Jat

They shouldn't have had to consider it in the first place. There is nothing directly in the Boy Scout Charter against one being gay. Being gay is not a crime. (Well not anymore)

joedad

I think they will continue to discriminate on the basis of religion, yes. But there is hope.

As far as catching flack for their courageous decision, their vote was unanimous. So it seems they have prepared a united front for negative vibes from the bigots and the homophobes. Boy Scouts are always prepared.

Maybe those emails I sent to the Pittsburgh UW had some effect after all, as I see they were mentioned as well. I shall delude myself into thinking I had an effect somehow.

joe

Optional

No, being gay is of course not a crime. But then a private organisation setting membership standards based on whatever they want to base it on is not a crime either. I agree with you that morally and ethically the BSA is in the wrong here (based on my own morals/ethics), but legally speaking.... Not so much.

-me

tribalbeeyatch

That seems like something of a dead horse that you're beating considering that the issue has already been decided in the courts.

Optional

Has it? Sorry, missed that... Which way?

-me

tribalbeeyatch

SCOTUS ruled that, inasmuch as the BSA is a private organization, they can bar whomever they want from membership for whatever reasons they choose. I think the decision was in 2000. I'm really not sure that I'm convinced that the BSA is strictly a private organization (they seem to be given preferential governmental accomodations), and perhaps the 4 dissenting votes were cast by justices who share my doubts.

Jat

They don't have any strictures on their members being gay. If so than they should have them on being heterosexual as well since per capita most pedophiles are straight.

Corwin

The Court's decision is wrong and flawed. IF the BSA were a private organization, it would be correct. (I'd still have a moral objection to it, but they'd be within their rights.) However, as long as the BSA recieves public funds, (which they do) then yes, they should be forced to accept both gays and atheists as scouts and scoutmasters.

If you want federal money, you can bloody well abide by federal anti-discrimination guidelines. Nobody's forcing them to take that money, if they want to discriminate, they don't get the cash. It's simple.

DarkBronzePlant

My answer: no.

My question to you... Does the simple fact that someone's actions are legally acceptable make them also morally acceptable?

Optional

I wasn't aware they took fed money. In what way?

-me