I, once again, will look like the evil bastard...

The problem I see here is that it should be an "all-or-nothing" situation...

Gays believe the Boy Scouts hurt them but not allowing them into the club...This did not change with the rent increase...

The city STILL rents to the same club with the same beliefs...This did not change with the rent increase...

The Boy Scouts ability to continue the programs that they've done for decades...This DID change with the rent increase...

So the bad thing goes to the Boy Scouts...

But where does the "good thing" go to?...who benifitted?...The gay's "piece of mind"?...

Was that worth the price?...

If I were the Boy Scouts, I'd leave...

The Boy Scouts were created before this change of policy from the city...That, in effect, means "The city has changed it's policy, so YOU must change YOUR policy, too."...

And the Boy Scouts response should be "Then it's obvious the city doesn't want us here."...

__________________
"You get the respect that you give" - cnredd

I think it extends a bit further than that. It is sending a message to all groups that if they discriminate, then they can expect not to receive government money to help them do so. So yes, it was worth the price to maintain a consistent policy for everyone.

but I'm no longer subsidizing their discrimination

yep

The point of the "rent increase" was NOT to make them include gays, so let's stop with that b.s. right here.
The point of the "rent increase" was to abide by the EXISTING LAW which states that groups which discriminate on bases which the state cannot discriminate upon cannot be SUBSIDIZED.

They have to pay full rent just like the rest of us schmucks.
No preferential treatment for people who discriminate.


What a torturous logic path.

The CHOICE on whether or not to continue with discrimination was ALSO up to the Boy Scouts.
In fact, the Philly Boy Scouts chapter had previously IGNORED the group's nation-wide mandate to exclude gays, but the nation-wide powers-that-be decided that the Philly groups had to enforce the gay exclusion.

The Boy Scouts brought this upon themselves.
(Unless you're willing to debate the validity of the underlying legislation which prohibits such subsidies to a discriminating group...)




This is about something very simple.

A person should not have to subsidize, via taxes, an organization that discriminates against him in a way that the government is forbidden to.

THAT is the issue.



Oh gawd!
I was BORN before a lot of governmental "change of policies" occurred.

Oh the HORROR that I must change my policies because the government has changed theirs.
< end sarcasm >

You're trying desparately to pin something negative on gays, and NONE of it makes any sense.

Well I have to disagree on your "all or nothing" position. And especially when you throw it back at the gays.

It's not about gays feeling all self satisified. It's about a SCOTUS ruling about discrimination. A private club has the right to discriminate in this country if they so choose. However they do not have the inherent right to public funds if they do so.

The rent "increase" is not an "increase" at all. It's just that Philadelphia will no longer require its taxpayers (who come from all walks of life, ethnicities, orientations, etc.) to fund a club that discriminates.

I agree with you on one thing--the boy scouts should quit expecting government handouts. Someone somewhere else will let them meet.

And I agree with others here too. It's a very sad thing. It could be such a great organization except for that one (very large) flaw. Maybe Forester hit on something with her observations as to why the Boy & Girl Scouts differ on this issue. And Tris had a good point too. Back in those days it just wasn't an issue and nobody cared.

We could learn a lot from our innocent roots.

I guess there are enough gay people on the City counsel to over rule the CL council!
And you know that's what it is. Calling a spade a spade here.
I hope they realize they're hurting 64,000 boys. If they do I doubt they care. Like the drag queens flaunting themselves within a religious service, it's "Up yours, kids! We're doing this so your parents and scoutmasters will accept us."

Yes, collectively, these two occurrences (the nun thing and this one) kind of tick me off.
The Boy Scouts can be non gay if they want to be. I think they can be non female if they want to be.
yeah, somebody who sits in office in the City of Philadelphia has an ax to grind and they're doing it over a fine institution that has already gone through legal trouble over similar stuff.
It's petty and it's rude.
Praying right now for an "angel" to appear and give the Boy Scouts the money to build their own big digs! (It'll have to be someone, God, who's not afraid of politically incorrectness.)

__________________
Frugal tip: To keep potatoes from budding, place an apple in the bag with the potatoes.

How to Fold a Shirt

Salty's Blog

Sounds about right....

Dontchya just love it when a group comes in says "We'd like a discount(seeing as we've been here for the last five generations) because we want to help 95% of the community" and the response is "FU!...Not good enough!"...

This is the pefect instance where the homosexual community isn't looking for tolerance...they're demanding acceptance...

And if you DON'T accept, then they'll make you pay...even at the risk of ruining all of their programs that help the community...

That's why I say the Boy Scouts should leave the city...If the city council is going to say "The city's policy is different than yours.", then the response should be, "Then you don't want us here...Goodbye."...

__________________
"You get the respect that you give" - cnredd

It's amusing to watch you two dance around the REAL REASON for the policy, without the courage to actually BROACH THE ISSUE of what the policy is all about.

The issue is simple if either of you two want to actually discuss it.
The fact that it has been REPEATEDLY pointed out, but you insist on avoiding it speaks volumes.

People should not have to subsidize a group that discriminates against them.
When the government is forbidden to discriminate against a characteristic, and a private group does discriminate against that characteristic, then the government is logically forbidden from "giving" the group money via subsidies.

If you two can stop back-slapping long enough to actually discuss the REAL issue instead of trying to paint it as something else, let me know.


Do you get that this policy is not just a "Philly" thing?
That there is a legal justification...
Nay, constitutional REQUIREMENT behind it?

Or do you even give a crap?

Dollars to doughnuts that if a group was discriminating against Christians, you'd suddenly see the reason behind all this ...

Private and public groups "discriminate" on those terms every day in this country. Case in point: Local college here in Oregon changes their menu and even the time they serve in the cafeteria to accommodate Muslim exchange students. Another point : How many institutions serve fish on Friday? A lot still do it to accommodate Catholics. If other Christians wanted to make a big stink about tax money feeding the Catholic ritual it would be about as frivolous as this.

The real point as I see it is the public is a lot closer to accepting gays now than it ever has in our history. But find something that is really important to rave about. People form groups and clubs and even churches to follow a program or ideal with like minded people. Other people are excluded because they are not wanted in the group.
This is not housing. This is not jobs and livelihood. Or civil unions. All of which I would openly/verbally defend.
I think it's going to do more damage to the gay community than it helps.
And again, it is about Boy Scouts, ferchrisssake!

__________________
Frugal tip: To keep potatoes from budding, place an apple in the bag with the potatoes.

How to Fold a Shirt

Salty's Blog

That's right. And the SUpreme Court said if they were a PRIVATE institution, they had every right to discriminate. But they could not discriminate against citizens who are PAYING for their institution. I agree with that ruling.

The Boy Scouts chose discrimination. Okay. So, that means they DO NOT GET TO USE THE TAX PAYER DOLLARS OF PEOPLE THEY ARE DISCRIMINATING AGAINST.

It's not petty. It's not rude.

It's the law. As ruled by SCOTUS.

I guess those 64,000 scouts' parents will have to find a way to pay for their after school babysitters. Because the tax payers aren't doing it anymore.