Great news for Teo and Ghandi.

http://tinyurl.com/74hy8k5

Let the gay people have their own scout program.
Maybe they could call it the rainbow scouts or the light in the loafer brigade.

But they should not be around normal children.

http://blog.seattlepi.com/seattle911/2012/06/22/it-gets-better-seattle-cops-come-out-for-pride/


The Seattle PD is pro LGBT, wanna get frisked in Seattle?

ghandi wrote:Let the gay people have their own scout program.
Maybe they could call it the rainbow scouts or the light in the loafer brigade.

But they should not be around normal children.

Well, how about retarded children? Should they be around them? You really are a very ignorant person,to say the least.

So your saying gays are the same as retards? And I thought I was mean.

Dreamsglore wrote:

ghandi wrote:Let the gay people have their own scout program.
Maybe they could call it the rainbow scouts or the light in the loafer brigade.

But they should not be around normal children.

Well, how about retarded children? Should they be around them? You really are a very ignorant person,to say the least.

A private organization should be able to control its membership. If there was a private gay boy scout group, they should have the right to determine their members. Any private organization should not be told who they can let into their organization. That goes for men's groups, women's groups, straight groups, gay groups, black organizations, white organizations, hispanic organizations, any private group of people that gets together and forms a membership. As long as they're private, they are not breaking the law, and aren't getting government funding ...... they should be left alone by the government.

Nekochan wrote:A private organization should be able to control its membership.

Should a country club be able to exclude black people?

Should a black church be able to refuse to let white people in?

Or does that apply only to "abnormal" people like queers?

Bob, if they are a private organization, with no government funding--yes, absolutely ---they should be able to determine their own membership. Now, if they are a business, open to the public, then that is another issue. Like in the case of restaurants, hotels, etc....they open themselves up to the public and different laws apply (and different laws should apply). But purely private groups should not be told who they must have as members.

I guess that is the libertarian in me. I know that there are legitimate concerns that people can throw up on this issue but the bottom line for me is that a private group of people has the right to meet together without government interference.

NO, it doesn't apply to just gays. ALL private organizations should be treated the same.

Dreams, Ghandi isn't ignorant. He's being flippant as usual.

Bob, like Neko says, it's about the money. Since the Boy Scouts discriminate about gays, they cannot get money from organizations like the United Way anymore.

Nekochan wrote:Bob, if they are a private organization, with no government funding--yes, absolutely ---they should be able to determine their own membership. Now, if they are a business, open to the public, then that is another issue. Like in the case of restaurants, hotels, etc....they open themselves up to the public and different laws apply (and different laws should apply). But purely private groups should not be told who they must have as members.

I guess that is the libertarian in me. I know that there are legitimate concerns that people can throw up on this issue but the bottom line for me is that a private group of people has the right to meet together without government interference.

NO, it doesn't apply to just gays. ALL private organizations should be treated the same.

Libertarians extend that idea to business as well. Example: libertarians believe that business should be able to have a sign that reads "No Blacks" and refuse to serve black people. In fact, they would repeal the civil rights act all together. Just wanted to clarify.

If the boy scouts get government funding, then everything changes....

Boards, I am sure some libertarians think that about businesses, but I do not agree. If you open yourself up to the public, then there should be no discrimination as to race, religion, gender, sexual orientation. A restaurant or private business should have the right to refuse service to people for a reason (dress code, behavior, etc) as long as every patron is treated the same.

Nekochan wrote:Bob, if they are a private organization, with no government funding--yes, absolutely ---they should be able to determine their own membership. Now, if they are a business, open to the public, then that is another issue. Like in the case of restaurants, hotels, etc....they open themselves up to the public and different laws apply (and different laws should apply). But purely private groups should not be told who they must have as members.

I guess that is the libertarian in me. I know that there are legitimate concerns that people can throw up on this issue but the bottom line for me is that a private group of people has the right to meet together without government interference.

NO, it doesn't apply to just gays. ALL private organizations should be treated the same.

There was a time in this country when the Boy Scouts didn't allow black kids. And there were millions of ghandis who were all for that at the time.
If the Boy Scouts didn't receive government funding at the time, then is it your position that the government had no business telling the Boy Scouts they had to start including black kids?

If libertarians had been in power at the time, it sounds to me like we would never have adopted the First Amendment.

Yes, Bob. That is my position. Black private groups shouldn't be forced to allow white members either. Do you think that if you go to a black church and tell them that you want to be a member, that they should be forced to allow you to be a member?
If you formed a private club, would you want the government telling you who you had to allow to be a member? Think about it for a moment.

I think that low income people should have to drink from separate water fountains than the rest of us.

ButtMan wrote:If libertarians had been in power at the time, it sounds to me like we would never have adopted the First Amendment.

Well, I don't know about that. I don't think this is about the 1st Amendment.

ghandi wrote:I think that low income people should have to drink from separate water fountains than the rest of us.

What would you make the cutoff point be to define "low income"?

I'm thinking $25,000 of taxable income.

ButtMan wrote:

ghandi wrote:I think that low income people should have to drink from separate water fountains than the rest of us.

What would you make the cutoff point be to define "low income"?

Nekochan wrote:

ButtMan wrote:If libertarians had been in power at the time, it sounds to me like we would never have adopted the First Amendment.

Well, I don't know about that. I don't think this is about the 1st Amendment.

I think you're right. The 1st Amendment wouldn't really apply. More like the Civil Rights Act.

A few years ago I was helping with a Junior Golf tournament at the Wynlakes country club in Montgomery Ala. 2 of our group were women, the wife's of very well known local doctors. When we broke for lunch, they were refused service at the "Mens Grill". Because it was for men only. I thought Damn we sure have not come very far when the high rollers and leaders still refuse women equal rights. But it was a private club and they could do what they wanted to. I thought that stuff when out of vogue in the 60s.

The Civil Rights Act doesn't affect private membership organizations. It applies to businesses that are open to the public (restaurants, hotels, etc) but not to private groups.

ghandi wrote:I'm thinking $25,000 of taxable income.

ButtMan wrote:

ghandi wrote:I think that low income people should have to drink from separate water fountains than the rest of us.

What would you make the cutoff point be to define "low income"?

Well that would pretty well cover all the fast food workers. So if you don't want them drinking from the same fountain as you, what about when you go to McDonalds and buy a cup of coffee? Aren't you afraid the low income people who are making that coffee might transfer some low income cooties on it? And if you've got low income cooties on you, should normal people shake your hand?

hallmarkgrad wrote:A few years ago I was helping with a Junior Golf tournament at the Wynlakes country club in Montgomery Ala. 2 of our group were women, the wife's of very well known local doctors. When we broke for lunch, they were refused service at the "Mens Grill". Because it was for men only. I thought Damn we sure have not come very far when the high rollers and leaders still refuse women equal rights. But it was a private club and they could do what they wanted to. I thought that stuff when out of vogue in the 60s.

That is an excellent point but this is not about women's rights. If there is a women's group that forms a membership organization for women do you think that they should be forced to allow men as members?