Home ] About DV ] Blog ] [ ]  [ Add to Google ]







Homosexual Activists Demands Fail: City Fails Boy Scouts


By Carrie K. Hutchens

I was reading LifeSiteNews.com's article, "Philly City Council Ends 79-Year Boy Scout Lease Over Refusal to Accept Homosexual Leaders" by Gudrun Schultz (June 1, 2007),  and would have shaken my head in utter disbelief, except this behavior seems to be the norm now days. Homosexual activist's are demanding the policies of the Boy Scouts be altered to their liking or that the city remove what they call privileges that were afforded the scouts. Privileges that involve a lease for their headquarters office. A lease (at a nominal rent) the scouts have had since 1928. The defense for the activists' position? "... the Boy Scouts should not be able to use taxpayers' dollars to discriminate against homosexuals."

The Boy Scouts have a policy against leaders being actively homosexual. So? I'm betting they don't let anyone that flaunts their sexuality become leaders no matter what their preference. I'm betting they don't allow active adulterers to become or remain leaders either, so what is the difference? So, do they get to scream discrimination as well, or is discrimination a subjective and selective state of being? One where some people can cry discrimination at the drop of a breath, while others are expected to endure whatever and told what has been done to them does not quality under the discrimination guidelines.

Would it be discrimination if a sexually active 18 year old girl wished to be a boy scout leader, or would the Boy Scouts have a right to deny her application? I mean, she has a right to her sexual preferences as well and just because she engages in sexual activity doesn't necessarily mean she would engage in it with the boys in her charge, does it?

On the one hand, we have sets of people claiming they want to be treated equal to everyone else, while then demanding special privilege for themselves. They are demanding to impose their lifestyle upon the unwilling. That is demanding special privilege -- not equal treatment.

Two males were in a restaurant making out. They were asked to stop or they would have to leave. They ignored the request. When they were then told to get out or the police would be called and they would be charged with trespassing, they started claiming discrimination. They said they had a right. The manager said, not in his restaurant and not in front of children --THEY DIDN'T! He also made it clear that it didn't matter who it was, making out in the restaurant in front of families was not allowed -- PERIOD! He was telling the truth! I saw him kick out boy-girl couples for doing the same thing. Neither sets had a right to act in such a fashion in a public restaurant in front of children. However, it was only the homosexual couple that threatened a law suit and, as such, demanding special privilege not afforded others.

Quoting again from LifeSiteNews.com, "Homosexual activist organization Equality Advocates Pennsylvania pushed the city to act on the scout's lease, the Inquirer reported. Executive director Stacey Sobel said yesterday that the Boy Scouts should not be able to use taxpayers' dollars to discriminate against homosexuals.

Scouts take an oath of duty to God as part of their membership, and actively homosexual individuals are not permitted as leaders. Although the Supreme Court ruled in 2000 that as a private organization, scouts could restrict homosexuals from leadership, scout groups have faced opposition from local officials revoking privileges where they have refused to alter policy based on the demands of homosexual activists."

The Boy Scouts do have a right to have policies covering leaders, but because that does not include what the homosexual activists want, the latter is going to sneak in the back door and take away the headquarters? "If I can't be a leader -- you can't have a headquarters." Yep, this is the type of behavior I would like my son to learn. If you don't qualify under the present rules -- scream discrimination and force them to change the rules so you do quality. Sounds real grown-up and reasonable to me -- NOT!

I would like to ask Stacey Sobel how the Boy Scouts were using taxpayers' dollars to discriminate against homosexuals? Does this then mean that anyone who is not accepted as a leader has grounds to charge discrimination and force the city to end the lease? Or does this merely apply to homosexuals and those who feel the word and reference to God is offensive?

The Boy Scouts may have been utilizing a city owned property for their headquarters, but it wasn't a free ride and shouldn't be allowed to used as a tool to blackmail them. Look at what the organization has given back to the community as a whole! Put that into dollars and I bet that headquarters was bought and paid for long ago. But then... considering that the boy scouts are due some sort of respect for all the good they have done throughout the years, would most likely be considered discrimination as well.

The city council ought to look at the ruling of the Supreme Court and take into consideration that simply because one has policies that exclude, does not a discrimination necessarily make!


Carrie Hutchens is a former law enforcement officer and a freelance writer who is active in fighting against the death culture movement and the injustices within the judicial and law enforcement systems.


Purchase merchandise regarding this columnist



Post a blog comment about this article


Like this article?  Want to help Dakota Voice?