a fundamental part of scouting.
@KJB1Right back at ya. Let's cut the tax breaks for PBS,
Unions, Gay organizations, NAACP, Movie makers etc.If you want to
discriminate and take away other peoples liberties, then don't expect tax
breaks. What's so hard about that to understand? Take away tax funds for
abortions. If you want to protect childrens lives with gun control, then protect
children that haven't been born yet. What's soo hard to understand
about that?Personally it could be a good thing to remove the tax
break and let these organizations pay taxes. Then they have the full right and
capapbility to fund political movements and activities. Gays can pay scout fees
and dues, then that money could be used to fund politicians that will restore
freedom of religions, seperation of church and state.
For all of you in a panic saying that this will force churches to person gay
marriages, relax. All churches have to do is to simply quit performing LEGALLY
binding marriages. Let the members get married at City Hall and then have a
religious ceremony in the church that is not legally binding. it a church
doesn't perform marriages for straights, it can't be force to perform
them for gays. Also, tax exempt status is not a right. It is a
reward for orgs that do good and if an org's practices are deemed to not be
good, they lose their exemption. If the LDS church loses CA tax exemption, the
Church could tell the members in CA to pay their tithing to Deseret Industries
or BYU or other church entity. The corporate church would simply fund those
entities less and would have money to fund mintaining CA buildings, etc...
California will be so much better off without the Boy Scouts!(That's
sarcasm, by the way...)
This is far more reaching than intended. I can see the LDS church not being
allowed non-profit status because they don't allow women the Priesthood.
California: a state a bazillion dollars in debt, with a border as strong as
Kleenex, overturns a LEGALLY-approved/MAJORITY-approved law against homosexual
"marriage", currently in the process of passing laws pressuring private
organizations to accept individuals against their creed (homosexuals) and, the
whole state is run by liberals.Nope, I don't see any connection
there at all.....
So the boy scouts will have to let girls join also? Will schools have to let
boys play on a girls sports team? Will women organizations now have to open
their doors to male members? What about a church that doesn't allow women
to be ordained ministers? Sometimes the cure is worse than the problem. Bottom
line: You'll tolerate my ideas and values as long as they agree with yours.
@lds4gaymarriage: "Also, tax exempt status is not a right."Do you know what else isn't a right? Gay marriage.But what
is a right, clearly spelled out in the Constitution, is Freedom of Association,
and Freedom of Religion. This means that things like "denial of tax exempt
status" cannot be used as a bully club against the BSA and churches to force
them to associate or not associate, or to force them to start providing "gay
marriages" or removing their "performance of LEGALLY approved
marriages.""Gay marriage supporters" such as yourself
have said over and over again that if "gay marriage" is allowed, nothing
would happen to the churches. This legislation, and your justification of it,
proves otherwise.This is why the LDS and other churches are against
To "KJB1" then the Unions should lose their tax exempt status. They
discriminate against those who don't want to join the unions.You will also have to remove the tax exempt status for the Democrats since
they discriminate against Conservatives. Republicans in California can keep
their status because they have liberals and conservatives in their
organization.All charitable organizations will have to lose their
tax exempt status because they discriminate against people who have jobs and
earn sufficient money for their needs.The Catholic church will have
to lose its tax breaks because they don't let married LDS women become
Nuns.The point is, name one charitable organization that does not
discriminate to some degree.
Hmmm... and weren't Prop 8 proponents predicting exactly this type of
legislation and attacks on churches? They predicted attacks on the ability of
churches to be non-profits. This would also affect the income tax deductibility
of contributions to these churches.
FV"Gay marriage supporters" such as yourself have said over and
over again that if "gay marriage" is allowed, nothing would happen to
the churches. This legislation, and your justification of it, proves
otherwise.LDS4No government would dare threaten churches tax exempt
status over not performing gay marriages. Most supporting CIVIL marriage for
gays believe that churches should be free to not perform them. Any politician
would easily be voted out. A constitutional amendment securing that would FLY
through passage. The sky isn't falling.FVDo you know
what else isn't a right? Gay marriage.But what is a right ...is
Freedom of Association, and Freedom of Religion. This means that things like
"denial of tax exempt status" cannot be used as a bully club against the
BSA and churches to force them ...to start providing "gay
marriages"..LDS4Instead of denying tax exempt status, I can
foresee governments having churches perform gay marriages if government is to
recognize their heterosexual marriages. No religious rights are infringed.
"Equal Protection" and the Romer decision demand Prop. 8's
rejection. Simply denying the word "marriage" is based on animus toward
a group. That's not constitutional. Prop. 8 violates scripture.
@Red --"then the Unions should lose their tax exempt status.
They discriminate against those who don't want to join the unions."from the Compact OED: "the unjust or prejudicial treatment of
different categories of people, especially on the grounds of race, age, or
sex"People who don't want to join unions have made their
own personal choice to not join. They are not being discriminated against. "Democrats since they discriminate against Conservatives."Disagreement is not the same thing as discrimination. **Anyone** can
join the Democratic Party -- most conservatives just don't WANT to. And
even so, there ARE conservative Democrats -- as any Southerner can tell you.
:-)It appears that you don't truly understand the meaning of
the word "discrimination". You can find quite a few helpful definitions
at onelook.com, a combined dictionary search site, to help you out of your
To "Contrarius" do you understand the word Sarcasism?Actually what I have said is true, if you use the dictionary definition of
Discrimination, which is "Recognize a distinction; differentiate".Using that correct definition, all of those groups discriminate. You
are arguing the qualifiers, when "KJB1" did not indicate any qualifiers
for discrimination.Using the dictionary definition of discriminate,
since Democrats distinguish themselves against Conservatives, they are engaged
in discrimination. The same with unions, and all of the other things that I
listed.Maybe you should just to to merrium-webster and look up the
Almost the very first thing I read is "I guess all black colleges are going
to have to start allowing other races in."There is no such thing
as an all-black college. There are "historically black" colleges, which
were founded because black students were not allowed to attend "regular"
colleges. Many of those colleges still have predominantly black student bodies,
but none of them take only black students.I know that's off
Then I read:So the boy scouts will have to let girls join also? Will
schools have to let boys play on a girls sports team? Will women organizations
now have to open their doors to male members? What about a church that
doesn't allow women to be ordained ministers? Sometimes the cure is worse
than the problem. Bottom line: You'll tolerate my ideas and values as long
as they agree with yours.Boy Scouts already have to let girls in if
there is no comparable organization for girls in the area. Almost all
women's organizations allow men to be members. (I was going to say all
because I've never heard of an exception, but there probably is one.)
Next groups that the high and mighty CA legislature will target? Churches.
Specifically the Catholic Church and the LDS Church.Bob, this
country was not set up by the founding fathers to be a secular country. It was
set up to tolerate all kinds of views. What they did to is not to establish a
state church. Unlike England and many other countries. They realized that the
person often refered to as the Supreme Being, needed to have a place in this
country. Hence the First Amendment. BTW, find me in the Constitution where the
words "wall of separation between church and government" is found.
RBNSalt Lake City, UTHmmm... and weren't Prop 8 proponents
predicting exactly this type of legislation and attacks on churches? They
predicted attacks on the ability of churches to be non-profits. This would also
affect the income tax deductibility of contributions to these churches.-------Um RBN, Prop 8 passed and is still in effect today - There
is no gay marriage in California! I'm afraid your theory actually proved
that these type of things could come EVEN though California did away with same
@Red --"Actually what I have said is true, if you use the
dictionary definition of Discrimination, which is "Recognize a distinction;
differentiate"We are talking about the definition of
"discrimination" as it specifically applies to our LEGAL SYSTEM, not a
generalized definition that applies to our physical sensory capabilities.I tried to keep it simple in my previous post, but here's a more
legalistic definition for you --"In Constitutional Law, the
grant by statute of particular privileges to a class arbitrarily designated from
a sizable number of persons, where no reasonable distinction exists between the
favored and disfavored classes. Federal laws, supplemented by court decisions,
prohibit discrimination in such areas as employment, housing, voting rights,
education, and access to public facilities. They also proscribe discrimination
on the basis of race, age, sex, nationality, disability, or religion. In
addition, state and local laws can prohibit discrimination in these areas and in
others not covered by federal laws."Take special note of the
part that says "where no reasonable distinction exits between the favored
and disfavored classes". I hope this helps!
VST - that is fine that you don't agree with me... we each have our own
point of reference. My grandfather, George Albert Smith, was one of those who
was critical in bringing the organization to the states after he was president
of the European mission, and was introduced to it while in england. In his
mind, it absolutely was a religious organization, and hence why it was engrained
into the churches fabric.But there are many who take a secular view
of the organization. And that is fine. The organization is many things to
many people. I am not going to argue with you over the opinion. My point of
reference is obviously very much different than yours.
To "Contrarius" prove that what you say is what "KJB1" meant.
Since when are legal descriptions fixed? Discrimination can be changed at
anytime by the lawyers.
@Red -- "prove that what you say is what "KJB1"
meant."Why do you expect me to even *care* what KJB meant? I am
not KJB. I'm sure that KJB can speak for him or herself.My aim
here is to educate you about the legal meaning of "discrimination" --
regardless of anything that KJB may or may not have meant."Since
when are legal descriptions fixed? Discrimination can be changed at anytime by
the lawyers."Nothing in this world is "fixed" enough to
fully satisfy you, I'm sure. Nonetheless, the legal principle of
discrimination has been around for at least as long as the US Constitution.For more details on the fundamental Constitutional protections against
discrimination, check the equal protections clause in the US Constitution,
ratified in 1789 (Bill of Rights ratified in 1791). Further Federal
protections can be found in: the Civil Rights Act; the Voting Rights Act; the
Fair Housing Act; the Fair Housing Amendments Act; the Age Discrimination in
Employment Act; the Rehabilitation Act; the Americans with Disabilities Act; the
Equal Pay Act; the Fair Labor Standards Act; the Pregnancy Discrimination Act;
the Education Amendments; and the Equal Credit Opportunity Act.I
hope this helps!
The bill doesn't say they can't exist discriminating against gays. It
just says they are not going to be exempt from CA tax. Hardly a matter for the
US Supreme court.
Getting it Right wrote:"Are you saying that churches in the
state where SSM is already legal be required to marry them or lose their tax
Unbelievable, but considering California it is believable. The gay lobby is more
threatening that the NRA.
VST - my bad....
To those of you insisting that scouting is not a religious organization: your
are partly right and partly wrong. Scouting is designed to be supportive of
it's chartered organization: in common aims and goals, which scouting lists
as character development, citizenship training, mental and physical fitness.
Where a religion is the chartering organization, their scouting program is
indeed a religious "organization." Where the chartering organization is
civil or communal in nature, the religious element is less of a structured
"religious organization" and takes on more of a diverse, ethical, and
philosophical nature. But it is still there.
The Scout Oath:"On my honor I will do my bestTo do my duty
to God and my countryand to obey the Scout Law;To help other people
at all times;To keep myself physically strong,mentally awake, and
morally straight."How does a scout do his duty to God by
participating in sex outside of marriage?How does a scout remain
morally straight by having sex outside of marriage?How does a father
instill in his son correct principles when he threatens to sue the Boy Scouts of
America because they don't believe in sex outside of marriage?Has society fallen to the point that our boys must embrace same-sex sex or
risk being sued?
VST wrote:"...from a purely legal standpoint, the BSA is
incorporated and congressionally chartered as a youth organization – not a
religious organization. This is an important distinction."Yes,
it is. And as a "congressionally chartered youth organization", it is a
violation of the 1st Amendment for such an organization to impose a religious
belief as a condition of membership or "good standing", as the BSA does
in its "Scout Oath" and elsewhere.Unless the BSA wants to
relinquish its "congressional charter"...?
In the first place, California is broke --- they need all the money they can
get.When people or groups become so desperate for money, they'll do
anything they to get it, regardless of the wisdom, legality or even common sense
of the means.Secondly, isn't this what we have come to expect
from California law makers?
@RetiredEngineer 10:28 p.m. April 12, 2013You're missing the
point. California legislators are not trying to say that the BSA cannot be a
bigoted and discriminatory as it wants to be. They are just saying that the BSA
won't get the State's financial support if it choses to do so.
RetiredEngineer,No problem.Then they forego public
support through tax exemption.Simple.
That is the problem. BSA is non-profit. It doesn't make money for
stockholders or owners. Anti-Mormon groups have tax-exemption status. I
don't see any of you screaming to tax those people. The tax payers are not
paying for the BSA, so they shouldn't have to accept the entire tax base.
If the BSA were funded by the government, then you have a point. This is
California's way of controlling people. Ultimately this will set presidence
to punish Churches they don't like.