<p>Hmm, the KKK enforced their desires via cross burnings and lynchings – that is hardly comparable. You were ill-informed in your first posts, and keep digging the hole deeper with each subsequent post.</p>
<p>I think it was more like a business decision than anything else. Cities were beginning to prohibit their use of public facilities under non-discrimination ordinances. Who knows when that might have been extended to state forests and parks? There was loss of potential membership, and there was already loss of donors. And it was one black eye after another. </p>
<p>They had (and still have) the right to choose. And patrons have the right to patronize or not.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>But apparently not far enough among adults for them to change the policy with respect to the adult leaders, as opposed to the scouts themselves. The age demographic of the scouts themselves is overwhelmingly accepting of gay people, but the age demographic of their parents may not be that accepting.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Ah. I see. So we should never be allowed to publicly criticize organizations and ask for a change. Got it.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If they were paying for it, aren’t they like any other consumer? For a long time, we have a church organization using the local elementary school for their church services each week. Do you believe that church was not discriminating against anybody?</p>
<p>It’s way overdue for the BSA to accept gay boys, and gay leaders. People don’t choose their sexual orientations. (Did YOU choose your sexual orientation? Did you choose your height? Your eye color?). I am ready for change on all fronts. Come on Supreme Court! Overturn DOMA already!!!</p>
<p>“If they were paying for it, aren’t they like any other consumer? For a long time, we have a church organization using the local elementary school for their church services each week. Do you believe that church was not discriminating against anybody?”</p>
<p>Yes, I don’t believe the church was discriminating against anyone. Do they ban certain people from attending and/or participating in services? </p>
<p>I have no if school districts required the BSA to pay or not but imo that is irrelevant. It’s a public building, paid for by tax dollars.</p>
<p>“If they were paying for it, aren’t they like any other consumer?” </p>
<p>Absolutely not. The use of public facilities is subject to anti-discrimination provisions that are in the law. Any “consumer” that violates the non-discrimination provisions of use would be denied use of the facilities. </p>
<p>Of course, it is up to the municipality (or county or state) to decide (usually through ordinance or law) what non-discrimination provisions they include in conditions of use.</p>
<p>I am glad the BSA has improved and hope there is more, but people must realize even if the BSA allows gay leaders, it will still and forever discriminate. It will always discriminate based on gender - only boys. And it will forever discriminate based on age - children as members.</p>
<p>Municipalities have absolutely no difficulty writing ordinances and facility use agreements dealing with this form of “discrimination”.</p>
<p>BSA’s decision is a step in the right direction. Tolerance.</p>
<p>Let me provide a little background on the use of public facilities by the Boy Scouts. The issue was not so much that they were using public facilities just like any other private group that could rent them. Rather, there were many BSA units that were chartered or “owned” by public entities, such as schools, fire stations, and the like, and also by quasi-public groups like PTAs. Because it became clear that they couldn’t do this and maintain discriminatory policies, BSA discontinued the practice of having such chartering organizations, and now all chartering organizations are supposed to be private entities–probably more churches than anything else. (The fact that BSA made this change is something that contributed to my surprise in their most recent change in policy. They really didn’t have to make the change.) There have also been some issues of some BSA leases of public land, and whether they could be maintained by an organization that discriminates, but these have been limited to a few places. There is really no danger that they would be excluded from something like camping in national or state parks, because you’d also have to exclude too many other organizations–such as, for example, most church groups. Not going to happen. It would probably be unconstitutional, in fact.</p>
<p>So, there was really no legal pressure on BSA to make this change. It appears to be the result of both internal and external pressure, and–just maybe–a change in attitude among leaders (or a gradual change in the leaders themselves). I think that’s a great thing.</p>
<p>It really is that simple though. I am an eagle scout about to start my senior year of high school. I have heard every reason why gay adults shouldn’t be let in from friends and coworkers and friends and scouters and none of them are legitimate in the least. Hold ALL scouts and scouters to the same standard regarding sexual behavior/discussion. There is no good reason to keep gay adults out as long as everyone knows they will be held to the same standards as everyone else and will not receive any breaks. If ANY adult can’t handle the stress of looking over a ton of rambunctious, hormonal boys, they shouldn’t be leaders anyway.</p>
<p>I have boys in Cub Scouts, and when the Boy Scouts solicited the opinions of parents regarding a change in policy, I wrote that I do not want gay scout leaders because of the risk of molestation. A man is not allowed to lead a Girl Scout troop except in partnership with a woman for the same reason. No one asks Cub Scouts and Boy Scouts if they are gay, and I did not ask for the ban on gay scouts to be maintained.</p>
<p>Oh, come on! Being a molester has nothing, absolutely nothing, to do with sexual orientation. A straight man is just as likely to molest as a gay one. We had that problem with a Scout troop in our area about 30 years ago, and the molester was a married, churchgoing man with four children. Don’t judge a book by its cover.</p>
<p>Jerry Sandusky. That is all.</p>
<p>This whole thing began because a gay woman was forced to quit running a cub scout group. </p>
<p>When do scouts do overnight camping? Does it start like in high school? My brother was in scouts for a while and I was a cub scout leader for elementary school kids and I never knew anyone who camped overnight. We did day camps only. There were very few men leaders for the cub scouts I’ve seen.</p>
<p>If the concern is risk of molestation, perhaps it would be wise to ban men from being leaders.</p>
<p>If the concern is really risk of molestation, I suggest Beliavsky be the troop leader for his sons, coach for their teams, parent volunteer at any activity. Problem solved.</p>
<p>Unfortunately, any adult of any gender or any sexual orientation would be crazy to lead a youth group of any type in a solo capacity anymore. The liability is just too high. And Beliavsky’s comment Is so far off base- statistics just don’t back up that claim in any way. </p>
<p>I still refuse to support the BSA in any way until they get rid of discrimination against gay adult leaders. No BSA popcorn in this house.</p>