could the boy scotts discrminate against gays for religious if they became private?

[gnosis92]

could the boy scotts discrminate against gays for religious reasons if they became a private organization?

if the gov't forced the boy scotts to include gays would that be a church-state violation?

if not, then why doesn't the gov't force the catholic church and orthodox judaism to allow or accept women priests/rabbis?

[EverLastingGodStopper]

A private group is allowed to discriminate. What it is not allowed to do is have its discrimination financed by taxpayers.

The Boy Scouts of America is the only Scouting organization chartered by the US Congress. The BSA benefits from its special relationship with government: it gets to rent city properties for almost free. It gets to use US government property for its Jamboree for free. Scout troops can get special visits from the local military base, complete with tanks, all paid for by taxpayers. And it gets to recruit for its little hate group in public schools. All of this is wrong. If they want to be a private hate group, they can be one on their dime, not on ours. Taxpayers should not have to fund religious-based hate groups such as the Boy Scouts of America.

See related thread in PA&SA with action alert and what you can do:
"BSA: Take action against Boy Scouts recruitment drive in public schools" (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=177978)

[Viti]

If they received no funding from the government, and didn't get free use of public land, etc. they could be the White Heterosexual Scouts of the KKK. Private clubs can do whatever they want.

[Mathew Goldstein]

could the boy scotts discrminate against gays for religious reasons if they became a private organization?

if the gov't forced the boy scotts to include gays would that be a church-state violation?

if not, then why doesn't the gov't force the catholic church and orthodox judaism to allow or accept women priests/rabbis?

The US Supreme Court declared that BSA is a strictly private organization.

It would be a free association and/or free expression violation for the government to force a strictly private organizations to change its membership policy.

If they became private? If the government forced BSA to include gays? Nothing of the sort is happening or being contemplated. Where are you getting this slanderous anti-government mis-information? What are you reading?

[gnosis92]

A private group is allowed to discriminate. What it is not allowed to do is have its discrimination financed by taxpayers.

The Boy Scouts of America is the only Scouting organization chartered by the US Congress. The BSA benefits from its special relationship with government: it gets to rent city properties for almost free. It gets to use US government property for its Jamboree for free. Scout troops can get special visits from the local military base, complete with tanks, all paid for by taxpayers. And it gets to recruit for its little hate group in public schools. All of this is wrong. If they want to be a private hate group, they can be one on their dime, not on ours. Taxpayers should not have to fund religious-based hate groups such as the Boy Scouts of America.

See related thread in PA&SA with action alert and what you can do:
"BSA: Take action against Boy Scouts recruitment drive in public schools" (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=177978)

"Warning: shortkey used!"

thx u

The US Supreme Court declared that BSA is a strictly private organization.

It would be a free association and/or free expression violation for the government to force a strictly private organizations to change its membership policy.

If they became private? If the government forced BSA to include gays? Nothing of the sort is happening or being contemplated. Where are you getting this slanderous anti-government mis-information? What are you reading?

"Warning: shortkey used!"
elgs

[crazyfingers]

could the boy scotts discrminate against gays for religious reasons if they became a private organization?

The BSA is a private organization and they can discriminate for religious reasons.



if the gov't forced the boy scotts to include gays would that be a church-state violation?


It would more likely be a violation of freedom of association.



if not, then why doesn't the gov't force the catholic church and orthodox judaism to allow or accept women priests/rabbis?

That would be a violation of CSS.

The BSA is a private club according to the supreme court. They can discriminate against gays and atheists on account of religion.

However since 2000 when the court made that ruling, there have been numerous challenges to the various government preferences and sponsorships that it receives. That is because government may not partake in or support discrimination on the basis of religion. The most sold basis for removing all government support for the BSA is because of their religious requirement. By the US Constitution and federal law, government can't discriminate on the basis of religion.

Various local governments have removed their support for the BSA on account of local laws that prohibit the local government from discriminating against gays.

The BSA wants to discriminate against atheists and gays and got the supreme court to rule that it has that right as a private club. Now it's importnt to make sure that all government preferences and support for the BSA be removed.

The BSA wants it both ways. It wants to discriminate and it wants government support. It can't be allowed to have it.

[JoyJuice]

A private group is allowed to discriminate. What it is not allowed to do is have its discrimination financed by taxpayers.
If this is true, then how is it that churches who recieve Faith Base tax revenues are allowed to employment discriminate?

[Pavlov's Dog]

If this is true, then how is it that churches who recieve Faith Base tax revenues are allowed to employment discriminate?

The short asnwer is that churces should not receive government money, becaue faith based initiatives are bullshit.

[Toto]

If this is true, then how is it that churches who recieve Faith Base tax revenues are allowed to employment discriminate?

This is the subject of current litigation. If the courts follow existing law, those churches will not be able to discriminate on the basis of religion with their federal money. The religious right is counting on a take-over of the court system and is hoping that the Supreme Court will commit some judicial activism and rewrite the first amendment.

[EverLastingGodStopper]

If this is true, then how is it that churches who recieve Faith Base tax revenues are allowed to employment discriminate?
Pavlov's Dog and Toto answered very well. Much as with the illegal wiretapping problem and the refusal to follow the Geneva Conventions (until last week), the Bush administration turns a blind eye to the US Constitution. Although Clinton is responsible for making the Faith-Based funding program possible, Clinton did not enact it; Bush siezed the chance to launch the program itself.

[Mathew Goldstein]

If this is true, then how is it that churches who recieve Faith Base tax revenues are allowed to employment discriminate?

You are missing an important fundamental distinction here. The faith based initiative has lots of problems but at least on paper the charities that get government money are still legally prohibited from discriminating during the provision of the financed social services. Lawsuits have been filed challanging instances of such discrimination (it is my understanding that the anti-discrimination mandates are not being properly enforced by the Bush administration) and the courts have ruled against the government funding due to such discrimination (see FFRF for examples). Now, compare that with the Boy Scouts. The Boys Scouts are a membership organization that denies membership to children and adult volunteers because they are atheists. This is not just the paid staff, its the participants who are the recipients of the social service that Boy Scouts provides who are the victims of BSA's discrimination.

[Dick Springer]

Pavlov's Dog and Toto answered very well. Much as with the illegal wiretapping problem and the refusal to follow the Geneva Conventions (until last week), the Bush administration turns a blind eye to the US Constitution. Although Clinton is responsible for making the Faith-Based funding program possible, Clinton did not enact it; Bush siezed the chance to launch the program itself.

The Republicans in Congress (presumably with the support of the Bush administration) are attempting a radical revolution that will change our system of government and make much of the Constitution mere empty rhetoric if it is successful. The court-stripping clauses in several bills on both religious issues and on the treatment of detainees in the so-called "war on terror" would eliminate the protection federal courts have provide for our rights since the first Supreme Court decision in 1803 that an act of Congress was unconstitutional. Most people seem not to care.

"When fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross."
--Sinclair Lewis, in 1938