search
top

City Council Ousts Boy Scouts

I have strong disagreements with the Boy Scouts of America because of their anti-gay policies.  I think City Council’s decision to give a local Scout Troop the boot because of this is taking opposition a bit too far.

In a 16-1 vote, the council approved a resolution that would terminate the Scout’s rent-free lease on a building at 22nd and Winter streets. Exactly when the organization would be forced to leave the building remained unclear.

I do hope the Boy Scouts of America will reconsider their position on homosexuality and atheism, even though I fully support their right to exclude people who they don’t feel represent their values.  I may disagree with the BSA’s position here, but I think it’s wrong to punish local scouts for the actions of the national organization.  Scouting provides a lot of positive experiences, especially these days when it’s less politically correct to be a boy and act like one.  I hope City Council will reconsider, and find other ways to persuade the national organization to change its policy.

12 Responses to “City Council Ousts Boy Scouts”

  1. Nomen Nescio says:

    “punish”?

    a resolution that would terminate the Scout’s rent-free lease

    emphasis mine. since when is it “punishing” to ask a private organization, which insists on its right to discriminate against people for no good reason, to pay rent?

  2. Sebastian says:

    Is the city offering to let them pay rent or is it ousting them? Personally, I wouldn’t have any issues with the city ousting them on financial grounds, but the measure is political, intending to punish the local troop in the hopes of influencing the national organization.

  3. Nomen Nescio says:

    if the local troop was in obvious disagreement with the national organization on this point, then the council would (at very least) be acting like jackasses any which way. but if that same local troop does in fact discriminate in the same manner as its umbrella organization, then they ought to expect some level of jackassery in return, i’d say. and since the troop hasn’t disassociated itself from the BSA, i’d expect them to have no serious policy disagreements.

    if they’re being flat-out ousted, that may (or then again, may not) be a bit more jackassery than is warranted. but if it’s merely a termination of an existing zero-rent lease in anticipation of signing another, market-rate rent one, i wouldn’t see anything wrong.

  4. Cassie says:

    so many things to say…
    Didn’t something like this happen for their national jamboree site? It’s on an Army base, and the government wasn’t going to allow them to hold it there. But then they decided it was okay. You don’t have to like the whole, but overall the boy scouting organization is a good thing. I mean… they could be like the girl scouts and refuse to let their Scouters be in any situation which may be dangerous… which includes shooting ANY guns, and not learning archery till high school. I’m a “lifetime member” of girl scouting and boy scouts. I teach 1st grade cub scouts how to shoot BB guns and archery, but these are things i can’t do ever for high school girl scouts.
    Despite discrimination (only against adults i believe. Boys don’t have to be religious.. and i’m not sure on the gay policy for the boys), Boy scouting is still a nonprofit organization i believe. They reserve the same rights as any other organization like that.

  5. straightarrow says:

    I do suppose that the NAACP, the Million Mom Marchers, Al Sharpton, Gay Pride,Peta, etc. etc. who hold values exclusive of others opposed to their agendas will be treated likewise.

    UH HUH! You just know that’s going to happen.

  6. Judge says:

    Why should orginizations be coercered to give up their founding principles and values, the same ones that this country held for the first 150 years of it’s existance, for modern political correctness?

    We ought to just interpret the 2A in the same way – right??

  7. straightarrow says:

    I do suppose the Congressional Black Caucus are pesonnae non grata in Philadelphia also. Right? No public facilities or city property will made available to them since they are a racially exclusive group, right?

  8. Sebastian says:

    It depends on the type of coercion. I would be very much against government coercion in this case, but I have no problem with citizens speaking out against the anti-gay policy. I don’t think this is about political correctness, it’s about excluding people based on sexual orientation, which I believe is abhorrent. As a private organization, the boy scouts are absolutely free to hold this view, but I am likewise free to criticize it.

  9. Judge says:

    While I have no trouble with people voicing their opinions, I just find it odd that this site should advocate anything that would demand traditional institutions reformulate their views based on modern whimsy. This is the same argument that 2A revisionists argue, and makes their claims equally valid. The history/traditions don’t matter….

    I think they do.

  10. Sebastian says:

    It depends on the traditional institution. I’m not a conservative. I can be very liberal when it comes to social issues, and I will freely admit that. Jim Crow was a traditional institution. Slavery was at one time as well. I don’t think discriminating against people because of their sexual orientation is as morally repugnant as slavery or racial discrimination, but I still think it’s wrong. As I said, think the scouts should be able to keep their lease from the city, because I don’t take kindly to the government punishing groups because they hold unpopular views, but I am one of those folks who wish the BSA would change their views on the issue. I think scouting has a lot to offer boys, whether they are gay or straight, atheist or believer.

    That doesn’t mean I view all traditional institutions with suspicion, but I don’t think just because something is tradition that automatically makes it right. I believe in preserving the second amendment and the rest of the constitution, because we have to restrain the government in order to preserve liberty, and the constitution, and ultimately the second amendment, are the means by which we do that. We have to have legal tradition, because without it, the constraints placed on the government by the constitution, and the laws passed under its authority, are ultimately meaningless.

  11. straightarrow says:

    “I don’t think this is about political correctness, it’s about excluding people based on sexual orientation, which I believe is abhorrent. As a private organization, the boy scouts are absolutely free to hold this view, but I am likewise free to criticize it.”_Sebastian

    Sentence one. Of course it is about political correctness. Nothing else begins to explain it.

    Sentence three, Yes you are free to criticise their stance and to try to change it, you aren’t free to treat them differently than those currently in favor through political correctness, or at least, you shouldn’t be.

    I think the BSA is wrong about the gay thing, but within their rights, I think they are right about the God thing, because that is where they got their principles of operation, whether I believe or not, is up to me, but I should not have the power to make them deny their beliefs. If you can deny them that, can I deny Democrats because they believe differently than me,
    or for that matter Republicans.

    Using the current modus operandi, can we block roads to synagogue, Baptist churches, Catholics churches, even though that would make our young boy children safer? Can wel deny use of facilities to Million Mom Marchers, if not, why not? Once we establish the state right to censure any group that is within the law, no group is safe.

    Having said all that, the property is owned by the city, ergo, they have the right to not donate its use to any group. There just isn’t anyway to say this isn’t about political correctness, that’s all.

  12. BadIdeaGuy says:

    At first I freaked out about this, thinking that the Philthadelphia city Council was just out to get the BSA, a private organization, for holding an unpopular view.

    Then, I thought about it, and anyone expecting preferential treatment from .gov, such as $1 rent, should expect to be held to whatever PC standards (if you lie down with dogs..) the gov comes up with.

    But now I’m back to outrage, once I read that after the boy scouts’ discrimination case went to the Supreme Court (and was ruled in their favor), they came out with some type of anti-discrimination policy that said essentially “we’ll abide by federal law”. So the feds ruled, and the pro-gay lobby that’ll settle for nothing less than govt/public school/church’s endorsement of homosexuality to tell them it’s ok, got to the PHL city council, and now because they’re acting on behalf of a collectivist group, I say F the Philthadelphia City Council. Nothing changed to remove the scouts from favored status.

top