The Boy Scouts of America recently affirmed that the organization will continuing banning gay scouts and staff, which includes the ousting of a lesbian den mother. In 2000, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the organization could ban gays whose conduct, the Boy Scouts argued, violated its values.
In other news, the president of Chick-Fil-A, the fast food chain which has reportedly donated millions to anti-gay organizations, stated that the company supports “the biblical definition of the family unit.”
On a much smaller scale, the Advocate reported that a Denver cake shop refused to make a gay couple’s wedding cake.
An iconic national youth organization, a major U.S. corporation, and a local small business each expressed their opposition to gay legal equality. The solution remains the same: to publicize and respond to their positions so that Americans can make informed choices. In the case of the scouts, this has meant keeping sons out of the group. As Rabbi Paul Menitoff wrote in 2000:
our response to the exclusionary policy of the Boy Scouts of America must be unequivocal; we must condemn it publicly, resign from the organization, refuse to sponsor or house Cub Scout or Boy Scout groups in our congregations, and ask groups (e.g. the United Way) that contribute to the Boy Scouts financially to withdraw their support. To do less is to condone discrimination and to contribute to an environment in our country that is already far too accepting of prejudice and violence against gays and lesbians.
Anti-gay groups are also free to voice their views and promote boycotts of businesses that support legal equality, as the American Family Association does. In time, however, the light will expand as darkness recedes, and ignorance, prejudice and discrimination give way as they become unacceptable.
More. The Boy Scout’s ability to deny gay members and staff was famously upheld by the Supreme Court, and no one doubts that Chick-Fil-A can give money to anti-gay groups. Regarding the Denver bakery, the owners say they serve everyone gay or straight, but they won’t make anyone a same-sex wedding cake. Whether this is disingenuous or not, I believe they have the right to produce the products they wish to produce. Others disagree. The comments to the Advocate article reflect two viewpoints, statist and libertarian: “It appears that Denver has a Human Rights Ordinance that bans anti-gay discrimination…. File a complaint with the city” vs. “They have the right not to make the cake. But we have the right to spread the word, and boycott the business.” Liberty is best served by the latter approach.
6 Comments for “Legal Doesn’t Mean Acceptable”
posted by TomJeffersonIII on
1. Interestingly enough, the Minneapolis Scouts are officially-unofficially going to have a more inclusive policy. Got press in the Star Tribune.
2. The Boy Scouts of America is a voluntary, private club that is not providing essential services and their are many clubs out their that do not discriminate. Yes, much of what it (BSOA) teaches (i.e. be prepared) is actually quite sound, but not their policy on gay Scouts/Scoutmasters.
3. Yes, if the small business owner really does not want to make a same-sex wedding cake, that is their own affair provided that a few facts apply; its a small, private business, gay couples are not being forced to subsidize it, they do not wait to the last minute to suddenly protest (as a photographer did) and their are other options.
Frankly, I am not a wee bit more worried about the poor and working class gay employees who have to work at the Southern fast food chain, rather then the chain’s political views. Mainly because its right-wing views are pretty well known (much like some pizza store chains).
posted by Mark on
“Liberty is best serve by the latter approach.”
I agree–provided, of course, this liberty is across the board: that a gay-owned business would have the right to refuse to sell a cake to a fundamentalist couple, or a white-owned business would have the right to refuse to sell a cake to a black couple.
If, on the other hand, the only businesses granted a special right to discriminate are those owned by anti-gay Christians, that would seem problematic.
posted by JohnInCA on
“The law, in it’s infinite wisdom, prohibits both the rich and the poor from sleeping under bridges.”
Or, to put it in a less obscure way… quite frankly there aren’t enough gay-owned businesses for straight people to worry about being shunned because they’re straight. It’s just not gonna be a concern. Gay people, on the other hand? Legitimate concern.
So because of the gross imbalance of effect, I’m not convinced this is really a case where the golden rule applies very well.
posted by Shadow Chaser on
About 25 or 30 years ago, ROLLING STONE magazine did a story about the opposition of gays in the Scouting. One Scouting leader said that it wasn’t the Scoutmasters or the Scout themselves that were opposed to gay Scouts or Scoutmasters or Den Mothers. He said that it was the organizations that sponsored the various Scout troops and dens that were opposed to gays in Scouting. At the time, the three largest sponsors of Scouting were the United Methodist Church, the Roman Catholic Church and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (aka The Mormons).
The article went on to say that all Mormon males, ages 7 to 17 were all technically enrolled in the Boy Scouts.
Back when I was a Cub Scout (back in the days of the Johnson administration) the Boy Scouts were headquartered in New Jersey. Last I heard, the organization was headquartered in the suburbs of Dallas
posted by Craig Howell on
So Lester Maddox was right and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 should be repealed? (Full disclosure: That’s how I felt at the time, as a Goldwater Republican/Libertarian/Objectivist. But I grew up.)
posted by David Atchley on
I turned my Eagle in back in 2008 after being told the Cub Pack I ran couldn’t have our own non-discriminatory policy and because I was an atheist. I had a long background in Scouting as a youth and adult and as a father of five children. But at that point, upon being told I wasn’t the kind of leader the BSA wanted and to find somewhere else, I did.
I’m now the Commissioner for the Baden-Powell Service Association (http://bpsa-us.org) which is a traditional (back-to-basics) scouting program that is open, inclusive and coed. We feel that Scouting should be available to EVERYONE!
If you support our mission and want to help us grow and provide a program, please check out our web site and contribute to our Indiegogo campaign (http://www.indiegogo.com/bp-service-association?c=home&a=545210).
The BSA isn’t going to change anytime soon, based on any pressure. But for families, parents, individuals that want to do Scouting but are told by the BSA they don’t measure up or aren’t good enough – there needs to be another Scouting option. Help us make sure everyone has a choice and the ability to participate in Scouting.