us Boy Scouts of America keeps gay ban

[Memphis]

Strawman argument. I never claimed any such thing.

It's not a "perceived" infringement of their rights. This was a public announcement of a deliberate policy choice made by a major national institution in which it openly refused to let gay people join.

Gays have been shunned from society, murdered en masse, chemically castrated and openly attacked. Just because they weren't enslaved does not mean that there are very obvious similarities to their treatment.

There is no evidence to support that assertion. There is considerable evidence that homosexuality may be genetic - not least because animals exhibit the same behaviour and do not have the same societal constructs as humans - but it has not been definitively proved one way or another. Regardless, your point has no relevance to the comment that I made.

Some of the ignorance displayed in this topic is truly astounding.

But you are saying that the black men you would ask would be wrong in saying theirs no comparison and that youde be right and yet you contradict yourself and claim that you never said that. I will give you that you didn't say it directly, but it was inferred given that the only way for you to be right about black civil rights, would be for the theoretical black man asked to be wrongl.

[Noir Angel]

Come to the US and randomly ask black people on the street if their is a comparison and check back here with your results. They might surprise you.

Go to Saudi Arabia and ask a random person on the street how they feel about Americans. The answer will be just as angry, and just as worthless. Bigotry is bigotry, it doesn't matter what the rationalisation you make is.

[Memphis]

Go to Saudi Arabia and ask a random person on the street how they feel about Americans. The answer will be just as angry, and just as worthless. Bigotry is bigotry, it doesn't matter what the rationalisation you make is.

Funny, I know many people from Saudi Arabia, they like America and travel back and forth allot, now Iranians on the other hand... Also, I think a middle aged black man from the south has a bit more of an authority on if homosexuals not being allowed in boy scouts is anywhere similar to what his parents went through under jim crow laws during the civil rights movement.

[Noir Angel]

Funny, I know many people from Saudi Arabia, they like America and travel back and forth allot, now Iranians on the other hand... Also, I think a middle aged black man from the south has a bit more of an authority on if homosexuals not being allowed in boy scouts is anywhere similar to what his parents went through under jim crow laws during the civil rights movement.

Oh so you're arguing that it's OK to be a bigoted piece of trash, as long as you don't enslave someone in the process?

It's not relevant. Bigotry and oppression is bigotry and oppression.

[Memphis]

Oh so you're arguing that it's OK to be a bigoted piece of trash, as long as you don't enslave someone in the process?

It's not relevant. Bigotry and oppression is bigotry and oppression.

So black people who might even support gay rights, but detest the comparison to the civil rights movements are "bigoted pieces of trash"? Wow, that's one of the most terrible things I have heard someone say this week. I am arguing for freedom of association which is a fundamental right of humans are private clubs and organizations. Again, does it outrage you that hooters does not hire males?

[Noir Angel]

So black people who might even support gay rights, but detest the comparison to the civil rights movements are "bigoted pieces of trash"? Wow, that's one of the most terrible things I have heard someone say this week. I am arguing for freedom of association which is a fundamental right of humans are private clubs and organizations. Again, does it outrage you that hooters does not hire males?

No, I'm saying that people who are homophobic are bigoted pieces of trash. And I don't care what Hooters do because they don't receive public funding. Organisations that receive public funding shouldn't be allowed to discriminate.

[Memphis]

No, I'm saying that people who are homophobic are bigoted pieces of trash. And I don't care what Hooters do because they don't receive public funding. Organisations that receive public funding shouldn't be allowed to discriminate.

Now here is the one thing I can agree with you on, the boy scouts should not receive public funding, no PRIVATE ORGANIZATION should period. That includes planned parenthood Boy Scouts, etc. As for hooters, They are a very large restaurant chain in the US which completely discriminates against male staff and yet somehow they get away with it. Tell me this at least, do you think Hooters is bigoted?

[Noir Angel]

Now here is the one thing I can agree with you on, the boy scouts should not receive public funding, no PRIVATE ORGANIZATION should period. That includes planned parenthood Boy Scouts, etc. As for hooters, They are a very large restaurant chain in the US which completely discriminates against male staff and yet somehow they get away with it. Tell me this at least, do you think Hooters is bigoted?

No, I don't think Hooters are bigoted. They provide a certain type of service and tailor the staff they hire towards that service. If hooters were a normal restaurant I'd argue that they should hire whoever is best for the position, but let's face it they aren't a normal restaurant.

[Memphis]

No, I don't think Hooters are bigoted. They provide a certain type of service and tailor the staff they hire towards that service. If hooters were a normal restaurant I'd argue that they should hire whoever is best for the position, but let's face it they aren't a normal restaurant.

So what if I open a restaurant called "The Good old Days" and hire only white blue eyed servers with southern accents? Thats fine right? I could even have vintage white only signs in picture frames on the wall. Because I be providing a type of service and tailoring my staff to match right? What I hear is discrimination is fine if it gets me hard.

[nominak]

What I hear is discrimination is fine if it gets me hard.

Why would you be getting hard at hooters? That's kinda gross.

Also no. Because women are allowed to eat at hooters. And men can be managers of hooters. So the point you're trying to make. Is a dumb one. at best.

[Memphis]

Why would you be getting hard at hooters? That's kinda gross.

Also no. Because women are allowed to eat at hooters. And men can be managers of hooters. So the point you're trying to make. Is a dumb one. at best.

So if in my theoretical "good old days waffle house" as long as only the waiters were restricted to being white, blue eyed, and southern accented it would be fine right? I could allow black people to eat their too but like hooters primary customer is maes, I think the majority of my customers would be white. Better yet, what if I made a company and said I hire women, but they cant hold regional leadership positions due to company image, thats fine right because I still hire women.

[Noir Angel]

If people are dumb enough to eat at a racist restaurant, so be it. There's a big difference between discriminating out of bigotry and doing so because the service necessitates it. Businesses discriminate all the time. I don't particularly care about it but when they start receiving public money it becomes a problem.

[Memphis]

If people are dumb enough to eat at a racist restaurant, so be it. There's a big difference between discriminating out of bigotry and doing so because the service necessitates it. Businesses discriminate all the time. I don't particularly care about it but when they start receiving public money it becomes a problem.

So you support private companies discriminating based on race then?

[Noir Angel]

So you support private companies discriminating based on race then?

Are you going out of your way to be irritating? no, I don't support it I just realise your insane "freedom of speech" laws make it impossible to legislate against. The same doesn't apply for state funded things.

[Calum Veteran]

As long as a thread about a gay baseball team doing the same thing doesn't get to 13 pages, I think everyone in here is a hypocrite.

If that thread did exist here and if those who are against the Boy Scouts's policy in this thread weren't against this baseball team's policy in that thread, I'd agree with you. I feel both policies are just as bad as each other. A baseball team that is only for gay or bisexual people only serves to promote the idea that such a divide should exist in society, as far as I can tell.

I think you raise a great point with your mention of Hooters, and I'm curious to see what others say about that when they acknowledge that point.

I'm not sure what to think about that kind of discrimination, at the moment, to be honest. The reason I dislike the Boy Scouts's policy is due to both the reasons why they have the policy and the fact it's based on sexual orientation, rather than gender or another quality. I'm starting to wonder whether there may be a place for some organisations, like Hooters, to discriminate against gender, due to the fact that some people are attracted to just one specific gender. Hooters provide a particular service, just like a strip club. Many strip clubs cater to those who like women only, so it makes sense that they wouldn't hire male strippers. In my opinion, they have a good reason to choose not to hire male strippers, and hooters have a good reason to choose not to hire male waiters. The difference, as far as I can tell, is that the Boy Scouts do not have any good reasons for enforcing this policy. Of course, that is just my opinion, but that is why I am against the policy. If openly gay and bisexual people were allowed to join the Boy Scouts, nothing would have to change in regard to its target audience, how the organisation is run, or the activities the Scouts are involved with; whereas if a strip club that only features female strippers hired a male stripper, some of those things would have to change and it wouldn't be providing the service the founders want it to provide.

Those are just my initial thoughts regarding your excellent point, so they could change as I hear more of your reasoning.

[theyarecomingforyou]

But you are saying that the black men you would ask would be wrong in saying theirs no comparison and that youde be right

No. I did not say that.

I will give you that you didn't say it directly

Which apparently you accept? Okay... :wacko:

but it was inferred given that the only way for you to be right about black civil rights, would be for the theoretical black man asked to be wrongl.

And again, I did not say that - nor did I infer it. What you said doesn't even make any sense. :huh:

Black people used to be openly discriminated against, until they achieved equal rights and social change was achieved. Currently gay people are being openly discriminated against (from marriage to the BSA) and are seeking to achieve equality. There is an obvious similarity between the two.

[tekneek]

They provide a certain type of service and tailor the staff they hire towards that service.

As does the BSA.

Ya know. Hunting, fishing, camping, and outdoor survival.

I'm sure the gay community is just reeling at the fact they are being oppressed from doing those things...

[Noir Angel]

Oh so it's necessary to be a homophobe in order to participate in those activities?

[nominak]

As does the BSA.

Ya know. Hunting, fishing, camping, and outdoor survival.

I'm sure the gay community is just reeling at the fact they are being oppressed from doing those things...

And im sure that thinking all gay people are super flamers that don't want to do such "manly" things as hunt/fish or go camping or survive in the outdoors.

And no, sidroc, having a racist restaurant is not cool. You know this. You're being hard headed and ignorant on purpose. You can have your own restaurant and hire only blonde hair/blue eyed people if you so desire. You aren't stopping people from being hired because of their sexuality.

Now. I hope you're done being 5 years old and can move on.

[Memphis]

If that thread did exist here and if those who are against the Boy Scouts's policy in this thread weren't against this baseball team's policy in that thread, I'd agree with you. I feel both policies are just as bad as each other. A baseball team that is only for gay or bisexual people only serves to promote the idea that such a divide should exist in society, as far as I can tell.

I think you raise a great point with your mention of Hooters, and I'm curious to see what others say about that when they acknowledge that point.

I'm not sure what to think about that kind of discrimination, at the moment, to be honest. The reason I dislike the Boy Scouts's policy is due to both the reasons why they have the policy and the fact it's based on sexual orientation, rather than gender or another quality. I'm starting to wonder whether there may be a place for some organisations, like Hooters, to discriminate against gender, due to the fact that some people are attracted to just one specific gender. Hooters provide a particular service, just like a strip club. Many strip clubs cater to those who like women only, so it makes sense that they wouldn't hire male strippers. In my opinion, they have a good reason to choose not to hire male strippers, and hooters have a good reason to choose not to hire male waiters. The difference, as far as I can tell, is that the Boy Scouts do not have any good reasons for enforcing this policy. Of course, that is just my opinion, but that is why I am against the policy. If openly gay and bisexual people were allowed to join the Boy Scouts, nothing would have to change in regard to its target audience, how the organisation is run, or the activities the Scouts are involved with; whereas if a strip club that only features female strippers hired a male stripper, some of those things would have to change and it wouldn't be providing the service the founders want it to provide.

Those are just my initial thoughts regarding your excellent point, so they could change as I hear more of your reasoning.

As always as much as we differ your the voice of reason on the left. I will respond in depth when I get off work.

[WelshBluebird]

where homosexual is a choice. There is no concrete proof otherwise.

And let me guess, you have proof it is a choice?

Thought not.

Make your own organizations an stop infringing on others. Stop crying like you are oppressed and have the dignity and internal fortitude to press forward with accepting who you are by not infringing on others.

1 - Again you fail to explain why wanting to be able to join the boy scouts is infringing on others

2 - Once again you fail to explain why "separate but equal" is fine here, but not fine in the case of race etc.

[Bryan R.]

There is a huge difference between the oppression of blacks and the discrimination of gays. To say otherwise is just offensive. Do we really have to go over again how the BSA is a private organization? It is blatantly obvious that blacks were oppressed beyond anything we've seen toward gays. The very way they were restricted to living their lives everywhere public and private is the difference. I'll say it again: discrimination is an opinion. I don't have a right to join any club I want. Neither do gays.

[Memphis]

If that thread did exist here and if those who are against the Boy Scouts's policy in this thread weren't against this baseball team's policy in that thread, I'd agree with you. I feel both policies are just as bad as each other. A baseball team that is only for gay or bisexual people only serves to promote the idea that such a divide should exist in society, as far as I can tell.

I think you raise a great point with your mention of Hooters, and I'm curious to see what others say about that when they acknowledge that point.

I'm not sure what to think about that kind of discrimination, at the moment, to be honest. The reason I dislike the Boy Scouts's policy is due to both the reasons why they have the policy and the fact it's based on sexual orientation, rather than gender or another quality. I'm starting to wonder whether there may be a place for some organisations, like Hooters, to discriminate against gender, due to the fact that some people are attracted to just one specific gender. Hooters provide a particular service, just like a strip club. Many strip clubs cater to those who like women only, so it makes sense that they wouldn't hire male strippers. In my opinion, they have a good reason to choose not to hire male strippers, and hooters have a good reason to choose not to hire male waiters. The difference, as far as I can tell, is that the Boy Scouts do not have any good reasons for enforcing this policy. Of course, that is just my opinion, but that is why I am against the policy. If openly gay and bisexual people were allowed to join the Boy Scouts, nothing would have to change in regard to its target audience, how the organisation is run, or the activities the Scouts are involved with; whereas if a strip club that only features female strippers hired a male stripper, some of those things would have to change and it wouldn't be providing the service the founders want it to provide.

Those are just my initial thoughts regarding your excellent point, so they could change as I hear more of your reasoning.

Here is my problem with this. You cannot have a society that says its not ok to discriminate based on gender, sexual orientation etc, and then makes exceptions when it finds it suitable. Let me give an example. Hooters has a primary target audience or theme that they cater to hence why they only hire attractive women to be waiters. The boy scouts feels relatively the same way. They have a target audience and an image of 1950's wholesomeness if you will that they want to project. Whether you agree with their opinion or not, the real question is should people allow private organizations the right to discriminate and build a target audience/theme or should we arbitrarily ban discrimination. If you pick the latter, then we run into the problem of exceptions. Exceptions to discrimination are generally made because their is no current uproar about their plight. For example, nudists rights are marginalized because they have much more of society against public nudity than say homosexuals (who are also marginalized but at least have a large group backing their rights in comparison). We make exceptions as to whats ok to discriminate against and what isn't. If you decide that we should ban discrimination, it becomes entirely useless if we allow exceptions because if the majority rises against the minority you can guess where the next exceptions as to whats ok to discriminate against will go. I am tired, night shift got's me messed up so I will write more later, feel free to respond in the meantime.

[Jaybonaut]

That's the point, you don't even bother to try to back up the denial you made.

You made the claim, and I denied it, where did you backup your claim? I didn't make a claim, I just denied yours.

No, I'm saying that people who are homophobic are bigoted pieces of trash. And I don't care what Hooters do because they don't receive public funding. Organisations that receive public funding shouldn't be allowed to discriminate.

Curious: why is is ok to discriminate against 'homophobic bigoted pieces of trash?'

[Noir Angel]

There is a huge difference between the oppression of blacks and the discrimination of gays. To say otherwise is just offensive. Do we really have to go over again how the BSA is a private organization? It is blatantly obvious that blacks were oppressed beyond anything we've seen toward gays. The very way they were restricted to living their lives everywhere public and private is the difference. I'll say it again: discrimination is an opinion. I don't have a right to join any club I want. Neither do gays.

Total crap, a private organisation isn't private when it's being given public money.

Curious: why is is ok to discriminate against 'homophobic bigoted pieces of trash?'

I don't recall implying that. It's the same as religious belief and everything else, you want to be a bigot do it in your own home, don't try and force the public to buy into your bigotry.