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

[Scott Lloyd]

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.

They have as much as said so. The Human Rughts Campaign this week have indicated they will be satisfied with nothing less than total hijacking of the BSA movement, including forcing chartering organizations against their will to appoint sexually active homosexuals as Scoutmasters.

[Gray]

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.

 

No one is asking the conservative groups to redefine anything. The only change is those groups that wish to be integrated may now do so without breaking any rules. 

 

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

 

Actually agency within the scouts has now been expanded. 

 

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.

 

You can choose to do so, but there should be consequences for employers who discriminate on religious grounds. 

[KevinG]

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. 

 

So you think Is Robert Gates intentionally obfuscating the fact that he made the decision for corporate donations by blaming laywers?

 

"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

 

I tend to take him at his word even though he demurred on the actual policy decision and sent it down to the chartered organization level.

[KevinG]

 

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.

 

No one is asking the conservative groups to redefine anything. The only change is those groups that wish to be integrated may now do so without breaking any rules. 

 

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

 

Actually agency within the scouts has now been expanded. 

 

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.

 

You can choose to do so, but there should be consequences for employers who discriminate on religious grounds. 

 

 

You are arguing that pressuring the BSA to take members who espouse behavior that conflicts with their traditional values is an expansion of agency.

 

At the same time you argue that I should have sued someone who discriminated against me for religious grounds.

 

It seems you are confusing agency with "they should be able to do it as long as I agree with it".

[SeekingUnderstanding]

So you think Is Robert Gates intentionally obfuscating the fact that he made the decision for corporate donations by blaming laywers?

"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

I tend to take him at his word even though he demurred on the actual policy decision and sent it down to the chartered organization level.

This keeps being quoted, but what is getting ignored is Mr Gates comments on the internal pressures for change. Councils across the country are accepting gay leaders. What is the national organization supposed to do? Revoke their charters?

[stemelbow]

This keeps being quoted, but what is getting ignored is Mr Gates comments on the internal pressures for change. Councils across the country are accepting gay leaders. What is the national organization supposed to do? Revoke their charters?

Yep and usin gthis quote to support Scott's claim "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."

is playing fast and loose with the facts, it seems to me--something I just got accused of.

Ah well...we all disagree about something, huh?

[KevinG]

This keeps being quoted, but what is getting ignored is Mr Gates comments on the internal pressures for change. Councils across the country are accepting gay leaders. What is the national organization supposed to do? Revoke their charters?

 

I have addressed the difference between the plurality of the volunteer members and the contrast between a few activist troops and the national office staff.

 

No.  And strangely I am in favor of allowing individual chartering organizations to choose their own path when it comes to admitting gay leaders. 

 

What I bristle at is:

• The continued insistence by outside groups that even that isn't good enough for them.  They would push the issue until religious groups were compelled to admit gay leaders against their own practices.  Some don't see this as a credible threat.  I take the lawyered up activists at their word.
• The insistence that allowing openly homosexual leaders is compatible with the BSA Oath and Law and that if you don't agree you are somehow bigoted or old fashioned.
• The continued pressure to change the BSA past the point at which several of its primary sponsors cannot in good conscience sponsor units.
• Changes being made by an executive (for stated legal and financial reasons) without the consent or input of the membership at large.

You may see councils around the country accepting gay leaders.  In my area and council we have seen a large number of chartered organizations drop scouting to the determent of urban, suburban and rural scouts alike.  We have seen a devastating effect on the ability of minority scouts to access a troop.  We have seen a steep drop off in attendance at camps and events.  

 

So far not one (zero, zilch, nada) gay rights group or allied group has stepped up and chartered a troop for gay scouts now that they have the freedom to do so.  No unit that I have seen has received any additional scouts that were openly gay.  

 

The entire discussion at our councils, roundtables, OA events, etc. among adults regarding gay scouts is the devastating effect the ruling has had on attendance and affiliation with religious groups.  Many were surprised that the Mormons are still affiliated today and have told me they expected me to be gone after 2013.

 

Even if you agree that gay men should be scout leaders the cure has been worse than the disease for the BSA and the boys they would serve.

[Stone holm]

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

And Socrates and Plato and few other Greeks might have had a bit of a different take on the morality issue as well.

[Gray]

So you think Is Robert Gates intentionally obfuscating the fact that he made the decision for corporate donations by blaming laywers?

 

"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

 

I tend to take him at his word even though he demurred on the actual policy decision and sent it down to the chartered organization level.

 

How many lawsuits per year was the BSA fielding over it's former segregation policy? Sounds to me like he was speculating about future lawsuits, but again such lawsuits would have no standing. Which still leaves me skeptical that this was a major motivator. 

[KevinG]

And Socrates and Plato and few other Greeks might have had a bit of a different take on the morality issue as well.

 

I said 2000 not 2250.  

[stemelbow]

I have addressed the difference between the plurality of the volunteer members and the contrast between a few activist troops and the national office staff.

 

No.  And strangely I am in favor of allowing individual chartering organizations to choose their own path when it comes to admitting gay leaders. 

 

What I bristle at is:

• The continued insistence by outside groups that even that isn't good enough for them.  They would push the issue until religious groups were compelled to admit gay leaders against their own practices.  Some don't see this as a credible threat.  I take the lawyered up activists at their word.
• The insistence that allowing openly homosexual leaders is compatible with the BSA Oath and Law and that if you don't agree you are somehow bigoted or old fashioned.
• The continued pressure to change the BSA past the point at which several of its primary sponsors cannot in good conscience sponsor units.
• Changes being made by an executive (for stated legal and financial reasons) without the consent or input of the membership at large.

You may see councils around the country accepting gay leaders.  In my area and council we have seen a large number of chartered organizations drop scouting to the determent of urban, suburban and rural scouts alike.  We have seen a devastating effect on the ability of minority scouts to access a troop.  We have seen a steep drop off in attendance at camps and events.  

 

So far not one (zero, zilch, nada) gay rights group or allied group has stepped up and chartered a troop for gay scouts now that they have the freedom to do so.  No unit that I have seen has received any additional scouts that were openly gay.  

 

The entire discussion at our councils, roundtables, OA events, etc. among adults regarding gay scouts is the devastating effect the ruling has had on attendance and affiliation with religious groups.  Many were surprised that the Mormons are still affiliated today and have told me they expected me to be gone after 2013.

 

Even if you agree that gay men should be scout leaders the cure has been worse than the disease for the BSA and the boys they would serve.

How do we know? We haven't seen the end from the beginning. Maybe in the long run the BSA and the boys are better off.

[Gray]

You are arguing that pressuring the BSA to take members who espouse behavior that conflicts with their traditional values is an expansion of agency.

 

Yes, that's obviously what it is. Each local troop can make its own decision on whether to integrate or not. How could that not be an expansion of agency? 

 

At the same time you argue that I should have sued someone who discriminated against me for religious grounds.

 

Yes, because what employment discrimination based on religion is illegal. There's nothing inconsistent about that. 

 

It seems you are confusing agency with "they should be able to do it as long as I agree with it".

 

No, I'm making a distinction between legal and illegal discrimination. 

 

[KevinG]

How many lawsuits per year was the BSA fielding over it's former segregation policy? Sounds to me like he was speculating about future lawsuits, but again such lawsuits would have no standing. Which still leaves me skeptical that this was a major motivator. 

 

Standing or not, it would have been staggering.  Unless you think he was bluffing?

 

You can continue to twist on the difference between threatened and actual, standing or invalid, pressure or force...  but the bottom line is that allowing the BSA to continue the current policy created a credible threat from opposing activists to take action against them, which would be costly even if won.

 

With no more evidence to the contrary than "I don't think so".

[KevinG]

How do we know? We haven't seen the end from the beginning. Maybe in the long run the BSA and the boys are better off.

 

Past performance is the best predictor of future performance.  I explained a few pages ago that things that were "slippery slope arguments" 1, 3, 5 and 25 years ago are now reality.  Plus I take the lawyer/activists at their word when the promise to challenge the current status.  I think that's a better assessment of what might happen than Grey's or your opinion of what might happen.

[KevinG]

No, I'm making a distinction between legal and illegal discrimination. 

 

It is legal for the Boy Scouts to discriminate against homosexuals and atheists.  Dale vs. Boy Scouts confirmed that.

[Gray]

Standing or not, it would have been staggering.  Unless you think he was bluffing?

 

You can continue to twist on the difference between threatened and actual, standing or invalid, pressure or force...  but the bottom line is that allowing the BSA to continue the current policy created a credible threat from opposing activists to take action against them, which would be costly even if won.

 

With no more evidence to the contrary than "I don't think so".

 

Well, what evidence do you have that there was a credible threat of a slew of enormously expensive lawsuits forcing a private organization to integrate? It doesn't quite add up in my mind. 

[Gray]

It is legal for the Boy Scouts to discriminate against homosexuals and atheists.  Dale vs. Boy Scouts confirmed that.

 

Right, just as it's legal for the BSA to stop discriminating against gay people.

 

It is, however, illegal for a business to refuse to hire you because of your religion. 

[stemelbow]

Past performance is the best predictor of future performance.  I explained a few pages ago that things that were "slippery slope arguments" 1, 3, 5 and 25 years ago are now reality.  Plus I take the lawyer/activists at their word when the promise to challenge the current status.  I think that's a better assessment of what might happen than Grey's or your opinion of what might happen.

It doesn't matter what you guess at this point. it could be that the BSAs current policy is what will turn out best for the BSA and more boys. We don't know that now. Obviously BSA felt like it was a good move, otherwise they wouldn't have made it.

[Stone holm]

Standing or not, it would have been staggering.  Unless you think he was bluffing?

 

You can continue to twist on the difference between threatened and actual, standing or invalid, pressure or force...  but the bottom line is that allowing the BSA to continue the current policy created a credible threat from opposing activists to take action against them, which would be costly even if won.

 

With no more evidence to the contrary than "I don't think so".

It was not a sustainable policy for expansion of the BSA. Many Christian Denominations have embraced SSM and gay rights, we have two ministers of local Protestant denominations who are lesbians. One of these has a Scout Troop, BSA would be telling these ministers your Church can have a Pack or Troop but you are personally unworthy to be a leader or adult member. Given more and more Protestant Churches are embracing SSM and gay rights, eventually the BSA would be marginalized as a right wing fringe group like the John Birch Society. In addition, it was already presenting problems as various United Way groups dropped funding for Council Camps because their Charter precluded funding groups that discriminate. Many schools would have barred the BSA from using their facilities already except for an obscure clause in the Patriot Act that guaranteed their right to use. Its one thing for a Church to stand aside from the dominant cultural norm, its another for an organization like the BSA to stand variant.

[KevinG]

Well, what evidence do you have that there was a credible threat of a slew of enormously expensive lawsuits forcing a private organization to integrate? It doesn't quite add up in my mind. 

 

Given you ignored the quote from the BSA Chief Executive Officer defending his decision to integrate using that exact criteria.  Plus your statement here on the "backfire" thread:

 

Evidence is probably less convincing to someone with strong personal views on any particular subject, but that does not mean that human beings are incapable of overcoming cognitive bias and being convinced by evidence. It takes some discipline and conscious effort to do so, of course. We are not naturally rational creatures. Reason is learned, not intuited. 

 

 

I'm gong to go with.  You aren't going believe any evidence presented to you for the 4th time if you didn't see if before.

 

My work is done here.

[KevinG]

Right, just as it's legal for the BSA to stop discriminating against gay people.

 

It is, however, illegal for a business to refuse to hire you because of your religion. 

 

And yet I can avoid suing them, and move on with my life, allowing them to be bigots and scofflaws.  You see I don't insist everyone else conform to my world view.  I'm not that special a snowflake that I have to.

[jkwilliams]

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

 

I don't think people should be fired for expressing their opinions or for supporting particular political views. I think it was wrong that Brendan Eich was fired. 

[Gray]

Given you ignored the quote from the BSA Chief Executive Officer defending his decision to integrate using that exact criteria.  Plus your statement here on the "backfire" thread:

 

 

I'm gong to go with.  You aren't going believe any evidence presented to you for the 4th time if you didn't see if before.

 

My work is done here.

 

What you've provided is a claim, not evidence. The claim is not the evidence for the claim. 

 

As you pointed out a few posts up, Dale vs. Boy Scouts established that the BSA can discriminate as much as they please. What makes you think further lawsuits along the same line wouldn't be thrown out of court within a day or two of being filed? There is no need to hear the same case over and over. 

[Gray]

And yet I can avoid suing them, and move on with my life, allowing them to be bigots and scofflaws.  You see I don't insist everyone else conform to my world view.  I'm not that special a snowflake that I have to.

 

You don't have to sue anyone, but you're just enabling them if you ignore it. 

[Russell C McGregor]

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

Upset? Maybe not.

But if someone were fired -- or forced out of her job, which is really the same thing -- for something she did that was hostile to the Church or its members in her own time and on her own dime, and that in no way impacted upon her job performance -- I would not agree with that action.

And I certainly would not hypocritically, sanctimoniously and smugly pretend that she had merely "chosen to resign."