Redstate

What's unfortunate is the fact that BSA thinks you have to be straight to help "build character", and that not being straight is a threat the safety of children.

The Bank of America actually is a privately-owned corporation, and not a governmental entity.  Just as the Boy Scouts have a right to determine their own membership (a right upheld by SCOTUS), so too does Bank of Amerca's private foundation have a right to determine to whom it will distribute money.  The difference between BofA and the ACLU is that the ACLU attempts to use the law to enforce its preferences.  That's a universe of a difference.

I have no problem with the Boy Scouts' policy, and I have no problem with Bank of America's policy.  The pluralism created by America's diverse voluntary associations makes this country stronger.  Would you compel a private charity to donate to groups that you support?  If so, then it's YOU who sounds like an ACLU lawyer.

I think that the "Gay Is Normal" movement ought to stay out of the Boy Scout's Uniforms, I suppose you are correct, in that if we don't want to force the BSA to admit Gays, then we ought not be distrought when the Bank makes there own values decision.

On the other hand, Bank of America may wish to consider that 90% of their customers may disagree with them about the Boy Scouts.

Perhaps a run on their deposits may not be worth forcing a sexual preference decision on a group of young boys.

Just a though.

.

Is quite right.  BoA is doing this because it accords not only with their own corporate policy but because they might get sued if they don't.

However, this doesn't mean that people can't take their money out of Bank of America and move it elsewhere.  If you disagree with this decision by B of A, I encourage you to do so.

I also encourage you to not rely on corporate sponsorship for the Boy Scouts of America in the future.  I expect that more conservative companies with the nondiscrimination policies similar to Bank of America's will be adopting a similar stance very soon.

Given that eventuality, and without a coherent legal challenge to that decision (which will inevitably sour any relations with prospective donors) -- my advice is to contribute directly to the Boy Scouts of America.

It is crystal-clear that the Boy Scouts can no longer rely on corporations, always extraordinarily wary of any kind of discrimination lawsuits, to support them voluntarily.  The rest of us are going to have to take up the slack.

I have no problem with people taking their banking business elsewhere if they disagree with BofA's values.  Isn't a free society great?

Seriously, I really think this story misfired.  Conservatives are supposed to be about defending people's freedom of association.  But when we start attacking others for refusing to associate with groups that we like, how are we any different from the leftist PC police?

homosexuality is an aberration, and forcing the Boy Scouts to perpetuate that practice is harmful to their mission.

Whether the poster in question is entitled, in a free market society, to point out that he is ticked off about Bank of America's decision?

Boddington's not afflicted with the confusion about "state action" like so many lefties are, he's exercising his private right to get exercised.

Honestly, I'd love to hear the legal theory behind this.

But I know that some creative lawyer is going to come up with a discrimination lawsuit that focuses on the fact that a company donates to another private organization in direct contravention of their corporate non-discrimnation policies -- because their son, daughter or friend has been excluded by that group.  

Someone more savvy on the state of play in this regard can probably answer the question more thoroughly.  I can virtually guarantee, however, that there are legal scholars toiling away at creating a rationale for such a suit.  It's fair to say from my time at DePaul that the Boy Scouts may be the most second-hated institution in legal academia, aside from the Bush Administration.

Eventually, they'll come up with something.  In the meantime, we'd better get ready, because companies are notoriously conservative.  

They have any case at all. To put this in context, the government couldn't even tell Bob Jones University that they had to change their antidiscrimination practice - all they could do was revoke their tax-exempt status.

I think BoA isn't tax exempt, and thus has nothing to worry about, here. The only plausible legal analogy that can be drawn is to situations where there have been racially discriminatory conditions placed on donations, but all the court has ever done to those is invalidate the conditions as being against public policy - no liability for the donor at all. In this case, BoA hasn't placed any restrictions of any kind on their donation at all - I just don't see it.

I just worked for them.  I do know how much the Boy Scouts are reviled in certain circles, however, and I am absolutely, 100% positive that there are legal scholars who want to see nothing more than have their funding dry up because of a new cause of action spooking companies into stopping their funding.  And the companies will do it at the first hint of a lawsuit.  Obviously Bank of America had a good reason for denying this funding request, and it was a little more important than somebody being persnickety at the home office.  They've been cowed.    

Shouldn't this story just read "Private company gives money to private organization".

What's the bigger picture again?

I mean aside from the fact that you personally disagree with the company?

that by legally "extorting" the boyscouts, to force them into making a change in their organizational values, is discriminatory in and of itself.

If it is a religious conviction that keeps the Boy Scouts from adopting an attitude of acceptance about homosexuality, then I would think that the BofA is discriminating based on Religious Beliefs.

Seems to me that Anti-Religious discrimination has been on the books far longer than Anti-HowYouLikeYourSex discrimination.

The attitude is schizophrenic.

.

Thanks! I certainly won't bank there now. Not once single ATM fee will they get from me.

Why? How?

Maybe BofA just chose to donate their resources to another organization that doesn't promote intollerance?

The rough pecking order of hatred in liberal legal academia goes something like this:

1. The Bush Administration
   
   
2. The National Rifle Association
   
   
3. The Bechtel and Halliburton Corporations
   
   
4. The Federalist Society
   
   
5. News Corporation and Rupert Murdoch
   
   
6. The Boy Scouts of America
   
   
7. Exxon-Mobil
   
   
8. The American Enterprise Institute
   
   
9. The Heritage Foundation
   
   
10. The 700 Club
    
    
11. The Catholic Church

The order shifts around a little from day to day, and includes a few others depending on the headlines in the New York Times.  But the Boy Scouts is never out of the Top 10.

and a member of the BSA that disagrees strongly with the leadership on gay and atheist issues (the subject of a different thread, perhaps), I gotta disagree with you here.

When that SC decision first came down, I was upset- I admit that I reacted pretty reflexively and simply assumed that in any case involving gay rights, the ACLU's side was correct.  Gays recieve the short end of the stick so often that I simply assumed that when they have a grievance, it's justified.

I came around.  The BSA is a private organization and consequently can exclude whoever they want.  Honestly, I wouldn't have a legal problem with them if they denied blacks membership.  Stupid, bigoted, and short-sighted; yes.  But the Constitution doesn't apply to private groups.

This is the opposite of that.  Here a private group is choosing to withold charitable contributions to the BSA because they disagree with their gay policy (I support that, BTW- the way to change obnoxious policies of private groups is to make your displeasure known, not complain to the government).  The same princple that lets the BSA exclude gays applies to BoA witholding money.  Is every company, including Joe's Resturaunt in Peoria, "pushing a gay rights agenda?"

A final note- I also believe that the BSA shouldn't be given access to government services and facilities (military bases, etc) because their gay policy flies in the face of equal treatment under the law.  But I realize that that's a more contentious issue.

PS- Glad to see the few other comments in this thread.  Pleasantly surprised, and all that.

It's unfortunate when people think that private businesses have an obligation to donate money to their particular pet cause.

...when a charitable organization has grown to depend on gifts from a particular giver, the withdrawl of that gift is much more significant, than if the giver and been approached and refused from the beginning.

.

It's like you people are not even reading the post. Where does the poster say that BofA should be obligated to give to the Boy Scouts, or that this represents the coming of the Dark Night of Fascism™? The private company made a decision, he's peeved with the decision, he exercised his right to express his peevitude, and now here you all are acting like Boddington is the federal government or something.

There are some people here who are confusing state action with private action, alright, but it ain't Boddington.

Or maybe not, depending on whom Bank of America is trying to appeal to.  But they have every right to do it, and they have every prerogative to do so as a company if they feel that it will be good for their business.  Both of these organizations are private and because one of them decides to take its marbles and go home might be something you don't like, but the Boy Scouts asked for the money and Bank of America said no.

The poster is ticked off, and so am I, believe me.  I think we could constructively organize a BofA boycott based on this snub, and tell them how we really feel.  But saying that they don't have the prerogative as a private corporation to control who they donate to is pure folly and it will not stand up in a court of law.  However, the threat from their internal employees and the horrible prejudice against the Boy Scouts in legal academia leads me to believe they made this decision at a fairly high level, to shield themselves from something they feel is coming down the pike.

I'll note in passing that if enough Republican/Conservative voters are stupid enough to stay home this November, they'd better be ready to see more of this in 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010...

But saying that they don't have the prerogative as a private corporation to control who they donate to is pure folly and it will not stand up in a court of law.

Did the poster say that BoA should be legally prohibited from making this decision? I just read the post again, and I don't see it.

Fox News.  That has to be in the top 5.

Here.  I know the intent of his post.  I'm just as angry as he is about this decision, maybe more.  But some other people are saying that this amounts to Bank of America "coercing" the Boy Scouts and before we let that wild tangent fly, I was hoping to put a little reality into this situation.  Obviously I'm not doing a very good job.  It's not that I disagree with Boddington AT ALL.  I'm just trying to tell people that

1. It doesn't surprise me
   
   
2. It's going to become more common
   
   
3. People had better be ready for that
   
   
4. There's nothing they can do about it legally

that by legally "extorting" the boyscouts, to force them into making a change in their organizational values, is discriminatory in and of itself.

---

This is exactly what B of A is doing. They will not get one dime of my money because of it.

B of A may very well feel threatened because of a set of lawyers whose job it is to intimidate companies like B of A into not funding the Boy Scouts of America or any other organization who does not "play ball."

In short, B of A is committing the type of descrimination it is claming it is avoiding and pushing a social issue down an organizations throat - the exact opposite of what a business is supposed to be doing.

I would hope that the share holders would give a thumbs down to this, but I dobut they will.

when said organization has a policy that some might find improper, said organization should not be surprised when some cease donating.

By his lights, BoA is "pushing the gay rights agenda" on the BSA.  Fanciful.

Trustworthy, loyal, helpful, friendly, courteous, kind, obedient cheerful, thrifty, brave, clean, and reverent.

Which of those things can a gay person not be?

I'm searching honestly for something in your comment that would indicate something other than, "I'm peeved with this decision." I'm still missing it.

Decision by Bank of America, it might help if some here at RedState read their Newsroom highlights covering "Awards and Recognition."

Bank of America is a company that loudly and proudly trumpets its commitment to diversity.  The Boy Scouts of America is not viewed as an organization that promotes diversity; instead, it is seen by people who promote diversity as an archaic and discriminatory administration that unfairly and improperly discriminates against homosexuals.  Lots of bankers are homosexuals, and lots of homosexuals have lots of money to put in a bank.  

Therefore, the Bank of America has decided not to donate money to the Boy Scouts.  It's just as simple as that.  I don't think IBM donates to the Boy Scouts anymore, either, although I might be mistaken.  IBM was one of the first mega-corporations to advertise in Out Magazine, but today there are many others.  And private organizations like the BSoA who do not match up with the public, advertised, and celebrated commitment to diversity that these corporations find essential to their survival in modern corporate America are simply not going to get the money.

It's about time some people here realized how much the landscape has shifted.  I really think a lot of RedStaters are living in serious denial -- this is a diverse country now, and frankly any company that claims to be nationwide is going to abstain from funding organizations like the BSoA who are lightning rods for gay-rights activists.

Is using its finacial clout to force its views on others. That's called blackmail to some

want to have their humble pie and eat it too.  

That discontinue the donations shouldn't be surprised when they irritate and lose customers as a result. I don't see the problem here. Nobody has said the BSA needs to be forced to give money to some organization.

Nobody has said BoA needs to be forced to give money to some organization.

that BA is exhibitting in that letter?

The DoD has contracted BoA to handle all its charge cards. Everyone in uniform has a govt card run by BoA.

I dont have a choice but to give them my business.

that's the free market for you - whoever makes the best bid gets the contract.

unless its a HUD bid and the firm happens to be run by a liberal.

But you have this a little backward.  And when I say that, I hope you'll understand that I also don't like this decision by Bank of America.  But at least from my vantage point, right now, Bank of America is doing the BSoA a favor by dissociating themselves.  The reason is that Bank of America is not going to change its corporate tune and it will never change its internal corporate policy about "diversity."  Given the continual friction this would cause between the two organizations, in a way this is a simple recognition of the fact that they have to go their separate ways.

I encourage people to support the Boy Scouts privately, and I will do so.  But in fact, the Bank is saying:  "Listen, you don't match up with our stated, very public, very well-advertised positions.  We can't keep giving you money, unless we do more to make you change to conform to those positions."

I've seen this happen before and I'm a real super-duper pessimist about this:  people who want to support the Boy Scouts are going to have to do so from the ground up, all over again.  You can only count on companies to do what is "correct" from a values sense when it makes business sense for them also.  And right now, supporting the Boy Scouts makes no business sense for Bank of America.  

And it'll make even less business sense for other businesses to do so if the Donks take back Congress in November.  

I was a Boy Scout.  And, I've been distressed by the slow erosion of corporate support for the BSoA.  It's as if the ACLU is trying to starve the organization into submission by cutting off its access to funds and government facilities.  And, I suppose the ACLU is OK with lots of boys losing access to Scouting, as long as the ACLU's greater cause is served.  I guess that makes the Scouts expendable, or collateral damage, in the eyes of the ACLU.

IMO we're better off for having it as part of our community.  And by shunning the BSoA, again IMO, BOA deserves a healthy dose of scorn. I don't bank with it now, but I did use its ATMs.  Not anymore, if I can help it.  

forget my comments.  Read the thread's title.  "Pushing the Gay Rights Agenda?"  Get serious.  The tone is one of absolute entitlement to BoA's funds.

He's not saying, BoA is wrong, the BSA's policy isn't discriminatory.  He's saying, BoA should ignore their qualms and cough up or they're San Francisco liberals.

Whenever a powerful institution uses its finacial clout to say 'Hey you a bunch of bigots and we're not giving you a penny until you become open-minded like us.' then that is holding a group like the Boy Scouts hostage since that group depends on BoA's money.

If anyone, for any reason, says "do x or else we will not give you any more money," they are certainly pushing an agenda. That is the point of the letter. They didn't just quietly stop contributing to the BSA. We know why they discontinued their contributions, and we know what their demands are to reinstate those contributions.

Nowhere does the OP say that BoA if required to give money to the BSA. The point here is to let people know so they can take their business elsewhere if they wish. There is nothing wrong with that.

to an extreme. The sexketeers have really scored a home run, by framing sexual deviancy in such a way that it is on par with human differences such as race, gender, hair and eye color, fatness, skinniness....

I don't hate homosexuals, but I do not have to accept the engineered notion that homosexuality is "normal", and I do not have to accept as a forgone conclusion that homosexuality is a good and natural condition. I don't hate people that stick objects in their ears. I do not have to accept or condone the practice of placing objects in ears, and I do not have to teach my children that sticking odd objects in their ears is an acceptable choice to make for their lives.

I believe what has happened here and around the globe, is that people with homosexual tendencies have used their positions as scientists, psychologists, psychiatrists, and academics to shape research and the conclusions from such.

They have successfully framed the debate in such a way, that prevents the discussion the subject from a viewpoint that homosexuality is deviant. It is destructive, and frankly it goes against the very laws of nature. Whether you believe that there is a God that designed the human body or not, there is really no way to argue that the lower end of the human colon was designed for anything but the excretion of digestive waste.

The attachment of human to human relationships, to the practice of deviant sexual behavior has further soiled the debate.  Extremely close relationships between people of the same gender used to be called best friends. In fact best friend relationships can be such that the individuals would give their lives for the other. But adding a sexual component to close relationships is, was, and always has been unnatural and illogical.

This institutional move to force normalization of sexual deviancy upon the rest of us just takes the cake. And I haven't even touched on the move to the forced normalizing of sexual deviancy upon the institution of family and marriage.

No... let's not teach hatred of people who are different, but let's also not teach the idea that whatever comes around must be accepted and embraced with open arms.

.

...the Boy Scouts took Legal Academia on that snipe hunt?

Seriously, why does Legal Academia have it in for a bunch of kids who like to go camping?  Is it mostly the no-gay-scoutmasters thing?  It certainly isn't because of Scouting's Deep Pockets.

Colleague (sp?) next cubicle over is a Scoutmaster.  Said the only reason the Scouts don't allow gay scoutmasters is because parents have to have absolute faith in the people who will be taking their boys miles away to go camping.  Most parents wouldn't trust gay men to supervise their boys in those circustances, and so wouldn't allow them to join scouting.

--furious

The military doesn't allow open homosexuals to serve in uniform, either.

--furious

I think the BSA's policy on gays is wrongheaded but not a justification to deny military bases.

Their exclusion of atheists, however, is.  I don't think the gov't should endorse a group that discriminates on the basis of religion.

Cue boos.

The sexketeers have really scored a home run, by framing miscegenation in such a way that it is on par with human differences such as race, gender, hair and eye color, fatness, skinniness....

I don't hate miscegenists, but I do not have to accept the engineered notion that interracial relationships are "normal", and I do not have to accept as a forgone conclusion that blacks marrying whites is a good and natural condition. I don't hate people that stick objects in their ears. I do not have to accept or condone the practice of placing objects in ears, and I do not have to teach my children that sticking odd objects in their ears is an acceptable choice to make for their lives.

I believe what has happened here and around the globe, is that people with attractions to people of different races have used their positions as scientists, psychologists, psychiatrists, and academics to shape research and the conclusions from such.

They have successfully framed the debate in such a way, that prevents the discussion the subject from a viewpoint that miscegenation is deviant. It is destructive, and frankly it goes against the very laws of nature. Whether you believe that there is a God that designed the human body or not, there is really no way to argue that the black man and the white woman are meant to be together.

The attachment of human to human relationships, to the practice of deviant sexual behavior has further soiled the debate.  Extremely close relationships between people of different races used to be called best friends. In fact best friend relationships can be such that the individuals would give their lives for the other. But adding a sexual component to close relationships is, was, and always has been unnatural and illogical.

This institutional move to force normalization of sexual deviancy upon the rest of us just takes the cake. And I haven't even touched on the move to the forced normalizing of sexual deviancy upon the institution of family and marriage.

No... let's not teach hatred of people who are different, but let's also not teach the idea that whatever comes around must be accepted and embraced with open arms.

A child is born of Asian, African, Caucasian, or Indian parents.  Homosexual practitioners elect to stimulate themselves sexually by misusing their own physiology.  Trying to equate the two just lays bare the absurdity of the homosexual argument.

To be honest, I don't care what you do with your body parts... but I do care when you stive to force the rest of us to believe it isn't odd, and should be embraced as normal.

It is truely an insult to the concept of diversity, and it stands clear for all to see, just like a self-service haircut performed in the dark of night.

.

would be my guess.

The vast majority of those that practice "alternative lifestyles" have no interest in being considered "normal"

Instead, they want little more than acceptance and recognition that their personal choice should not be a basis for excluding them from things that hetro couple enjoy, such as benefits and basic rights.

While some more radical ones push for legal marriage, most would be more than satisfied with a legally recognized civil union

then the solution is for the BSoA to no longer depend on Bank of America's money.  IE, those who support the Boy Scouts need to do financially.

You're either standing on one side of the line, or the other. People have every right to choose which side they want to be on.

If you choose the side that bank of America is on, and you use your money to pressure others to accept your position as they did, you also have the right to do that. But in taking that action, you become activist, and you are "pushing an agenda". There is nothing "fanciful" about that. Calling it "fanciful" is to obscure their action by saying "it's all in your head". It's the old Groucho Marx line..."Are you going to believe me, or your lying eyes?".

At least Bank of America openly declared their position by putting it down on paper and sending the letter. Let's be as honest about what they are doing as they are.

Do not conflate homosexual 'sex' with interracial marriage.  There is no comparison.

They have been cowed, internally, by members of activist homosexual and advocate organizations who have a great deal of clout in the public arena. They found out Bank of America was giving to the Scouts. They threaten to make it a public issue and use the media to paint Bank of America as homophobic, bigoted, repressive, and part of the "monolithic right". Seeking to avoid public embarrassment, Bank of America makes a decision to stop overlooking the disparity of their policy wording with the Boy Scouts policy, and issue the letter, hoping the whole thing will just quietly go away.

Of course, it will not go away. Bank of America, like so many other companies of late, has just been caught in the huge catch 22 of this issue. Once you get threatened by the homosexual lobby, you have to choose sides publicly. You either choose to anger the lobby, which has a loud PC voice that can tarnish your reputation, or you choose to anger the vast majority of Americans, and hope not too many of them hear. But it never works.

Just as Bank of America has the right to give or withhold private money, so the American public has the right to withold theirs, and take their business elsewhere. I can guarantee with 99% certainty that within a week, Bank of America will recieve a letter from numerous organizations as well as individuals who will threaten a boycott, and within 6 weeks there will be one.

This is what happened to Ford Motor Company in 05-06, and it has caused their stock to go down and already poor sales have decreased even more. Their dealers have pleaded with the company to relent, but to no avail.

If I were a Corp. in todays climate, I'd keep my charitable dollars going to building structures and parks, and avoid the catch 22 all together. I would instead create a corporate climate in which personal giving, especially by executives, was expected and encouraged.

of degeneracy.  No? In a more balanced, less cause crazed society, who you have sex with would be a non-public issue and a no-advocacy situation.  To push advocacy on a organization for children, digusting, bespeaks an emptiness of moral concern and a promotion of sex that even if it were hetrosexual would be wrong.

       The foundation of the homosexual rights movement rests on one thing, and one thing only, who you go to bed with, BTW a male.  It's fair to say that such a cause has somewhat less dignity then say the abolition of slavery, or the historical spread of democracy, or women's voting rights. As above, degeneracy!

       The BSA business has been going on for years and is of a piece with other assaults on vouluntary association and the rules and customs related to it.  You may be reminded of the absurd,if not grotesque, attack on the Masters Golf tournament not long ago.  A part of this phenomenon is less about claimed rights than those  cancers of humanity,power and aggression, with more than a little help from government when it can get it's clubbed foot in the door.

      I wonder what lessons have been retained from the Catholic Church's gay problem.  You in turn may wonder why the indignant have been calmed and now support gay scoutmasters with a seemingly inconsistent enthusiasm.

       

but none on basic rights. Homosexuals have the same basic rights as anyone else, and need no special recognition to exercise them. Creating that national straw argument by their lobby was an attempt to force society to officially recognize them and normalize their behavior.

you have shot wide of your mark. In using sarcastic analogy, you must be sure your factors equate. In this case, you left out biology.

You misread the letter from Bank of America to the Boy Scouts. The BoA letter does not say that BoA was withholding the contribution because of the BSA's stance on gays. The letter merely listed BoA's nondiscrimination policy, which includes both sexual orientation and religion.

The Boy Scouts also discriminate on the basis of religion.

Can you back up your claim that BoA's decision was primarily based on sexual orientation?

The Scout Oath

On my honor I will do my best to do my duty to God and my country and to obey the scout law; To help other people at all times; To keep myself physically strong, mentally awake, and morally straight. (emphasis mine)

As a current Scoutmaster I appreciate and support the Boy Scouts' stance. It takes guts to stand up to the onslaught of the current GLTB agenda. They are being attacked relentlessly for a desire to protect the boys in their charge.

Leaders in Boy Scouts should be able to live up to the standards expected of the boys.

I'll note in passing that if enough Republican/Conservative voters are stupid enough to stay home this November, they'd better be ready to see more of this in 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010...

I'll add that the last court decision involving the Boy Scouts and this stance was decided 5-4. A one vote swing is how close they are to having their stance decided for them.

issued on the basis of religion is ridiculous. First, the BSA only promotes the belief in God, not a specific religion. They have Muslim troops, as well as other religions. The only ones who won't take the pledge are athiests. Are you telling me they have a powerful enough lobby to effect the actions of Bank of America?

It also ignores the myriad of similar stories that have peppered the news for many years, all dealing with the homosexual lobby's "diversity" issue. Name me one story in which a company pulled money from a group over religious intolerance, and I'll give you fifty that dealt with the homosexual issue.

More liberal "what if" dust. Alright everyone, let's brush ourselves off and get on with the discussion.

If you're referring to the 9th circus, it will simply be appealed and overturned.

The BSA are being punished by the gay rights movement nationwide because they will not provide homosexuals with young boys.  We see a full bore movement by the overclass to impose its values upon this country institution by institution.

Who can doubt that what is being done to the BSA is precisely what the sodomites have in mind for Christian churches that hold to the Biblical position on homosexuality ?  Who can doubt that in the name of 'tolerance and diversity' 3% of the population will use the power of their allies in the courts, academia, and the media to try to silence the other 70% if the Democrats win in 2008 ?  We saw in the Canadian liberal threats against Christian churches and Dean's recent threat against Christian churches and the prosecution of Pastor Green in Sweden for 'hate speech' precisely where the agenda of militant godlessnes, of which the gay rights movement is the spearhead, leads.

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/LAW/06/28/scotus.gay.boyscouts/

This is not the 9th Circuit. This is the Supreme Court.

Thanks for the heads up.

Hey look dummy, Gays should not be discriminated against or bashed, and yes most gay people are not pedophiles. But guess what? if you make it normal for gays to be scout leaders Those who are pedophiles will be drawn to it just like a magnet! You must always err on the side of the safety of children. Likewise, the Girl Scouts don't let young men who are not fathers of one of the girls to take them out unsupervised on camp-outs. That would just be madness.

  And yet that's what some left wingers advocate, madness.

Hey I have an Idea for all those liberal do- gooders, I am a Heterosexual man, let me take your Daughters out unsupervised on a Girl Scout campout! After all, MOST heterosexuals are not child molestors. WHEEEEEE!

And believe me, so am I.  I think a boycott of Bank of America is in order.  But there's a difference between being upset and angry and being able to prove anything in a court of law that would result in penalties against Bank of America.  They're a private company that decides to give its charity money to whomever they want.  We can raise holy hell about it and protest them and take our money out of their bank and promise never to do business with them again because of it, but the system works to protect the prerogatives of private companies just like Bank of America, and my guess is that they've made this decision for a combination of business and legal reasons that are unreachable through a "reverse-discrimination" lawsuit.

how it's a beneficial business decision on their part.

get the short end of the stick in our society? I just don't see that. Affirmative action? Yup, Kidd Glove treatment in the media? Got that. Gay Marriage? Well, its inevitable, despite overwhelming disapproval.

  And they have managed to somehow get most elite opinion to think that letting openly gay scout masters take little boys out on camp-outs is a good thing. As i said in a previous post. Its not that most gays are child molesters, its that those who ARE pedophiles will be drawn to that situation.  Its a really horrible Idea.

Any entity who has "grown to depend on gifts from a particular giver".

Whether that entity be a single mother of three children by three different fathers in the inner city or even the Boy Scouts of America.

Him what pays the piper has always called the tune.

with this argument is that very often, child molesters and pedophiles are not openly gay, or often are not even gay at all.  If there was a way to screen out pedophiles and child molesters, using "gay" as a filter isn't it.  

paragraph. This is a stunning example of inconsistency on the part of the MSM, state prosecution, and individuals that has recieved no press to speak of.

The homosexual lobbies and liberals took great pains to paint the entire priest molestation issue as pedophilia rather than homosexuality, which was the huge percentage of cases. And the root cause of this, which was a culture of homosexuality in the recruitment and training of priests, barely got a mention and very little play in the MSM.

The fact is, this was a catch 22 on several levels for the liberal cause. Acadamia elitests, the homosexual lobby, and some in the liberal ranks support the man-boy organizations at different levels. They also villify the Catholic Church on numerous issues. Presented with their options, they had to mitigate to some degree their attack on the Church, and throw over the man-boy org to throw the scent off the real culprit, which was homosexual predation.

And your main point was well taken. We just witnessed a huge, public, and very painful ordeal over homosexual priests accosting young boys who were in their charge, over a period of many years. And now we have lobbies, corporations, and individuals right here on Red State demanding that the Boy Scouts allow the same situation, out in remote areas alone with the boys. Great moral position.

all of us not to stay home at election time. If nothing else, it assures us a chance at getting judges in who will uphold the Constitution. Thanks for pointing it out.

My advice, frankly, for anyone who still has their head in the sand about this is to start reading.  Head on over to your local newsstand and pick up a copy of OUT Magazine, a copy of The Advocate and go talk to some of the people associated with the local Bisexual-Gay-Lesbian-Transgendered Alliance at your nearest college campus.  You'll find out very quickly that the gay-rights lobby is extremely well-organized, has a proven strategy for influencing the policies of both government and corporations, and that its legal apparatus and grassroots organizing is run by a lot of very, very smart people who know how to get what they want and are not going to give up until they do.

If you want to support the Boy Scouts, the best way to do it is to donate to them privately and put financial pressure on the companies who are distancing themselves from them.  And most importantly, to understand that you're not fighting against a ragtag band of flamboyant whiners and nincompoops hanging out on the fringe any more -- you're up against some of the brightest, savviest, and best-organized people, politically speaking, in the United States who are liberally and actively supported at our largest universities.

The Boy Scouts of America are a fine and outstanding institution of which I was a part for many years.

That Bank of America would succumb to the pressures of an organized effort outside the mainstream of the body politic is fine.  If they want to stop giving money to the Boy Scouts because of the homosexual lobby, more power to them.

But I disagree with them.  And I don't have a problem with Boddington or anyone else calling them out on the fact that they are financially impacting one of the best organizations in the country because that organization takes seriously the raising of American boys and wants to protect them from certain issues, problems, and agendas.

And, oh by the way, it is rather disingenuous of Bank of America to be making money off the Department of Defense with its "don't ask, don't tell" policy discriminating against open homosexuals in the military and then to not give money to the Boy Scouts.

basic animal biology? Since homosexuality is observed in at least 50 other species, how would explain the unnaturalness (is that a word?) of it? Some kind of vast left-wing animal conspiracy?

It is SPECIFICALLY mentioned several times in the Bible that homosexuality is not looked kindly upon by God (ever hear of Soddom and Gomorrah?).

And Reverent, here, is referring to following God's laws.

this at least filters out a significant portion of those who might be potential pedophiles. A much higher percentage group drawn to little boys I might add.

ever been around very many gay people should immediately recognize there is an obvious biological basis. When you see women shaped like men you can't say it's an entirely elective persuasion.

With that said, gay people did what they had to do to get along all throughout history. It's only in the last few decades that some have tried to form a kind of political identity movement associated with it and an agenda to go with it. There is no reason why the Boy Scouts should give in to the PC demands of their sponsors.

ought to be considered. Why would a gay man want to be a scoutmaster? Who would let a straight man take charge of Girl Scouts?

Why would a man want to wait tables at Hooters?

We could go on indefinitely with this. Whatever academic legal arguments they can make, we always wonder why these cases are brought by these plaintiffs.

Of course "straight" didn't receive it's current definition as heterosexual until recently, so I'm guessing (hoping) that you're not using that word as a basis for your arguement. So let's assume you mean morally - as in homosexuality is not moral. Well, that depends on who's morals we're talking about. And the debate is swinging away from your side every day, isn't it? I've often wondered how current Boy Scouts in the Episcopal church resolve the issue of either following their openly gay bishop or the policy of the Boy Scouts - what's more important church or scouts? Perhaps this is one reason for the constant decline in membership since 2000.

Also, back to morality - Baden-Powell believed strongly in the negative effects of masturbation, while he never really mentioned homosexuality - not that he supported homosexuality, but we know that definitely rejected masturbation. If you truly are trying to preserve the scouting of his era, shouldn't you also be trying to purge the masurbaters - as a former Eagle Scout I can tell you there were and likely are many. If you are not, are you suggesting that maybe sexual policies can change, as they have in the birthplace of Scouting, the UK? And maybe the BSA, like many other scouting groups could accept homosexuality, just as they've accpeted masturbation?

Can make this decision because it Is their money, what bothers me is that they did it so quietly.  Trying to sneak around to the back door (no pun intended).

If they had just come out and told the BSA National Conference that "Hey, we're sorry, but policy has changed.  We can no longer support you because of x,y, and z.  Can you please rescind your requests?" then this whole debate would be pretty much moot.

But, no.  They denied a single council at a time, trying to keep it quiet.

This smacks of dishonesty and cowardice.

Built the Boy Scouts around the precepts of Christian Morality.  As is evident in our Code and Law.

And your views of the BSA are Perfectly evident in the comment "as a former Eagle Scout..."

Once a Scout, Eagle or otherwise, you are a Scout forever unless you turn your back on what you were taught there.

I love the argument...Exodus 35:2 SPECIFICALLY says that anyone who works on the Sabbath shall be put to death. Perhaps Boy Scouts should also be stationed outside of Wal-mart on weekends (Saturdays for Jewish troops) to ensure that they are being reverent by following God's laws.

Last time I checked the Episcopal church is still Christian and evidently their morality still allows for homosexuality. I don't see any conflict here.

Incedently, I say former, as I will not return to the Boy Scouts until they change their policies, which I am actively working to speed along. I hate to tell you that this is inevitable.

They just have to take them to court and spend their money defending themselves...

Because I, like the Very large part of the Episcopalian Church that is separating from the larger "church" no longer see that branch of the Episcopalians as Christians.

It has to do with claiming to follow Christ's law and yet publicly declaring that they know better than Christ did.

and I suppose it would also encourage zoophiliacs to join and take advantage on horse trips. Thank goodness the ASPCA already has protections its own against this.

that they go out and force their views on others rather than impose them on their own organization.  You can put away the straw man now.

and please give me a quote from Christ on his beliefs about homosexuality. I'll wait.

but none of those boys better have part-time jobs on Sunday, cause God is gonna be pissed.

reason to post this diary.  That so Many people disagree with them is reason for it to reach the FrontPage.

At the rate that Bank of America is going, they may just lose that contract when it comes due for renewal in 10 years.

After all, they've already "lost" over 5,000 soldiers' data.

but most child molesters are heterosexuals (99%, says one study). So statisitically, boys would actually be safer if all their leaders were homosexual.

Let's put aside the Bank Of America's rights as a private entity to associate with whom its chooses, namely through its donations.

What's wrong with holding the BOA accountable for its actions (or inactions) as a leading citizen in our communities?  Actually, a corporate citizen.

Seems to me that the ACLU has decided to starve the Boy Scouts of its best sources of funding.  They're free to do this, of course, as I am free to boycott BOA.  But, I've no illusions that my BOA boycott (were I to mount one) would do much to BOA's corporate bottom line.  And, if I were to succeed in killing off the Bank of America, there are many fine banks to take its place.

Who, however, will replace the Boy Scouts in a community?  As the ACLU and its allies succeed in choking off funds, and denying the BSA access to parks and other public facilities, and silently but relentlessly building a public image of the Boy Scouts as a proactively homophobic organization...  

When, their efforts begin to bear fruit, and more and more Boy Scout troops go under or lose strength--to what organizations will we send our young boys to learn about character, and team building?  These tenets are central to Scouting.  Do you think your son's traveling league soccer coach is primarily concerned with making him into a good young man?  Maybe.  But, he might be more interested in making him a great soccer player, and be unconcerned if he becomes a jerk in the process.

When I was in Scouting, one thing I quickly learned --from both my fellow Scouts, but most importantly, my Scoutmasters --was that it wasn't OK to be a jerk in life.  No matter how talented I was.

The ACLU and BSA have argued over whether the Boy Scouts can exclude gay members.  The Supreme Court sided with the Boy Scouts.

In response, the ACLU has apparently decided that it prefers the Boy Scouts to simply disappear from American society , instead of coexisting with an organization it disagrees with.

So, how best to get rid of the Scouts?  Well, the frontal assault (i.e., lawsuits) didn't work.  And, the Scouts still enjoy lots of popular support.  Remember about two years ago, when the ACLU's long legal battle with the Pentagon over military base sponsorship of Scouting troops resulted in a Pentagon decision to back away from Scouting?  Big victory for the ACLU, right?  WRONG!  Once the public got wind of it, and the SECDEF publicly voiced his support for the Boy Scouts, and Congress OVERWHELMINGLY passed a resolution in favor of the Boy Scouts--the ACLU quickly backed off.  But they didn't quit.

They simply returned to the termite approach.  In the shadows of lawsuits and legal motions, out of the public eye and public's awareness, they contined to chip away at the institution of Scouting.  As I mentioned above, they slowly stigmatize the BSA, deny individual troops access to public facilities--and scare off their most capable financial contributors.  

It's working.  The foundation of Scouting is taking a beating.  It's hard enough to run a Scout troop nowadays.  Potential Scoutmasters often have long commutes to/from work.  There's not much time to plan, organize and execute good Scouting events.  

Now, throw fundraising on top of that.  That can easily be the straw that breaks the camel's back, and pushes good people away from Scouting.

I sense, that that is the ACLU's plan.  

Find the citizens in your community--private or corporate--who are most capable of giving money, and scare them off.  Then, threaten them with bad publicity. Threaten protests in front of their businesses or homes. Threaten lawsuits.  You can even acknowledge that you'll lose, most likely.  But the defendant will have to pay to litigate, endure the bad publicity--and then, you can simply file another lawsuit.  Give them an out, by pointing out their need to respect "diversity."  Make it, so the easiest and safest choice is to cut off the Boy Scouts.  And all the while, don't hold press conferences to announce what you're doing.  Just do it.

Clever.  And effective.

Well, I'm glad Boddington said what he said.  And for all of those who rush to BOA's defense--IMO, bunk!

Here's two areas where I feel that BOA is dodging its responsibility to the rest of the community:

• The community will be its healthiest when its citizens--private AND corporate--contribute to its upkeep and well-being. Bank of America undoubtedly makes lots of money from the communities where it has branches and ATMs. As with any business, it's more likely to prosper in a community comprised of good citizens, people who are of good character, hard-working and honest.  Does BOA think such good citizens grow from the ground?  No, it takes responsible adults and good civic organizations to help create such citizens.  If BOA wants to derive profit through its associations with the citizens in a community, then what is wrong with those citizens asking companies such as BOA to help sustain the civic organizations that help make the community such a good place to begin with?
  
• BOA has the means to give enough money to make a difference.  In church, I expect the richer people to tithe more than the poorer parishoners.  Now, technically, I suppose I should only expect the richer parishoners to donate in proportion to the amount of support they derive from the church.  But, that's not how life works, is it?  To keep our communities good and strong, those who have more have traditionally given more.  They view it as their civic duty, and they also sense it's something they should do.  

Anyway, those are my thoughts.  Yes, I concede that BOA doesn't have to give its money to anyone.  But it shouldn't be allowed to pretend that, if it and all the other major corporate BSA sponsors eventually choose to withhold funding for "diversity" concerns, that they should be immune from criticism if Scouting suffers as a result.  

Our communities will be worse off if Scouting suffers.  The ACLU has apparently decided that, if Boy Scouting won't change, then it should die.  They lack the courage to say this publicly.  But, if you connect the dots their actions create, the picture that results is easy to recognize.  For that, the ACLU, BOA, the San Diego politicians who have tried to keep the Sea Scouts out of Balboa Park, and all the other termites eating away at the foundation of Boy Scouting deserve our contempt.  

Now, I'm off to donate to the Boy Scouts!  

What makes you think there is a correlation? Your gut feeling? Does it matter to you, that according to the National Adoption Information Clearinghouse:

In a study of 269 cases of child sex abuse, only two offenders where found to be gay or lesbian. More relevant was the finding that of the cases involving molestation of a boy by a man. Seventy-four percent of the men were or had been in a heterosexual relationship with the boys mother or another female relative. the conclusion was found that "a child's risk of being molested by his or her relatives' heterosexual partner is over one hundred time greater than by someone who might be identifiable as being homosexual." (source)

Can you show me any credible scientific evidence that there is a correlation between homosexuality and pedophilia?