Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Some Guy)   Boy Scouts want to have their cake and eat it too -- continues to discriminate, but demands free stuff other private organizations are required to pay for   (mercurynews.com ) divider line 680
    More: Dumbass  
•       •       •

15698 clicks; posted to Main » on 12 Jul 2006 at 3:13 AM (9 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



680 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | » | Last | Show all
 
2006-07-12 09:50:03 AM  
sigdiamond2000: Insane hyperbole is my stock-in-trade.
 
2006-07-12 09:50:14 AM  
Public money should not go to groups who exclude based on race, religion, or sexual orientation.
 
2006-07-12 09:50:37 AM  
Black, White, Rich, Poor, can we all just agree on one thing?

Ignore Bevets. Yeah, I know he can be entertaining, but seriously, what does it take for someone to simply be dismissed as a nutbag anymore?
 
2006-07-12 09:52:38 AM  
hillbillypharmacist

Not give money to everybody, give money to nobody! That is true equality.

"Government is not reason; it is not eloquence; it is force.
Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."
George Washington
 
2006-07-12 09:53:43 AM  
hillbillypharmacist

Actually, I am suggesting the opposite.

Why are the gays special?
 
2006-07-12 09:54:05 AM  
The question isn't whether or not the city is discriminating, it is whether or not the Sea Scouts have a stated right to a free berth. I would argue that the berths are a privilege, not a right, and the city may dispense them with whatever goals they wish, so long as those goals are consistent with non-discrimination laws. In this case, the Sea Scouts are free to speak against homosexuality and atheists, and they are free to associate with eachother, the only thing they are not free to do is use a berth at a marina without paying. Given that marina use is not anywhere in the constitution, I would file that one under 10th ammendment, leaving it a state matter.
 
2006-07-12 09:55:01 AM  
shamus414: Again, you're ignoring the fact that sexual orientation is a protected class in the jurisdiction you're referring to.
 
2006-07-12 09:56:27 AM  
what is this liberal infactuation with boy scouts?
 
2006-07-12 09:56:40 AM  
shamus414: 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.

Ah, so the city should be forced to permit free berthing to the Scientologists' new "cruising" boat, Xenu's Lament, or else the Church of Scientology is being "discriminated" against?

Your open mind is comendable.

/rolls eyes

That's it. I gotta split.

Cheers, folks.
 
2006-07-12 09:56:51 AM  
tarrant84, Larson E. Whipsnade:

So you agree that the Scouts shouldn't get the berth for free.

You just disagree with the reason why.
 
2006-07-12 09:58:56 AM  
DoesItReallyMatter

For shiats and giggles, because I work in the field, when you define homosexuality, are you counting the children they molested, because all the studies I've read showed that men who molest boys are generally otherwise heterosexual. In other words they don't like hot man on man action, they like having sex with young boys.

So they aren't gay, they are pedophiles.

For the record, I'm a juvenile probation officer, and I'm curious not trolling.
 
2006-07-12 09:59:22 AM  
tarrant84: Actually, I am suggesting the opposite.

Why are the gays special?


Wrong question: why are the straight Christians special? They're the ones who want the special privilege of not paying their berthing fees.
 
2006-07-12 09:59:39 AM  
mrexcess - regardless of jurisdiction, it is clear that the City has taken a particular stance on the issue and discriminates against those who do not toe the line.
 
2006-07-12 10:01:07 AM  
tarrant84 [TotalFark]

hillbillypharmacist

Actually, I am suggesting the opposite.

Why are the gays special?


Because the law makes us pay more taxes than any other group when we live in couples, then takes that money and uses it to fund groups that teach people to hate us. When they start calling your wife's half of the mortgage payment 'rent income' and taxing away a third of it, then spending it on groups that hate you, I'll back you when you want to yank funding from them.
 
2006-07-12 10:01:20 AM  
milesl

what is this liberal infactuation with boy scouts?


There's that famous Kansas educational system I've heard so much about.

Before everyone starts flaming Bevets, remember that as a fomer producer of Queer as Folk Bevets knows what teh gheys want more then they do.
 
2006-07-12 10:02:00 AM  
shamus414: regardless of jurisdiction, it is clear that the City has taken a particular stance on the issue and discriminates against those who do not toe the line.

Ok, one more time, real slow: The City does not discriminate based on religion or sexual orientation. To do so would be illegal. Giving money to a group which discriminates based on religion and sexual orientation is the same thing as discriminating based on religion and sexual orientation. The City *cannot* give money to a group that does something the City may not do. Capisce?
 
2006-07-12 10:05:03 AM  
hillbillypharmacist

Can't speak for my esteemed colleague, but essentially correct, albeit not complete. If the government is going to hand out free berths, I think they have to give them to people they don't agree with, as well as those they do. So if anybody gets one, the Boy Scouts, GLADD and the Klan all get equal shots. Rather than have the government faced with that, I'd rather they got out of the free berth business altogether.
 
2006-07-12 10:05:16 AM  
shamus414: 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

How? By not granting them a special privilege?
 
2006-07-12 10:05:22 AM  
milesl

what is this liberal infactuation with boy scouts?

What is this conservative infatuation with tax-dollar give aways and spending like a drunken sailor on any organization that claims to be Christian?
 
2006-07-12 10:08:43 AM  
The real question is this:

Why do Christians not understand basic logic?
 
2006-07-12 10:08:45 AM  
shamus414

mrexcess - regardless of jurisdiction, it is clear that the City has taken a particular stance on the issue and discriminates against those who do not toe the line.


In the same way the city discriminates against people and organizations that aren't non-profit. I'm sorry, treating them the same way they treat the residents of the city, and the for profit organizations doesn't qualify as discrimination. If the city said they weren't allowed to rent there, that would be a good case for discrimination... but saying its discriminatory to not bilk taxpayers in order to help fund this organization... that just makes them a bunch of entitlement queens.
 
2006-07-12 10:08:49 AM  
Sloth_DC

Um, yes? Giving a governmental privilege to one group and not another group is sort of the definition of discrimination.
 
2006-07-12 10:08:57 AM  
The_Pole_Of_Justice

Actually that was the apostles creed not the nicean creed, but my point remains the same. There are fundamental Christian doctrines that define Christianity. Just saying "Christ alone" isn't sufficient. Who is Christ? A guru? A myth? A nutbag? An alien?

The Apostles creed was later buffeted by the Nicean Creed and then the Athanasian Creed. It must be decided upon who he is, what he came to do, and what it means for us. The creeds are simply a summary.

This is way, way off my original question. My question was about sexuality. A church if free to define it as they please, but I want to know the limitations of the theology. For instance, could I be in good standing in the Episcopal church if I routinely had group sex? They could say yes, that is their right, but I'd like to know the justification for saying so.
 
2006-07-12 10:09:48 AM  
shamus414
regardless of jurisdiction, it is clear that the City has taken a particular stance on the issue and discriminates against those who do not toe the line.

Ummmm ... yeah. It has taken an issue that groups that get federal funding have to follow federal laws.

I think the city also took a city on killing people and is taking a patricular stance on that issue as well (you go to jail).

The city is enforcing the law, the sea scouts to not conform to the law. I don't see how this issue is so hard to follow.

It's not like the Marina made the law. The city made the law. You don't blame the cops for arresting someone if that person shot a drug dealer. The cops are following the law, weather or not you believe the shooter was justified is irrelevant, there is a law.
 
2006-07-12 10:10:34 AM  
The Boy Scouts have every right not to admit gays or atheists. They are a private institution with a primary purpose of imparting certain values to children. That was the thrust of the narrowly drawn holding in Boy Scouts of America v. Dale (pops). This case is much more problematic.

The threshold issue is "is the denial of state provided benefits based on the Boys Scouts refusal to accept gays or atheists in violation of Berkeley's anti-discrimination policy a violation of the Scouts right to free association"? I would say it is not a violation. I would distinguish the holding in Dale by noting that in that decision the issue was the internal membership policy of the Boy Scouts which were challenged. In this case it is the action of the state. i.e., the City of Berkeley.

Berkeley is under no affirmative obligation to provide these services to the Boy Scouts. Arguably, it could be unconstitutional for Berkeley to use public funds to support a discriminatory organization. It is not however unconstitutional to deny these benefits to an organization in violation of Berkeley's anti-discrimination policy so long as that policy is not discriminatory and is applied evenly and fairly across the board to all institutions applying for city funds or subsidies.
 
2006-07-12 10:11:32 AM  
Larson E. Whipsnade: Um, yes? Giving a governmental privilege to one group and not another group is sort of the definition of discrimination.

The privilege is extended to every non-profit group which does not violate local discrimination laws. If the Scouts are open to the public, they get the special privilege. If they are a private club which is not open to the public, they don't get public funds. The City is not allowed to fund discrimination on the basis of religion or sexual orientation.
 
2006-07-12 10:11:44 AM  
IamFrums

Which federal law forbids discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation again?
 
2006-07-12 10:13:44 AM  
Larson E. Whipsnade: Which federal law forbids discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation again?

Sloth_DC: And sexual orientation - no, really, it's in their local laws.
 
2006-07-12 10:14:08 AM  
Wow did I mess that all up. I'm going to bed.

/No federal money for groups that discriminate
//If the Marina is losing money, why give discounts at all?
///Slashies!
 
2006-07-12 10:14:19 AM  
Larson E. Whipsnade

Sloth_DC

Um, yes? Giving a governmental privilege to one group and not another group is sort of the definition of discrimination.


So the government gives tax breaks to churches, but not to businesses, is that discrimination?

//your logic processing is broken

Denying a RIGHT to one group, while ensuring it for others is discrimination. The websters dictionary definition of discrimination and the legal definition are two different things. The government doles out priviledges to certain groups all the time, see how military IDs mean your drivers license doesnt expire, non-profits don't pay taxes, small businesses are eligible for special grants and loans, poor people get food stamps, old people get social security.... if we followed your logic, the government is discriminating by charging any of us taxes, not giving us drivers licenses that never expire, not giving us grants, not giving well-off people food stamps, not giving young people social security, etc..
 
2006-07-12 10:15:56 AM  
Leave the Boy Scouts alone, leave the San Diego cross alone, leave indian mascot names alone (And so forth) and lets move on.

The issue here is that the Boy Scouts are requesting preferential treatment. The BSA has involved itself directly, they are not being "attacked" without provocation, as you incorrectly suggest.


If need be, make a gay Boy Scouts or something and then get over it.

That is impossible. The "private religious organization" known as the Boy Scouts of America has a Congressional charter that forbids any other organization from calling themselves "scouts", with a special exemption granted to the Girl Scouts of America.
 
2006-07-12 10:16:22 AM  
The_Pole_Of_Justice

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.

Christ was both human and divine. Not all that he said and did is captured in the gospels. Not all that is recorded in the gospels is accurate since they are works of man. Inspired, yes, but still flawed. So what should you follow? Tough question. Christ established a church on earth and told us to have faith in him. Creeds and church teachings were an attempt by men to codify those teachings and traditions that did not make the written gospels. Again, this is inherently flawed since it is the work of men, however it is a reasonable bet that the early Christians may have had a better understanding of Christ's intentions for his church than Christians 2000 years later trying to interpret a translation of a translation. The same early Christians who selected and edited the gospels also created the church with its teachings and traditions which eventually took written form as creeds and such.

Ultimately all we have is our conscience for our guide to right and wrong.
 
2006-07-12 10:17:20 AM  
Larson E. Whipsnade: Rather than have the government faced with that, I'd rather they got out of the free berth business altogether.

Getting out of any group subsidy altogether is a defensible position, certainly. And might be a good idea, though the fact of the matter is that most people have groups that they really, really like, and do good work, and there'd be public outcry that these groups couldn't get some sort of break. I mean, c'mon, the Ecumenical Hiking group cleans up the trails in the park, why can't we give them a little discount on that pavilion that isn't even booked anyways?

But short of that, the standards of the government should have to extend to any group the government subsidizes- thus, no free berth for the Scouts.
 
2006-07-12 10:18:28 AM  
Sure is nice to see the gay community come out swinging at boys learning life skills, CPR, life-saving techniques, First Aid, responsible camping, the environment and even sports.

It is not honest for you to say this without first acknowledging that the BSA "came out swinging" against homosexuals first.
 
2006-07-12 10:18:35 AM  
shamus414

Sir you are correct. As a society we have simply changed who we discriminate against. In western Europe, a thousand years ago saying "The Pope is in league with the devil," meant you were discriminated against and punished by society. To get back into good public standing, you'd have to repent of your accusation to a priest and pay a penance of community service like giving alms to the poor/church or saying prayers.

Today if you say "I think being gay is morally wrong," you are discriminated against and punished by society. To get back into good public standing, you'd have to issue an public apology, see the modern day priests (known as psychologists and councilors), and pay a penance through donations to a Gay group.

All we have done is switched around our sacred cows. It is the same story. Somebody says something in society we don't like and we punish them for it.
 
2006-07-12 10:19:26 AM  
Most groups at best don't encourage those who don't agree with them to join. If you don't like the Boy Scouts, start your own group. But that doesn't make the Boy Scouts "bad" because of it.

It appears as though you have missed the point of this discussion. The "controversy
 
2006-07-12 10:20:31 AM  
Most groups at best don't encourage those who don't agree with them to join. If you don't like the Boy Scouts, start your own group. But that doesn't make the Boy Scouts "bad" because of it.

It appears as though you have missed the point of this discussion. The "controversy" is that the Boy Scouts of America are suing because they are being denied special treatement not given to any other private religious organization. Do you have an argument to show that the BSA deserve special treatment from the government in the form of discounted or free access to public facilities where a usage fee is normally required?
 
2006-07-12 10:21:40 AM  
Which federal law forbids discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation again?

Whichever one is quoted directly in the news article.

The city revoked free berthing privileges for the Berkeley Sea Scouts because the Boy Scouts bar atheist and gay members, which violates the city's 1997 policy to provide free berthing to nonprofits that don't discriminate.

For further details on what does and does not consititue discrimination you would have to look up California laws, which I don't have on hand, but I believe the ones in the military are Race, Creed, Color, Religion and Sexual Orientation.

/Some consider Athiesm a religion
//I don't know the legal standing of that
///Slashies!
 
2006-07-12 10:22:15 AM  
Persnickety: Christ was both human and divine.

Kinda like Hercules?
 
2006-07-12 10:22:24 AM  
Berkeley either must hand out free berths equally to all non-profits or charge all equally. The Boy Scouts are right about this, it is an attempt by a government body to impose their social code their discriminatory fee

Your understanding of the situation is in error. The Boy Scouts are not being denied equal access. The BSA is suing because they are not being given preferential treatment. They are currently being held to the same standards as all other organizations, yet they claim that they deserve special treatment for reasons that are unclear.
 
2006-07-12 10:22:53 AM  
IamFrums: /Some consider Athiesm a religion
//I don't know the legal standing of that


Doesn't matter - freedom of religion must of necessity include freedom from religion.
 
2006-07-12 10:25:13 AM  
Sloth_DC

So your point is that the City claims a legal justification for disciminating between the groups. In fact the City claims they are legally required to discriminate in this fashion. In another day and another region we'd have the same debate over whether a city could give money to a private organization that didn't enforce Jim Crow laws, or anti-miscegenation statutes.

I'd rather the city get out of the business of handing out the public's money to any of these groups. Then they don't have to discriminate against any group.
 
2006-07-12 10:29:22 AM  
PeopleFirst

Sir you are correct. As a society we have simply changed who we discriminate against. In western Europe, a thousand years ago saying "The Pope is in league with the devil," meant you were discriminated against and punished by society. To get back into good public standing, you'd have to repent of your accusation to a priest and pay a penance of community service like giving alms to the poor/church or saying prayers.

Today if you say "I think being gay is morally wrong," you are discriminated against and punished by society. To get back into good public standing, you'd have to issue an public apology, see the modern day priests (known as psychologists and councilors), and pay a penance through donations to a Gay group.

All we have done is switched around our sacred cows. It is the same story. Somebody says something in society we don't like and we punish them for it.


What right gets taken away if you say "I think being gay is morally wrong?" Freedom of speech doesn't mean speech without consequence, it just means regardless of what you say, your rights remain in tact. To argue that one has a right to free dock space, and a right to charge taxpayers for maintenance on the dockspace is well beyond reason. Charging the Sea Scouts the same price that ordinary citizens get charged hardly meets the definition of punishment.

All we've done is create an entire round of entitlement queens, who think they have some sort of intrinsic right to my money simply by virtue of their existence. To argue that it is discriminatory that city funds only be used towards services that do not discriminate against residents of the city would be to argue that the city must fund all groups, regardless of their discriminatory message... do we really need to see a city funded KKK, a city funded Black Panters, Brown Berets, or Young Lords, all just because we wanted to help the Make a Wish Foundation take kids on a boat trip or something?

Faux Conservatism like this is how we got the budget we have today, we're tossing cash off the roof of the capital building just to avoid the claim that we might be only spending money on things that may be of use to the public.
 
2006-07-12 10:30:05 AM  
Larson E. Whipsnade: So your point is that the City claims a legal justification for disciminating between the groups. In fact the City claims they are legally required to discriminate in this fashion.

That's incorrect - my point is that the City is not allowed to discriminate on the basis of religion or sexual orientation, and that they therefore cannot give funds to organizations who do so.

In another day and another region we'd have the same debate over whether a city could give money to a private organization that didn't enforce Jim Crow laws, or anti-miscegenation statutes.

What debate? It would have been illegal.
 
2006-07-12 10:32:45 AM  
PeopleFirst -

That's right. I would not be so annoyed if those who decried discrimination would at least admit that discrimination is not disappearing but merely moving from one group to another and through one vehicle to another. The virtue (or lack thereof) for same can be debated, but that is a seperate issue.

From a Christian view, I suppose, it's to be expected that people will (1) discriminate unjustly and (2) ultimately proceed against the teachings of Christ. Therefore, from a Christian perspective one cannot be particularly surprised that the invented civil right of gay sex has been selected over that of Christian moral teaching. From my point of view, if that is the direction the people want to go so be it - that is their decision, just admit what it actually is (a new discrimination), and not live in delusion.

Also, from a non-American-evangelical Christian (i.e.: I am an American but not the American spin on "evangelical" which I perceive to have an unhealthy obession with American jingosim) view, I think Christians need to spend less time bemoaning changes in civil law against them (it is to be expected - see above) and start working on sharing the Gospel to the people they know personally by being a good example of virtue.
 
2006-07-12 10:35:20 AM  
firefly212

You've proven my point: that saying something that society doesn't like will have consequences. It always has! We have simply chosen different things to make consequencial. It is simply a fasion right now, a world view that will change in the future.
 
2006-07-12 10:36:58 AM  
Larson E. Whipsnade

So your point is that the City claims a legal justification for disciminating between the groups. In fact the City claims they are legally required to discriminate in this fashion. In another day and another region we'd have the same debate over whether a city could give money to a private organization that didn't enforce Jim Crow laws, or anti-miscegenation statutes.

I'd rather the city get out of the business of handing out the public's money to any of these groups. Then they don't have to discriminate against any group.


Discrimination (legal def)== denial of a right
You have no right to a free berth.
There wouldn't be much of a debate there, private organizations have no responsibility to enforce laws, only to obey them... your pseudo-arguement is like saying there is some kind of movement against the girl scouts because thye don't find bank robbers.

I see what you would rather do, but why should the city be forced into being unable to help anyone without helping organizations that discriminate against residents of the city? I mean, are we really so unable to reason that we cannot differentiate (for subsidy purposes) between the MDA and the KKK?
 
2006-07-12 10:37:19 AM  
IamFrums: Which federal law forbids discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation again?


There is no Federal Law barring discrimination based on sexual orientation. In fact the Supreme Court has stated that it will uphold a [discriminatory]law that neither burdens a fundamental right nor targets a suspect class so long as the legislative classification bears a rational relation to some independent and legitimate legislative end. Romer V. Evans (pops) Interestingly enough in Romer the Court held that Colorado State Consitutional Amendment which denied "special privileges" to gays and lesbians was an unconstitutional violation of Equal Protection because it held the possiblity of denying gays and lesbians participation in the "political process".
 
2006-07-12 10:39:45 AM  
Sloth DC

As somebody noted above, the legal definition of discrimination and the dictionary definition are not the same. The city is discriminating in the dictionary sense, they are drawing distinctions between groups.

And no, enforcing the Jim Crow laws was not illegal for many years, and was even upheld by the supreme court in Dred Scott.

Further, the City's reasoning is somewhat circular. They passed a policy, (may not even be an ordinance) against a particular kind of discrimination. Then they decided to hand out public money to those who conform to the policy. My problem is that next week they can pass a policy I'm not in favor of, and then decide to hand out money in conformance with that policy.
 
2006-07-12 10:41:17 AM  
firefly212 - you say discrimination is denial of a legal right - therefore homosexuals are not being discriminated against by not being permitted to enter into "marriages" as there is no right, and never has been a right, for persons of the same gender to "marry." Glad that is cleared up, thanks.
 
Displayed 50 of 680 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report