B.s.a. Allows Gay Leaders, Church Responds

[Gray]

They have the legal right.  But is it the right thing to do to change long agreed upon standards, in opposition to the majority of the organizations volunteers, because of largely outside pressure, avoid lawsuits, and the desire to retain corporate donations?

 

Is it the right thing to do? That's subjective. But I think it was. Why not give greater latitude to each member organization? Seems wise to me. It respects the religious beliefs of all scout troops, not just the most conservative ones. 

 

I assume your comments about the confederate flag were directed at someone else. 

 

 

Edited July 29, 2015 by Gray

[Gray]

"Turn Scouts into a gay pride parade."

That's a clever turn of phrase. And more prescient than you think. I have no doubt that is precisely what is contemplated by the juggernaut.

 

If that's what you really think, then I can certainly understand your distress. 

[jkwilliams]

But the vocal and determined opposition is not so secret...  A reminder from Smac's post yesterday:

 

 

"Due to the social political and legal changes taking place in our country and in our movement, I did not believe our adult leadership policy could be sustained," Gates said in a video announcement Monday. "Any effort to do so was inevitably going to result in simultaneous legal battles in multiple jurisdictions and at staggering cost." - Robert M. Gates, National BSA President

...

 

The Human Rights Campaign, a national LGBT-rights organization, said the Boy Scouts should not allow church-sponsored units to continue excluding gays.

"Discrimination should have no place in the Boy Scouts, period," said the HRC's president, Chad Griffin. "BSA officials should now demonstrate true leadership and begin the process of considering a full national policy of inclusion."

...

Kenneth Upton, a lawyer for the LGBT-rights group Lambda Legal, questioned whether the BSA's new policy to let church-sponsored units continue to exclude gay adults would be sustainable.

"There will be a period of time where they'll have some legal protection," Upton said. "But that doesn't mean the lawsuits won't keep coming. ... They will become increasingly marginalized from the direction society is going."

 

I think where we disagree is over the likelihood that such a threat will become real. I know, I have blinders on, or something, but I don't see it. 

[stemelbow]

I'm sitting in a conference typing on a handheld device, so it's not convenient right now.

But just search this thread for the quotes Smac97 has provided repeatedly from Gates, the BSA boss.

Then be careful not to repeat this tall tale about BSA "voluntarily choosing" to make the changes -- or swallowing it when others do so.

That's good enough for me. I'll catch myself up.

[Gray]

That they "voluntarily chose to make these changes" is true only in the sense of choosing to comply or be driven out of existence by predatory litigation.

 

Anyone may try to sue any party, but there are already ample legal protections for private groups to discriminate as much as they please. If you wanted to you could sue every single gay rights group for invading your dreams with techno music. Doesn't mean you'd win of course. 

Assertions such as yours add insult to injury. I'm not buying it.

It reminds me of the statement attributed to the Mormon pioneers: "We left Nauvoo of our own free will because we were forced to."

 

Is someone threatening to kill the Boy Scouts now if they don't raise the rainbow flag? 

Edited July 29, 2015 by Gray

[Scott Lloyd]

I think he expects that Boy's Life could show a picture of a webelos scout hiking with his two dads. You know ... soft core porn.

Actually, it's the subtle "Heather Has Two Mommies" sort of thing that has me more worried than the more explicit, in-your-face stuff that can be more easily spotted and rejected.

I won't have my family force-fed cultural morés that clash with our values.

But yes, if things get to the extreme of where they're headed, Boys' Life could one day be a showcase for a virtual gay pride parade.

[KevinG]

 

They have the legal right.  But is it the right thing to do to change long agreed upon standards, in opposition to the majority of the organizations volunteers, because of largely outside pressure, avoid lawsuits, and the desire to retain corporate donations?

 

Is it the right thing to do? That's subjective. But I think it was. Why not give greater latitude to each member organization? Seems wise to me. It respects the religious beliefs of all scout troops, not just the most conservative ones. 

 

I assume your comments about NASCAR/rednecks were directed at someone else. 

 

 

 

 

The NASCAR Comments were a slightly snarky illustration of a principle.  However to your point.

 

You and I fundamentally disagree on why the change was made.  I believe it was caving to financial and legal pressure while compromising a long held (2000 years) standard on what it means to be morally straight (clean) as a boy scout and a boy scout leader.

 

Gates own words seem to indicate that outside pressure and threats were at least a part of his consideration:

 

"Due to the social political and legal changes taking place in our country and in our movement, I did not believe our adult leadership policy could be sustained," Gates said in a video announcement Monday. "Any effort to do so was inevitably going to result in simultaneous legal battles in multiple jurisdictions and at staggering cost." - Robert M. Gates, National BSA President

 

As demonstrated by the reaction of LGBT advocates to the last compromise on youth, it wasn't enough, and even this compromise does not seem to be enough for some well positioned advocates:

 

The Human Rights Campaign, a national LGBT-rights organization, said the Boy Scouts should not allow church-sponsored units to continue excluding gays.

"Discrimination should have no place in the Boy Scouts, period," said the HRC's president, Chad Griffin. "BSA officials should now demonstrate true leadership and begin the process of considering a full national policy of inclusion."

...

Kenneth Upton, a lawyer for the LGBT-rights group Lambda Legal, questioned whether the BSA's new policy to let church-sponsored units continue to exclude gay adults would be sustainable.

"There will be a period of time where they'll have some legal protection," Upton said. "But that doesn't mean the lawsuits won't keep coming. ... They will become increasingly marginalized from the direction society is going."

 

 How in any universe are these trends and statements supporting giving the LDS Church and other religious organization supported troops more latitude?

[stemelbow]

Asked and answered.  Read the thread.

 

(Sorry that is probably board nannying, but this consistent refusal to acknowledge existing factual information while chastising others for not providing the same information is really irritating).

I didn't chastise anyone and didn't refuse to acknowledge existing factual information. And yes, I got to the thread late, and started commenting after having skimmed a few pages. Surely I missed plenty. Didn't know it was going to irritate you and cause this sort of unreasonable attack on me.

[KevinG]

I think where we disagree is over the likelihood that such a threat will become real. I know, I have blinders on, or something, but I don't see it. 

 

We all have blinders on.  Mine are a different shade than yours.

 

I don't deny we have a different take on this. 

 

I am less optimistic that the religious troops will really be given any latitude to set their own standards in the future.  The BSA membership at large certainly weren't consulted on this last change.  They were consulted and largely ignored on the 2013 change.  The effect of the "don't ask, don't be older than 18" policy was to dismantle a lot of troops, and deny the program to a lot of boys in our area.  And I'm in the Protestant South, not Mormon Mountain West.

[Gray]

The NASCAR Comments were a slightly snarky illustration of a principle.  However to your point.

 

You and I fundamentally disagree on why the change was made.  I believe it was caving to financial and legal pressure while compromising a long held (2000 years) standard on what it means to be morally straight (clean) as a boy scout and a boy scout leader.

 

Gates own words seem to indicate that outside pressure and threats were at least a part of his consideration:

 

"Due to the social political and legal changes taking place in our country and in our movement, I did not believe our adult leadership policy could be sustained," Gates said in a video announcement Monday. "Any effort to do so was inevitably going to result in simultaneous legal battles in multiple jurisdictions and at staggering cost." - Robert M. Gates, National BSA President

 

As demonstrated by the reaction of LGBT advocates to the last compromise on youth, it wasn't enough, and even this compromise does not seem to be enough for some well positioned advocates:

 

The Human Rights Campaign, a national LGBT-rights organization, said the Boy Scouts should not allow church-sponsored units to continue excluding gays.

"Discrimination should have no place in the Boy Scouts, period," said the HRC's president, Chad Griffin. "BSA officials should now demonstrate true leadership and begin the process of considering a full national policy of inclusion."

...

Kenneth Upton, a lawyer for the LGBT-rights group Lambda Legal, questioned whether the BSA's new policy to let church-sponsored units continue to exclude gay adults would be sustainable.

"There will be a period of time where they'll have some legal protection," Upton said. "But that doesn't mean the lawsuits won't keep coming. ... They will become increasingly marginalized from the direction society is going."

 

 How in any universe are these trends and statements supporting giving the LDS Church and other religious organization supported troops more latitude?

 

Chad Griffin's wish list would certainly restrict choices for LDS and other conservative troops. But that wish list is not likely to become a reality until all the conservative groups are also on board (which will happen eventually)

 

Your point is well taken about the political pressure. But pressure is still not the same thing as force. 

Edited July 29, 2015 by Gray

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Would you be upset if someone were fired for discriminating against Mormons? 

Yes. No one should lose their job for it. And no one would lose their job. You think all discrimination is equal?

Edited July 29, 2015 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[jkwilliams]

We all have blinders on.  Mine are a different shade than yours.

 

I don't deny we have a different take on this. 

 

I am less optimistic that the religious troops will really be given any latitude to set their own standards in the future.  The BSA membership at large certainly weren't consulted on this last change.  They were consulted and largely ignored on the 2013 change.  The effect of the "don't ask, don't be older than 18" policy was to dismantle a lot of troops, and deny the program to a lot of boys in our area.  And I'm in the Protestant South, not Mormon Mountain West.

 

I don't see it that way, obviously. The decision increases latitude instead of restricting it. Some troops did want gay leaders, so now they are free to have them. If the LDS church is ever faced with a legal order to accept gay Scout leaders, I will start attending high priests again. It would prove I have no spiritual discernment and need to get back with the program.

[KevinG]

I didn't chastise anyone and didn't refuse to acknowledge existing factual information. And yes, I got to the thread late, and started commenting after having skimmed a few pages. Surely I missed plenty. Didn't know it was going to irritate you and cause this sort of unreasonable attack on me.

 

 

 

I posted the quotes that were pertinent just to show I care.  And my unreasonable attack was not for you only.  Several people seemed to ignore the reference you were asking for.

 

However you have thrown CFR out at me a couple of times on this thread when I'd already answered the request previously.

 

But if you don't hate me for being annoyed I'll still be a lovable pain in the butt as you voluntarily engage with me on a public board.  OK?

 

[ERayR]

I think where we disagree is over the likelihood that such a threat will become real. I know, I have blinders on, or something, but I don't see it.  

 

 

It appears you do not see the historical progression of what is now happening nor that this movement has never been satisfied with simple acceptance but seems to want nothing less than complete validation of their life style.  I have watched the progression for many years. 

[jkwilliams]

Yes. No one should lose their job for it. And no one would lose their job. You think all discrimination is equal?

 

The law doesn't think so. Religion, race, and gender are protected classes. Sexual orientation is not. 

[stemelbow]

I posted the quotes that were pertinent just to show I care.  And my unreasonable attack was not for you only.  Several people seemed to ignore the reference you were asking for.

Well, I have no idea what you're talking about having not have read the hwole of the thread.

 

However you have thrown CFR out at me a couple of times on this thread when I'd already answered the request previously.

CFR. Joking here. I don't remember issuing any CFR to you. I rarely issue CFRs in any case.

 

But if you don't hate me for being annoyed I'll still be a lovable pain in the butt as you voluntarily engage with me on a public board.  OK?

 

I'm thinking you've confused me with someone else. not sure what spawned your comments about me, whether it included others or not I wouldn't have known. I simply didn't do what you have accused me of doing.

[ttribe]

Actually, it's the subtle "Heather Has Two Mommies" sort of thing that has me more worried than the more explicit, in-your-face stuff that can be more easily spotted and rejected.

I won't have my family force-fed cultural morés that clash with our values.

But yes, if things get to the extreme of where they're headed, Boys' Life could one day be a showcase for a virtual gay pride parade.

 

I realize this thread has been moving fast, so I'll provide a link, but would you mind responding to my post? http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/65765-bsa-allows-gay-leaders-church-responds/?p=1209520335

 

Thanks.

[Scott Lloyd]

That they "voluntarily chose to make these changes" is true only in the sense of choosing to comply or be driven out of existence by predatory litigation.

Anyone may try to sue any party, but there are already ample legal protections for private groups to discriminate as much as they please. If you wanted to you could sue every single gay rights group for invading your dreams with techno music. Doesn't mean you'd win of course.

Assertions such as yours add insult to injury. I'm not buying it.

It reminds me of the statement attributed to the Mormon pioneers: "We left Nauvoo of our own free will because we were forced to."

Is someone threatening to kill the Boy Scouts now if they don't raise the rainbow flag?

You're not getting the point. Defending even unconstitutional lawsuits can be prohibitively expensive. Have you been paying attention?

And the point of my comparison is that it's not really a free-will choice if one is forced into making it.

But since you bring it up, the survival of BSA seems to be at stake here. That was the rationale Gates gave. Did you really not look at the quotes Smac97 provided? You know, it's not possible to have a productive thread if you insist on ignoring or disregarding what has already been given.

Edited July 29, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[The Nehor]

You and I fundamentally disagree on why the change was made.  I believe it was caving to financial and legal pressure while compromising a long held (2000 years) standard on what it means to be morally straight (clean) as a boy scout and a boy scout leader.

I have my doubts that the scout oath has been around for 2000 years. Was Jesus a Boy Scout?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

The law doesn't think so. Religion, race, and gender are protected classes. Sexual orientation is not. 

Spare me. You think the guy at Mozilla would have been let go if he had given money to a "Stop Mormon Missionaries" campaign?

[KevinG]

Chad Griffin's wish list would certainly restrict choices for LDS and other conservative troops. But that wish list is not likely to become a reality until all the conservative groups are also on board (which will happen eventually)

 

Your point is well taken about the political pressure. But pressure is still not the same thing as force. 

 

I disagree that it is not likely to become a reality.  Threats to pressure a change in the past have come to fruition more quickly than I had anticipated.

 

Also the plurality of religiously sponsored troops (LDS, Catholic, Baptist) are more conservative than the general populace and the executive board combined (Gates oversaw the sexual diversification of the US Military).  You are still asking volunteer scouters, the active members of the BSA, to redefine their own oath and how they understand it for the sake of a small minority among their ranks.

 

That seems anathema to agency, freedom or religion, and freedom of association.

 

Bigots still have the freedom to be bigots.  I've yet to sue someone for refusing to hire me because of my Mormon religion, even when recruiters volunteered the information and a clear case of discrimination could be proven.  Instead of insisting those companies change under threat of lawsuit, I chose to affiliate with others who valued me.  Today I'm a much saner, happier, and comfortably employed person for it.

[KevinG]

Well, I have no idea what you're talking about having not have read the hwole of the thread.

 

CFR. Joking here. I don't remember issuing any CFR to you. I rarely issue CFRs in any case.

 

I'm thinking you've confused me with someone else. not sure what spawned your comments about me, whether it included others or not I wouldn't have known. I simply didn't do what you have accused me of doing.

 

Yup I probably got you mixed up with someone else.  Sorry about that.

 

CFR that I did though...  

[KevinG]

I have my doubts that the scout oath has been around for 2000 years. Was Jesus a Boy Scout?

 

The standard of chastity not the oath.  But that could get me in trouble with a scout leader that wanted to have a concubine, or a polygamous wife.

[Gray]

You're not getting the point. Defending even unconstitutional lawsuits can be prohibitively expensive. Have you been paying attention?

And the point of my comparison is that it's not really a free-will choice if one is forced into making it.

But since you bring it up, the survival of BSA seems to be at stake here. That was the rationale Gates gave. Did you really not look at the quotes Smac97 provided? You know, it's possible to have a productive thread if you insist on ignoring or disregarding what has already been given.

 

Fair points. However I'm skeptical how much of an effect nuisance lawsuits could really have on this decision. I suspect the concern is more about public opinion and maintaining corporate sponsorships. 

[Gray]

Spare me. You think the guy at Mozilla would have been let go if he had given money to a "Stop Mormon Missionaries" campaign?

 

Absolutely he would have