shamus414

You have to admit, at least, that the City is pursuing an "agenda" that differs from that of the Scouts and is using economic weaponry against the Scouts for its differing from the City's agenda.

Well, if the "agenda" is for equal rights, and non-discrimination, then I'm all for it. The scouts openly discriminate. And thus, they do not qualify under the rule. Case closed.

I don't think big daddy gub'ment should be giving tax breaks to those who "don't discriminate against special people."

What about companies that won't hire smokers? Or fat people? Those without an education? Everyone discriminates one way or another. This new creation of "every group deservers special protections" is just nonsense.

People just get their pants riled up when it's against certain self proclaimed groups. California has every right to pass the law, but it's arbitrary.

PeopleFirst: If a church denies any of these tenents it is not Christian.

Bullshiat, it's just not orthodox Christian. 90% of Christian churches don't follow the orthodoxy you just laid out (though the really big ones do).

Prospero424 considering the free use of the word "discrimination" around here - yes! The City has decided to permit use of the marina for certain groups (which toe the City's line) for free, but not others because they do not toe the City's line. CLearly that is discrimination - especially since not long ago the Scouts could have used it for free without incident.

Im not gay, Im not a Gay rights activist, I am however not interested in funding hate groups.

The Scouts shouldn't get federal funding and be allowed to discriminate, its that simple.

Freedome of Association, allows You to make a private club, which teaches only young heterosexual Christian males, survival skills and outdoor living, but you can't do it with Federal funding. Welcome to America you asshole.

The scouts have a choice.

1) Let anyone in, as required by antidescriminationg laws for federal funded orginizations.

or

2) Don't accept federal funding, making them a true private club able to determine their membership by whatever criteria they wish.

Noone is forcing the scouts to do anything, its their choice.

Prospero424

New Jersey already tried that, and it was found to be unconstitutional.

shamus414

the_Pole_Of_Justice - actually I think PeopleFirst is just looking for an answer to his question, not engage in all of this debate.

Fair enough, but when I studied, there was a preponderance of this "it didn't happen before, so what's your problem" kind of attitude that I'm seeing in his initial post.

Christ's message was one of love, not exclusion, and it tweaks me to see someone say this:

Every major, orthodox, Church since the beginning of Christianity has taught that homosexuality and premarital sex are both sins.

It's essentially the same argument that was used against Protestantism ("Huh? Go off on your OWN? But there's only one true Faith!") It's a reverence of organization over Word, and it bugs the Hell out of me (to, uh, coin a phrase.) People can't conceive of something outside their establishment, which is particularly odious in a Christian context since, y'know, Christ wasn't much for the Establishment.

There's a deeper paradox that might only bug the Theology geeks, but bug me it does.

shamus414: You have to admit, at least, that the City is pursuing an "agenda" that differs from that of the Scouts and is using economic weaponry against the Scouts for its differing from the City's agen

No, I don't - the City is pursuing the agenda of not discriminating. The City is not allowed to discriminate. Giving money to a group which discriminates is the same as discriminating. Ergo, it's farking illegal for the City to give the group money. Is this really such a difficult concept?

If you want public funds, you must play nice with everybody.

No, no no. We're trying to be Constitutional, remember?

If you want public funds for a private project, you must ask the public to donate those funds voluntarily.

There. That should do it.

Mayor Of R'lyeh: Boy Scouts started weeding out perverts

No, the Boy Scouts don't allow some people to join, based upon their sexual orientation.

Perverts are still welcome to join.

\\ Ever thought about getting help
\\ to deal with that rage
\\ you hold in your heart?

shamus414: The City has decided to permit use of the marina for certain groups (which toe the City's line) for free, but not others because they do not toe the City's line. CLearly that is discrimination - especially since not long ago the Scouts could have used it for free without incident.

How is it discrimination for the City to state that they cannot fund discrimination?

Only reason the boy scouts don't want gay's, is it would ruin the fun of raping them if they were ready and willing.

mciann: The scouts practice freedom denial of association.

\\ fixed

Sloth DC
The City is not allowed to discriminate.

The city and government most certainly is allowed to discriminate-- just not against religion and skin color.

They give the old more money in social security than the rich. They give med students more money than law students. They don't let the fat join the military or the police force. They don't let the young drink. They don't let the rich get welfare.

Gays are the same class as the fat, the young, the old, the poor, law students, med students, etc. The government may discriminate against them-- just like they do everything else.

tarrant84: What about companies that won't hire smokers? Or fat people? Those without an education?

Or Asian people, or women, or a married person?

There are certain types of discrimination that we, as a society, have decided are unacceptable when it comes to tax-funded organizations.

Race and sex are among those commonly-accepted and supported by the vast majority of Americans.

California has every right to pass the law, but it's arbitrary.

You may not like it, but I don't see how ANY reasonable person can claim that the postition that discrimination by sexual preference is unworthy of monetary government support is "arbitrary".

Sloth_DC: Save your breath. The whiny victimized little Jebus prigs will never accept this because, to them, banning gays is not discrimination, but rather the proper moral stance as mandated by their Invisible Imaginary Supernatural Overlord. They don't give a rat's ass about the rule of law or the Constitution, except when it favors their own superstition. To them, the City of Berkley is a den of iniquitous sodomites spreading the power of Satan on Earth, and the Sea Scouts are brave little Christian soldiers leaning into the hurricane of firey evil that is engulfing our Righteous Land...America, Blessed of Jehovah. That $550/month was given to them by The Lord God himself, and its withdrawal represents to them the apocalyptic battle of Good versus Evil that rages in these days of tribulation before Jesus reappears to smite the unbelievers.

Praise the Lord! Hallelujah!

tarrant84: The city and government most certainly is allowed to discriminate-- just not against religion and skin color

And sexual orientation - no, really, it's in their local laws.

Well, that creed thingy has the part about "Virgin Mary" wwhen any reputable scholar will acknowledge that the original Scriptures, properly translated, say "a young woman" or "girl" or some such - not "virgin".

This makes me wonder what else got lost in translation, or is just plain wrong...

Sloth DC
Giving money to a group which discriminates is the same as discriminating.

Then also, shut down the City housing authority.

They discriminate against the rich and only give the poor section 8 housing. They only give money to "first time buyers" and thus discriminate against homeowners.

Shut down social security! They only give money to the old!

Your argument doesn't hold any water.

Mayor Of R'lyeh: Homos are, by my definition, perverts just like people who bang goats and child molesters.

\\ Fixed.
\\
\\ What about people who don't bang child molesters?

Sloth DC
And sexual orientation - no, really, it's in their local laws.

In that case, I think it's an arbitrary law.

More special protection for the fat, the young, the rich, and the law students. However, they have every right to pass it.

/Eagle scout 1989
//warrior in the Tribe of Mic-o-Say.
///Suck it!

Does a gay eat the poop? I'm confused what a gay does.

"Bullshiat, it's just not orthodox Christian. 90% of Christian churches don't follow the orthodoxy you just laid out (though the really big ones do)."

90%?? I SERIOUSLY doubt it as most of the various denominations are varients on the Baptists. I think it's more instructive to look at figures:

-- 50% of Christendom is ROman Catholic
-- 25% are Eastern Orthododox
-- of the remaining 25%, about 16% are Anglican, and the vast majority of the rest are Lutheran, Presbyterian, Baptist or Pentacostal.

ALL of these Churches adhere to the historic creeds - therefore I think your 90% is grossly misplaced.

tarrant84: In that case, I think it's an arbitrary law.

You think treating all American citizens as human beings, regardless of religion or sexual orientation, is an arbitrary law? Get the fark out of my country.

shamus414
You have to admit, at least, that the City is pursuing an "agenda" that differs from that of the Scouts and is using economic weaponry against the Scouts for its differing from the City's agenda.

I don't agree that they're using economic weaponry against the Scouts. If anything, they're using economic weaponry against discrimination. But not the Scouts specifically.

Dubya's_Coke_Dealer: This makes me wonder what else got lost in translation, or is just plain wrong...


Dont say that!11
Teh Bibble Is Infailable!!!1


\\ Tinypic

PeopleFirst

I'm putting my neck out right now. Here is orthodoxy:

(Snip the Nicene Creed)

If a church denies any of these tenents it is not Christian. I know the nuns taught you this creed. A creed is simply a summary of beliefs. This creed is the absolute minimum you have to believe to be a Christian.

An Orthodox Christian, and a very, very selective Catholic Orthodox to boot (re: the differences between the 318 and 325 versions of the Creed.)

What you are asking for is an "anything goes" faith

Wrong. What I am asking for is Christianity based on Christ, not human (and frankly, political) tradition. Your post concerned orthodoxy and history, not Christianity as coming directly from Christ.

Your argument is Church-centric, which only has basis if you go by the 325 version, and not the 318 version. This is getting way too academic, but the basic point remains:

Your initial post assumed no changes, ironically, since the Creed you posted was changed seven years after the first one.

shamus414: Prospero424 considering the free use of the word "discrimination" around here - yes! The City has decided to permit use of the marina for certain groups (which toe the City's line) for free, but not others because they do not toe the City's line. CLearly that is discrimination - especially since not long ago the Scouts could have used it for free without incident.

Oh, I see. So if I own a local business and refuse to send a percentage of my profits to the local synogogue, I'm anti-semitic?

This is ridiculous. You know as well as I the difference between refusing access and refusing free service. As long as the city isn't refusing access, you don't have a leg to stand on with any "discrimination" accusations.

Dubya's_Coke_Dealer - your reference is misplaced the translation you refer to is from Isiaih. The Gospels also explicity mention the virgin birth in clear and accepted translations.

shamus414
You have to admit, at least, that the City is pursuing an "agenda" that differs from that of the Scouts and is using economic weaponry against the Scouts for its differing from the City's agenda.

By that logic the Marina is using an "agenda" against the general boating populace because it charges people who dock there $550 a month.

How dare they charge the general populace for a service they provide!

The Marina was wrong to tell them that they have to disavow their joining laws. They should have just pointed out the law and let the scouts figure it out for themselves. The answer was obvious. They can't legally give the discount unless the sea scouts are open to everyone.

klous - this was my origonal point - federal law does not state that sexual orientation is a protected class, therefore, no discrimination is occuring within the Boy Scouts.

Wait, the Boy Scouts don't like gays? I thought they were all pretty gay to begin with...I mean honestly, how much gayer can you get than the Boy Scouts...

wait... so the bigot scouts of america are mad that they can't take money from everyone and use it to get their hate on towards them evil atheists and fags?

Screw em. If you want to be bigotted shiats and teach hate-based values to children you are going to have to do it with your own money. You don't get to take money from others (including atheists and homosexuals) and use it against them.

I guess the kids will just have to learn to tie knots and bash fags with money from their own parents and fundraising.

Sloth_DC: Save your breath. The whiny victimized little Jebus prigs will never accept this because, to them, banning gays is not discrimination, but rather the proper moral stance as mandated by their Invisible Imaginary Supernatural Overlord. They don't give a rat's ass about the rule of law or the Constitution, except when it favors their own superstition. To them, the City of Berkley is a den of iniquitous sodomites spreading the power of Satan on Earth, and the Sea Scouts are brave little Christian soldiers leaning into the hurricane of firey evil that is engulfing our Righteous Land...America, Blessed of Jehovah.

You win teh intarnets!

*applause*

I think the term "hate" is being spewed rather freely here as many posts are spewing "hate" toward religous groups, including the Boy Scouts. If you want to battle what you consider "hate;" using "hate" to do so is not particulary persuasive.

shamus414
klous - this was my origonal point - federal law does not state that sexual orientation is a protected class, therefore, no discrimination is occuring within the Boy Scouts.

Federal law is not the only law that applies, however, and according to California state law, sexual orientation is indeed a protected class.

shamus414
If you want to battle what you consider "hate;" using "hate" to do so is not particulary persuasive.

That's true enough. We shouldn't hate bigots and the hateful, we should pity them for the depth of their ignorance.

Sloth_DC: The City is not allowed to discriminate.

No so fast, McDuff: everyone discriminates. When you make a choice, you are-by definition-descriminating.

The law makes the distinction that using creed, color or sexual orientation as criteria for membership in a group invalidates that group's eligibility for free berthing.

The NAACP would not fall into this category, as they do not base membership upon skin color.

Sloth_DC: Lawrence v. Texas

* golf clap *

Sloth DC
tarrant84: In that case, I think it's an arbitrary law.

You think treating all American citizens as human beings, regardless of religion or sexual orientation, is an arbitrary law? Get the fark out of my country.

Fine.

Then law students and med students should get the same amount of federal money. It's only fair.

The rich should be entitled to welfare, because that is discrimination.

A 15 year old should get just as much social security as a 70 year old-- why discriminate against the young?

Necropheliacs should be allowed to have sex with corpses, because to not let them is discrimination.

A guy without a college degree should be entitled to the same government jobs to a person with one.

Equality for all!

Bevets: City officials told the Sea Scouts that the group could retain its berthing subsidy, valued at about $500 monthly per boat, if it broke ties with the Boy Scouts or disavowed the policy against gays and atheists.

This is politlcally correct bigotry. Live and let live -- UNLESS you disagree with my 'progressive' viewpoint.

No, it's simple intolerance of bigotry.

You discriminate, we end your financial subsidy. They're still welcome on the same terms as the general public.

Berkley is refusing to associate (by financial support) with the bigots. Berkley is not telling them they can't stay, in fact, they're telling that they CAN stay, but without any special treatment unless they stop their bigotry.

(It is just as simple as you present it, yet you've still found a way to interpret it wrong.)

Look, I "discriminate" every time I pick out a laundry detergent.

Look up the legal definition of the word in this context and get back to us.

I'll try one more time on my original point: The question isn't should the Boy Scouts have their subsidy taken away, the real question is: Why is the Government subsidising ANYBODY?????

If the Government doesn't subsidize certain groups and not others, then you never have to get into the debate over whether the government has chosen the right group to give money to, and correctly picked the group to turn away from the public trough.

As a side note, this same principle goes a long way in election reform. If the government isn't handing out swag by the boxcar load (in all its forms, from actual cash to regulation to tax breaks), there is little incentive to bribe government officials through massive campaign contributions.

As and Eagle Scout, I say fark the Boy Scouts. If they want to discriminate, they can pay for their own shiat.

/a lot of good things about the organization
//but a few bad ones

Program User - you, and others, do not seem to acknowledge the irony of your position. The City is *discriminating* against those who hold a religious/moral belief from which it disagrees; it will not allot funds to them, but will allot funds to groups which toe the City's line. Therefore, the CIty is using discrimination to battle what it perceives to be discrimination. There is no actual justification for one over the other aside from one's personal preference.