Quantcast

Comments about ‘Calif. bill aimed at Scouts' gay ban passes hurdle’

Return to article »

Published: Wednesday, April 10 2013 12:00 a.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
TA1
Alexandria, VA

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 policies.

UtahBlueDevil
Durham, NC

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.

Liberal Ted
Salt Lake City, UT

@KJB1

Right 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.

lds4gaymarriage
Salt Lake City, UT

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...

firefly
Salt Lake City, UT

Thanks, Obama!

bikeboy
Boise, ID

California will be so much better off without the Boy Scouts!
(That's sarcasm, by the way...)

Jambo Dave
SALT LAKE CITY, UT

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.

A Guy With A Brain
Enid, OK

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.....

fish8
Vernal, UT

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.

Fred Vader
Oklahoma City, OK

@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 "gay marriage."

Redshirt1701
Deep Space 9, Ut

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.

RBN
Salt Lake City, UT

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.

VST
Bountiful, UT

@BlueDevil,

I do not disagree with anything you said. My only point (which you admittedly do agree with) is the BSA is not a religious organization, even though one of the founding principles is based upon a belief in God. You used the term to promote "spirituality" which is entirely appropriate.

We, who are supporters of the BSA, need to avoid falling into the same trap the ACLU has sometimes successfully used to their advantage by erroneously calling it a religious organization, which it is not. It is a youth organization that was legally incorporated as such on 8 February 1910 and later received a Congressional Charter on 15 June 1916 per Title 36 of the United States Code.

lds4gaymarriage
Salt Lake City, UT

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.
LDS4
No 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.

FV
Do 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"..
LDS4
Instead 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.

Contrarius
Lebanon, TN

@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 confusion.

Redshirt1701
Deep Space 9, Ut

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 definition yourself.

GZE
SALT LAKE CITY, UT

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 topic ...

GZE
SALT LAKE CITY, UT

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.)

Flashback
Kearns, UT

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.

Lane Myer
Salt Lake City, UT

RBN
Salt Lake City, UT
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.

-------

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 sex marriage.

to comment

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