Maybe this should be in General...
http://www.smh.com.au/news/0008/30/world/world12.html
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Scouts fight backlash over gays ban
In the two months since the Supreme Court ruled that the Boy Scouts of America have a constitutional right to exclude gays, corporate and government support for the organisation has slipped markedly.
Chicago, San Francisco and San Jose, California, have told local Scout troops that they can no longer use parks, schools and other municipal sites.
Companies such as Chase Manhattan Bank and Textron Inc have withdrawn hundreds of thousands of dollars in support.
And, in what may prove to be a test case, one State, Connecticut, has banned contributions to the Scouts by State employees through a State-run charity. Connecticut is also thinking of barring Scouts from public camp grounds or buildings.
"It's a watershed issue," said Ms Joan Parker, assistant counsel to the Connecticut Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities, which must rule by November 8 on whether the Scouts violate State anti-discrimination laws.
If the commission rules that the group does violate those laws, the Boy Scouts would
be prevented from using public facilities. (So, wouldn't this be "discrimintation by the state?)
The Supreme Court ruled in June by a 5-4 vote that the Boy Scouts had a constitutional right to exclude gays because opposition to homosexuality is part of the organisation's "expressive message".
A national spokesman for the Scouts, Mr Gregg Shields, said the organisation respected the right of companies to donate only to groups of their choice.
However, the organisation is suing Connecticut to restore State employees' ability to donate to the Scouts, and Mr Shields said his group would fight to maintain access to public places.
"The Boy Scouts of America since 1910 have taught traditional family values. We feel that an avowed homosexual isn't a role model for those values."
For public and private officials around the country the problem is a complex and painful one.
On one hand, they do not want to cut off valuable opportunities for the young or run foul of First Amendment principles. On the other, by allowing a group that bans gays to use public facilities, and by supporting it, they violate their anti-discrimination statutes. (by becoming discriminitory themselves...)
The Boy Scout uniform has become almost a cherished national symbol. But at a time when same-sex benefits, diversity training and non-discrimination policies have become routine, organisations say the Scouts' refusal to admit gays has come to seem almost un-American. (and we crawl further into the pit...)
The New York Times
[/quote]
[emphasis mine]
------------------
John/az
"When freedom is at stake, your silence is not golden, it's yellow..." RKBA!
See The Legacy of Gun Control film at: www.cphv.com
Do it for the children...
[This message has been edited by John/az2 (edited August 30, 2000).]
http://www.smh.com.au/news/0008/30/world/world12.html
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Scouts fight backlash over gays ban
In the two months since the Supreme Court ruled that the Boy Scouts of America have a constitutional right to exclude gays, corporate and government support for the organisation has slipped markedly.
Chicago, San Francisco and San Jose, California, have told local Scout troops that they can no longer use parks, schools and other municipal sites.
Companies such as Chase Manhattan Bank and Textron Inc have withdrawn hundreds of thousands of dollars in support.
And, in what may prove to be a test case, one State, Connecticut, has banned contributions to the Scouts by State employees through a State-run charity. Connecticut is also thinking of barring Scouts from public camp grounds or buildings.
"It's a watershed issue," said Ms Joan Parker, assistant counsel to the Connecticut Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities, which must rule by November 8 on whether the Scouts violate State anti-discrimination laws.
If the commission rules that the group does violate those laws, the Boy Scouts would
be prevented from using public facilities. (So, wouldn't this be "discrimintation by the state?)
The Supreme Court ruled in June by a 5-4 vote that the Boy Scouts had a constitutional right to exclude gays because opposition to homosexuality is part of the organisation's "expressive message".
A national spokesman for the Scouts, Mr Gregg Shields, said the organisation respected the right of companies to donate only to groups of their choice.
However, the organisation is suing Connecticut to restore State employees' ability to donate to the Scouts, and Mr Shields said his group would fight to maintain access to public places.
"The Boy Scouts of America since 1910 have taught traditional family values. We feel that an avowed homosexual isn't a role model for those values."
For public and private officials around the country the problem is a complex and painful one.
On one hand, they do not want to cut off valuable opportunities for the young or run foul of First Amendment principles. On the other, by allowing a group that bans gays to use public facilities, and by supporting it, they violate their anti-discrimination statutes. (by becoming discriminitory themselves...)
The Boy Scout uniform has become almost a cherished national symbol. But at a time when same-sex benefits, diversity training and non-discrimination policies have become routine, organisations say the Scouts' refusal to admit gays has come to seem almost un-American. (and we crawl further into the pit...)
The New York Times
[/quote]
[emphasis mine]
------------------
John/az
"When freedom is at stake, your silence is not golden, it's yellow..." RKBA!
See The Legacy of Gun Control film at: www.cphv.com
Do it for the children...
[This message has been edited by John/az2 (edited August 30, 2000).]
I REALLY enjoy driving or wearing UN PC stuff, and I am in the best state to do it in. Now I just need a mistress to follow me with the APC, yeah that'll do it.
) but I remember there was a big flap over the Church's alleged discrimination against Blacks (the mark of Cain and all) and women (or is it wymyn?) and the Church backed off it's position. Then again, it was a good while ago, and I do live just outside DC, where people get hysterical over all kinds of strange things and often for no particular reason. I still prefer moral suasion over government extortion. M2