Philidelphia to Boy Scouts: Renounce Ban on Gays, or No More Free Rent

**Tock** · 11-19-2007, 10:28 PM

Philidelphia City Solicitor Tells Local Boy Scouts Branch to Renounce Its Ban on Gays or Lose Rent Subsidy

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...111800949.html

By Dafna Linzer
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, November 19, 2007

PHILADELPHIA -- This may be the last free Thanksgiving dinner for the Boy Scouts of Philadelphia.

Citing a local 1982 "fair practices" law, the city solicitor has given the Scouts until Dec. 3 to renounce its policy of excluding homosexuals or forfeit the grand, Beaux-Arts building it has rented from the city for $1 a year since 1928.

"While we respect the right of the Boy Scouts to prohibit participation in its activities by homosexuals," the solicitor, Romulo Diaz, said last week in an interview, "we will not subsidize that discrimination by passing on the costs to the people of Philadelphia."

The city has yet to complete an official assessment of the property. But it has tentatively placed the market value at $200,000 a year and has invited the Boy Scouts to remain in the nearly 100-year-old building as paying tenants.

The confrontation between the city and the nation's third-largest Scouts chapter has been building for four years, with each side blaming the other for backing out of previous agreements and for escalating tensions.
The local branch, which operates as the Cradle of Liberty Council, tried to skirt the bylaw in 2004 by issuing a four-line statement, which concluded: "Prejudice, intolerance and unlawful discrimination in any form are unacceptable within the ranks of Cradle of Liberty Council."

The statement satisfied the city until gay rights groups worried that "unlawful discrimination" gave the chapter cover to continue the anti-homosexual hiring practices of the Boy Scouts of America.

"We thought it meant unlawful under the city code," Diaz said. "But when community folks started to complain, we asked for a clarification and got no response."

The Supreme Court ruled seven years ago that the national Boy Scouts, as a private organization, had the right to exclude homosexuals from its ranks. The Boy Scouts also prohibit atheists and agnostics from employment on the grounds that such beliefs are inconsistent with the values of the country's largest youth organization. Two years ago, Congress passed the Support Our Scouts Act to protect chapters from local government attempts to strip them of access to public facilities in response to the anti-homosexual policy.

Jeff Jubelirer, a spokesman for Cradle of Liberty, said the chapter, hoping to save its historic headquarters, had sought to renounce an affiliation with the national policy when the dispute with the city arose in 2003.

"We were trying to be amenable to all sides, but National would not allow us to keep that language, so we rescinded it. We can't have a policy where we put in specific words that National won't allow or we'll loose our charter. We can't afford not to be part of the national Boy Scouts," he said.

Jubelirer said Cradle of Liberty has not received any complaints from an individual claiming discrimination. While the national application for scout leaders clearly states that employment is not open to homosexuals, Jubelirer suggested the local chapter has been operating under a "don't ask, don't tell" policy for other employees.

"It's not something that is asked" of applicants, he said. "But if someone were to come forward with something regarding sexual orientation, political beliefs, atheism or communism, that would be a problem."
Cradle of Liberty says it serves more than 64,000 youths, mostly from the inner city, and that, as a result, its programming is centered more on mentoring and after-school programs instead of suburban camping trips. But it also hosts the oldest scouting event in the country, a three-day annual encampment at Valley Forge. Each year, thousands of troops gather to commemorate the harsh winter that George Washington spent there with Continental army soldiers.

Jubelirer said the council board has not decided how it will respond on Dec. 3 and is weig-hing its options, including a legal fight. What it would like is another compromise, and Jubelirer said it is hoping the city's next Democratic mayor, Michael Nutter, will be more amenable to a deal after his January swearing-in.
But Diaz said he had the support of Nutter and the city council, which voted in May to evict the Scouts if they did not change the policy.
"If I do not receive an executed lease, signed by the Boy Scouts, to remain as tenants paying a fair market rent, we will begin looking for alternative tenants that can take over the property June 1, 2008," Diaz said.

**Tock** · 11-19-2007, 10:32 PM

Sounds like a fair deal to me.

If it was some other charity that wouldn't let Jehovah Witnesses or Catholics or Mormons or Atheists join (oops, the Boy Scouts won't let Atheists join), why should the city bother to give them free rent?

If the Boy Scouts decide to continue its anti-gay and anti-unbeleiver policy, I'm sure that some other service provider will come along to take their place. It's not like Philidelphia is running low on charities and charity administrators, especially ones that get to operate with cheap rent.

**juicejunkie2** · 11-20-2007, 02:11 AM

I agree Tock. This should be interesting. The Boy Scouts have no choice to either pay up or move since renouncing the ban on Gays isn't going to happen. With that said .. I'm sure an organization like the Boy Scouts can come up with the 200K to cover the cost of rent yearly don't you think?

RA · 11-20-2007, 07:40 AM

Renounce it...shit. Just another example of a wonderful and charitable institution being brought down by a few complainers.

**Lexed** · 11-20-2007, 09:29 AM

there are so many gay ppl philadelphia this wont last long. I dont mean this in a bad way its just that ive got used to seeing 2 guys walking down the street holding hands. So a matter of time before they protest

**DSM4Life** · 11-20-2007, 11:22 AM

Originally Posted by Lexed

there are so many gay ppl philadelphia this wont last long. I dont mean this in a bad way its just that ive got used to seeing 2 guys walking down the street holding hands. So a matter of time before they protest

I know, i live in phila.

**Lexed** · 11-20-2007, 11:29 AM

really DSM?

**DSM4Life** · 11-20-2007, 12:03 PM

Yes. I lived in phila all my life.

**Lexed** · 11-20-2007, 12:10 PM

same here im in philly for the week with family for thanksgiving then back to state college... I think I saw you before at Club Shampoo

**DSM4Life** · 11-20-2007, 12:16 PM

Originally Posted by Lexed

same here im in philly for the week with family for thanksgiving then back to state college... I think I saw you before at Club Shampoo

Never been to shampoo never want to (hear bad stuff about it). Now if you want to see me go to bars like 12th air and occasionally Woodys

**gixxerboy1** · 11-20-2007, 12:42 PM

Originally Posted by DSM4Life

Never been to shampoo never want to (hear bad stuff about it). Now if you want to see me go to bars like 12th air and occasionally Woodys

lol @ woody's havent heard that name in a while.

**DSM4Life** · 11-20-2007, 01:11 PM

Originally Posted by gixxerboy1

lol @ woody's havent heard that name in a while.

Its not the best place to go but a lot of people know of that place mostly because of the catchy name. Most peoples first gay bar experience happens at that bar.

I just go for the young meat ! haha (j/k.....i think)

**gixxerboy1** · 11-20-2007, 02:42 PM

Originally Posted by DSM4Life

Its not the best place to go but a lot of people know of that place mostly because of the catchy name. Most peoples first gay bar experience happens at that bar.

I just go for the young meat ! haha (j/k.....i think)

When i'm poor i go there to get free drinks.

**Lexed** · 11-20-2007, 03:26 PM

lol....

**Teabagger** · 11-20-2007, 05:39 PM

I hope the Scouts tell the city to shove the building up their collective asses. Let Philly rent it out NAMBLA for all I care. Got a problem with it?? Damn right I do. Just as I would be against a hetro male applying to work as a GIRL SCOUT LEADER, I am against a homo male working with Boy Scouts. My issue is protecting the kids..not some PC agenda run by losers and pervs.

**AandF6969** · 11-20-2007, 08:26 PM

Theres just something about a bunch of dudes camping out in the woods, sleeping in tents with each other... I'd want to make damn sure no one had any alterior motives. Good example about the girl scouts from Teabagger... I don't want some dude whos going to try to fukk my son taking a bunch of boys on a camping trip. Its not about intolerance, its about protecting your kids and making sure they don't get their wieners fondled and buttholes widened.

**DSM4Life** · 11-20-2007, 09:05 PM

Originally Posted by gixxerboy1

When i'm poor i go there to get free drinks.

My brother has done that , haha

**Roidal** · 11-21-2007, 12:38 AM

Originally Posted by gixxerboy1

When i'm poor i go there to get free drinks.

I don't see a problem with that.

**thegodfather** · 11-21-2007, 02:22 AM

Originally Posted by Teabagger

I hope the Scouts tell the city to shove the building up their collective asses. Let Philly rent it out NAMBLA for all I care. Got a problem with it?? Damn right I do. Just as I would be against a hetro male applying to work as a GIRL SCOUT LEADER, I am against a homo male working with Boy Scouts. My issue is protecting the kids..not some PC agenda run by losers and pervs.

Thats a pretty flawed logic. To classify a homosexual as a peadophile just because they happen to like the same sex, does NOT mean that they are attracted to young children.

Spare me the rhetoric on "protecting the children," thats the main reason being given for just about every injustice that the American people are undergoing right now, that and "terrorism." Rememeber, that the beaurocrats in Washington are using the "protect the children" bullshit, to fight their war against performance enhancing drugs that we hold dear. Remember that...

**scriptfactory** · 11-21-2007, 05:44 AM

Originally Posted by thegodfather

Thats a pretty flawed logic. To classify a homosexual as a peadophile just because they happen to like the same sex, does NOT mean that they are attracted to young children.

Spare me the rhetoric on "protecting the children," thats the main reason being given for just about every injustice that the American people are undergoing right now, that and "terrorism." Rememeber, that the beaurocrats in Washington are using the "protect the children" bullshit, to fight their war against performance enhancing drugs that we hold dear. Remember that...

Thanks for writing that. I didn't have the time...

RA · 11-21-2007, 07:40 AM

Theres nothing wrong with wanting a hetero christian male for a scout leader. That is what I choose for my son and many people, apparently, want the same thing for their sons.

Originally Posted by thegodfather

Thats a pretty flawed logic. To classify a homosexual as a peadophile just because they happen to like the same sex, does NOT mean that they are attracted to young children.

Spare me the rhetoric on "protecting the children," thats the main reason being given for just about every injustice that the American people are undergoing right now, that and "terrorism." Rememeber, that the beaurocrats in Washington are using the "protect the children" bullshit, to fight their war against performance enhancing drugs that we hold dear. Remember that...

**Red Ketchup** · 11-21-2007, 08:29 AM

Originally Posted by roidattack

Theres nothing wrong with wanting a hetero christian male for a scout leader. That is what I choose for my son and many people, apparently, want the same thing for their sons.

Indeed, I understand that and as Scouting is for the kids and NOT for the leaders, I fully support their right to pick and choose adult leaders.

But I also understand that the city has a right not to use taxpayers money to subsidize (with money or "free rent") an organisation that discriminates against a certain group of people.

Remember that the Boy Scouts of America don't just refuse gay leaders, but they also discriminate and "excommunicate" gay youths. That is where I have a problem. A young man of 16 or 17, model Scout for years, pillar of society, well on his way to Eagle Scout who "comes out of the closet" will get a one way ticket out of the BSA.

Red

**Logan13** · 11-21-2007, 01:58 PM

Originally Posted by Red Ketchup

Indeed, I understand that and as Scouting is for the kids and NOT for the leaders, I fully support their right to pick and choose adult leaders.

But I also understand that the city has a right not to use taxpayers money to subsidize (with money or "free rent") an organisation that discriminates against a certain group of people.

Remember that the Boy Scouts of America don't just refuse gay leaders, but they also discriminate and "excommunicate" gay youths. That is where I have a problem. A young man of 16 or 17, model Scout for years, pillar of society, well on his way to Eagle Scout who "comes out of the closet" will get a one way ticket out of the BSA.

Red

indeed....
My issue is with groups that put their alternative agenda above a children's group that has been around since 1907 with 28 million current members from 218 different countries which is responsible for turning out some of the worlds most influential people.

**BgMc31** · 11-21-2007, 07:49 PM

Originally Posted by Logan13

indeed....
My issue is with groups that put their alternative agenda above a children's group that has been around since 1907 with 28 million current members from 218 different countries which is responsible for turning out some of the worlds most influential people.

So that's justification for supporting with tax payer dollars an organization that openly discriminates against members of society? There are a number of organizations with discriminatory doctrine throughout history that have turned out a number of influential people but that doesn't mean we should support them.

Check out the number of "influential" Klan members, logan:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Notable...ional_politics

**Logan13** · 11-21-2007, 08:01 PM

Originally Posted by BgMc31

So that's justification for supporting with tax payer dollars an organization that openly discriminates against members of society? There are a number of organizations with discriminatory doctrine throughout history that have turned out a number of influential people but that doesn't mean we should support them.

Check out the number of "influential" Klan members, logan:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Notable...ional_politics

yes, let's add credibility to your arguement by contrasting the Klan and the Boy Scouts.........come on.

**BgMc31** · 11-21-2007, 08:35 PM

Originally Posted by Logan13

yes, let's add credibility to your arguement by contrasting the Klan and the Boy Scouts.........come on.

Typical logan response, use sarcasm to avoid answering the question

. Discrimination is discrimination. You still have no answer for the question as to why should we support an organization with public funds that discriminates against members of our society. I have no problem with these organizations existing but no matter how many influential people they produce, we shouldn't have to support those organizations with our tax dollars.

**Logan13** · 11-21-2007, 09:22 PM

Originally Posted by BgMc31

Typical logan response, use sarcasm to avoid answering the question

. Discrimination is discrimination. You still have no answer for the question as to why should we support an organization with public funds that discriminates against members of our society. I have no problem with these organizations existing but no matter how many influential people they produce, we shouldn't have to support those organizations with our tax dollars.

a typical Logan response to a typical irrational Bg arguement..........

BTW, I should not have to support mentally ill people who wish to have sex changes with my tax dollars either. Tax dollars should not be used to help finance public high schools created for "lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and questioning youths" (Harvey Milk High School). Yet I do not hear you bitching about that?
Hypocrisy:
1. an expression of agreement that is not supported by real conviction
2. insincerity by virtue of pretending to have qualities or beliefs that you do not really have

-Logan13

**BgMc31** · 11-21-2007, 09:33 PM

Originally Posted by Logan13

a typical Logan response to a typical irrational Bg arguement..........

BTW, I should not have to support mentally ill people who wish to have sex changes with my tax dollars either. Tax dollars should not be used to help finance public high schools created for "lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and questioning youths" (Harvey Milk High School). Yet I do not hear you bitching about that?
Hypocrisy:
1. an expression of agreement that is not supported by real conviction
2. insincerity by virtue of pretending to have qualities or beliefs that you do not really have

-Logan13

I'm not bitching about that because it's a school not pushing anyone's agenda. This particular school doesn't disallow straight kids or any religion. It's just a school that is open to people of alternative lifestyles. Face the fact Logan, alternative lifestyles aren't going anywhere and they have been a part of society since the dawn of man. I'm not a hypocrite and name calling shows your continued lack of ability to have a enlightening debate and you're ability to use dictionary.com doesn't cover up your continued support of continued discrimination against those who don't agree with your particular brand of morality.

Again, you still haven't answered the question.

**thegodfather** · 11-22-2007, 06:36 AM

Originally Posted by BgMc31

I'm not bitching about that because it's a school not pushing anyone's agenda. This particular school doesn't disallow straight kids or any religion. It's just a school that is open to people of alternative lifestyles. Face the fact Logan, alternative lifestyles aren't going anywhere and they have been a part of society since the dawn of man. I'm not a hypocrite and name calling shows your continued lack of ability to have a enlightening debate and you're ability to use dictionary.com doesn't cover up your continued support of continued discrimination against those who don't agree with your particular brand of morality.

Again, you still haven't answered the question.

They are certainly entitled to their alternative lifestyles. It does not change the fact that our tax dollars should not PAY for these people to live their "alternative lifestyles" all cozy and happy. If you are not in step with the norm in society, ok that is your choice, but do not ask me and every other tax payer to foot the bill because you are different and you want to feel better about it.

There is a public school system in place, and we pay for that with our tax dollars, if you do not feel comfortable there for ANY reason, be it the education being delivered, your 'lifestyle', then fine, you have every right to LEAVE and goto another school and PAY a tuition for that education. But do not, say that the system provided for you is not good enough, and then ask tax payers to shell out money again because what they provided for you to begin with was not good enough.

About the Boy Scouts issue. I feel that any private organization, has every right to discriminate against anyone for any type of reason that they deem important to them. They have that RIGHT, it is their organization, if they only want to employ people with blue hair, then cool they have that right. If they hate white people, and dont want to hire anyone white, they have that right. I think some people have it twisted and think that "Equal Opportunity Employment"(Which is reverse racism in the first place) protects them in private businesses. The truth is, only a handful of employment is covered under 'equal opportunity' employment, most of which are government jobs, or corporations where government money is involved.

So, while I agree with that Boy Scouts right to follow the doctrine they follow, I cannot agree with the taxpayers subsidizing the organization. I believe that it interferes with the fact that government organizations only sponsor companys which are equal opportunity employers, those that treat all people as "Equals", a fundamental ideal this country was founded on. So, I disagree with this on principal, but feel that the Boy Scouts are completely justified in their position.

Whoever attacked me for pointing out that being gay, and being a peadophile are completely different, is an idiot. It also consequently really had little to do with this entire topic.

**BgMc31** · 11-22-2007, 04:53 PM

Originally Posted by thegodfather

They are certainly entitled to their alternative lifestyles. It does not change the fact that our tax dollars should not PAY for these people to live their "alternative lifestyles" all cozy and happy. If you are not in step with the norm in society, ok that is your choice, but do not ask me and every other tax payer to foot the bill because you are different and you want to feel better about it.

There is a public school system in place, and we pay for that with our tax dollars, if you do not feel comfortable there for ANY reason, be it the education being delivered, your 'lifestyle', then fine, you have every right to LEAVE and goto another school and PAY a tuition for that education. But do not, say that the system provided for you is not good enough, and then ask tax payers to shell out money again because what they provided for you to begin with was not good enough.

About the Boy Scouts issue. I feel that any private organization, has every right to discriminate against anyone for any type of reason that they deem important to them. They have that RIGHT, it is their organization, if they only want to employ people with blue hair, then cool they have that right. If they hate white people, and dont want to hire anyone white, they have that right. I think some people have it twisted and think that "Equal Opportunity Employment"(Which is reverse racism in the first place) protects them in private businesses. The truth is, only a handful of employment is covered under 'equal opportunity' employment, most of which are government jobs, or corporations where government money is involved.

So, while I agree with that Boy Scouts right to follow the doctrine they follow, I cannot agree with the taxpayers subsidizing the organization. I believe that it interferes with the fact that government organizations only sponsor companys which are equal opportunity employers, those that treat all people as "Equals", a fundamental ideal this country was founded on. So, I disagree with this on principal, but feel that the Boy Scouts are completely justified in their position.

Whoever attacked me for pointing out that being gay, and being a peadophile are completely different, is an idiot. It also consequently really had little to do with this entire topic.

We seem to agree with the Boy Scout issue. What I was referring to in the Alternative Lifestyle school was the fact that although they cater to those of that lifestyle, it's still open to everyone therefore entitling them to public funds. Whether I agree with their lifestyle choice doesn't mean a damned thing. The boy scouts openly discriminate against people, therefore they shouldn't be allowed to have access to the money (taxes) those people pay year in and year out.

I don't understand your comment about Equal Opportunity Employment being reverse discrimination, but that is a topic for another debate.

**Logan13** · 11-25-2007, 10:29 AM

Originally Posted by BgMc31

We seem to agree with the Boy Scout issue. What I was referring to in the Alternative Lifestyle school was the fact that although they cater to those of that lifestyle, it's still open to everyone therefore entitling them to public funds. Whether I agree with their lifestyle choice doesn't mean a damned thing. The boy scouts openly discriminate against people, therefore they shouldn't be allowed to have access to the money (taxes) those people pay year in and year out.

I don't understand your comment about Equal Opportunity Employment being reverse discrimination, but that is a topic for another debate.

All public schools are open to anyone, no need to create some alternative universe school just for them. If these kids are that screwed up, get them the psychological help that they need.

**scriptfactory** · 11-25-2007, 12:41 PM

Originally Posted by Logan13

All public schools are open to anyone, no need to create some alternative universe school just for them. If these kids are that screwed up, get them the psychological help that they need.

I agree, Logan. We should just cure them of the "gay."

**DSM4Life** · 11-25-2007, 02:01 PM

Choose wisely neo:

Gay _______________________________________________str aight

**alphaman** · 11-25-2007, 04:06 PM

I agree with Red (taxpayers don't have to support them), BUT the question still stands:

Are there any fathers of teenage daughters here who would feel comfortable with a hetero male Girl Scout leader takng their daughter and many other young girls into the woods on a camping trip?

You heard ol DSm here talking about the young meat...

**Logan13** · 11-25-2007, 08:49 PM

Originally Posted by scriptfactory

I agree, Logan. We should just cure them of the "gay."

I was referring to the one's that want to change their anatomy, as this is a LBGT school. Had you read more thoroughly, you might have saved both of us the time of posting.....

**scriptfactory** · 11-25-2007, 10:42 PM

Originally Posted by Logan13

I was referring to the one's that want to change their anatomy, as this is a LBGT school. Had you read more thoroughly, you might have saved both of us the time of posting.....

Oh, sorry. Your post confused me. Maybe it was the part that complained about the school... and I quote:

I should not have to support mentally ill people who wish to have sex changes with my tax dollars either. Tax dollars should not be used to help finance public high schools created for "lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and questioning youths" (Harvey Milk High School). Yet I do not hear you bitching about that?

...no need to create some alternative universe school just for them. If these kids are that screwed up, get them the psychological help that they need.

I thought "these kids" was referring to the students of Harvey Milk High School, not the "mentally ill" people that want to have sex changes... Oh' wait. You WERE talking about the students!

Maybe you should have saved us all some time and just wrote something like "GAYS BAD. GAY SCHOOL BAD. TAXPAYERS SHOULDN'T PAY. BOY SCOUTS NOT GAY. BOY SCOUTS GOOD. TAXPAYERS SHOULD SUPPORT."

**Carlos_E** · 11-25-2007, 11:17 PM

Originally Posted by scriptfactory

"GAYS BAD. GAY SCHOOL BAD. TAXPAYERS SHOULDN'T PAY. BOY SCOUTS NOT GAY. BOY SCOUTS GOOD. TAXPAYERS SHOULD SUPPORT."

**Logan13** · 11-26-2007, 12:40 AM

Originally Posted by scriptfactory

Oh, sorry. Your post confused me. Maybe it was the part that complained about the school... and I quote:

I should not have to support mentally ill people who wish to have sex changes with my tax dollars either. Tax dollars should not be used to help finance public high schools created for "lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and questioning youths" (Harvey Milk High School). Yet I do not hear you bitching about that?

...no need to create some alternative universe school just for them. If these kids are that screwed up, get them the psychological help that they need.

I thought "these kids" was referring to the students of Harvey Milk High School, not the "mentally ill" people that want to have sex changes... Oh' wait. You WERE talking about the students!

Maybe you should have saved us all some time and just wrote something like "GAYS BAD. GAY SCHOOL BAD. TAXPAYERS SHOULDN'T PAY. BOY SCOUTS NOT GAY. BOY SCOUTS GOOD. TAXPAYERS SHOULD SUPPORT."

In BOLD you have made my point for me.........

thanx

**scriptfactory** · 11-26-2007, 03:36 AM

Originally Posted by Logan13

In BOLD you have made my point for me.........

thanx

If the only students at this schools were transgender kids with mental problems then you would have a point. You don't so your point is moot.

Good day, sir.

**Teabagger** · 11-26-2007, 09:47 AM

Originally Posted by scriptfactory

Oh, sorry. Your post confused me. Maybe it was the part that complained about the school... and I quote:

I should not have to support mentally ill people who wish to have sex changes with my tax dollars either. Tax dollars should not be used to help finance public high schools created for "lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and questioning youths" (Harvey Milk High School). Yet I do not hear you bitching about that?

...no need to create some alternative universe school just for them. If these kids are that screwed up, get them the psychological help that they need.

I thought "these kids" was referring to the students of Harvey Milk High School, not the "mentally ill" people that want to have sex changes... Oh' wait. You WERE talking about the students!

Maybe you should have saved us all some time and just wrote something like "GAYS BAD. GAY SCHOOL BAD. TAXPAYERS SHOULDN'T PAY. BOY SCOUTS NOT GAY. BOY SCOUTS GOOD. TAXPAYERS SHOULD SUPPORT."

Well now that you put it that way....ok....I agree with the above statement.