It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
So long as they do not allow homosexual scout masters, shouldn't be a problem.
Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
reply to post by Echo3Foxtrot
Even the Scouts cave to financial terrorism eventually. Over 15 years of relentless, no stop attack and undermining through pressure against everyone the BSA even remotely works with for meetings and basic logistics finally took their toll, I guess.
It did take many many sustained years of it, to be sure....but everyone has their limit and price. Whichever it was the BSA came to first, they hit it alright.
I'd say it's people power in action..but when driven by under 5% of the U.S. population and done with no concern for degree of damage inflicted to normal people in the efforts? Well... Economic terrorism is the term I will use.
edit on 28-5-2013 by Wrabbit2000 because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
reply to post by MichaelPMaccabee
When a Super-Minority can literally come to dictate terms by force to national level organizations? No... That isn't free market anything. That is tyranny of the few upon the many. Personally, I'm about as sick and tired of that approach to 'change' some people just HAVE to have and have to have it now now now (waaa!) as one Bunny can get.
God help anyone who takes a stand against the wrong cause or group, even protected by the high court (which this was, by specific ruling) and even as a 100% private organization. If you have anything to lose? They WILL NEVER STOP coming to take it and/or destroy it until you have submitted in full to the will of the few. It's a warped nightmare of how the American Republic was intended to work, frankly.
Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
reply to post by MichaelPMaccabee
When a Super-Minority can literally come to dictate terms by force to national level organizations? No... That isn't free market anything. That is tyranny of the few upon the many. Personally, I'm about as sick and tired of that approach to 'change' some people just HAVE to have and have to have it now now now (waaa!) as one Bunny can get.
God help anyone who takes a stand against the wrong cause or group, even protected by the high court (which this was, by specific ruling) and even as a 100% private organization. If you have anything to lose? They WILL NEVER STOP coming to take it and/or destroy it until you have submitted in full to the will of the few. It's a warped nightmare of how the American Republic was intended to work, frankly.
God help anyone who takes a stand against the wrong cause or group, even protected by the high court (which this was, by specific ruling) and even as a 100% private organization. If you have anything to lose? They WILL NEVER STOP coming to take it and/or destroy it until you have submitted in full to the will of the few. It's a warped nightmare of how the American Republic was intended to work, frankly.
IMO, this is good news and long overdue. I'm sure there will be a backlash from the conservative groups, and that is understandable. My guess is those who disagree might form their own version of Boy Scouts which does not allow homosexuals to join. That is their right, of course.
Ahhh, I see. You are getting hung up on the "openly gay" part. So you don't have a problem with gay boy scouts. Well, that's a good start.
Now you just need to work on the fact that being "openly gay" doesn't mean hitting on every boy in the troop. It just means if you have a boyfriend outside the troop, you can talk about him, just like a heterosexual boy scout can talk about his girlfriend. I'm not referring to intimate sex talk, either.
I'm talking about having a conversation like this -- heterosexual boy scout: "My girlfriend and I went to see that movie and we really liked it." gay boy scout: "Yeah, my boyfriend and I saw that movie too." In your world, the gay boy scout would not be allowed to even say that. He would have to be quiet. Is that fair?
Originally posted by KeliOnyx
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
The only issue here is that you feel they have a right to be discriminatory because they are a private organization. Which yes they do the SC affirmed this. Yet are bemoaning the fact that the other private organizations chose to not fund them any longer because of their discriminatory practices. Do these donor organizations have a right to spend that money how they choose?
Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
reply to post by kaylaluv
Included in society, yes. Steamrolling the rights of private organizations? No. This wasn't ease to change. This was losing court fight after court fight (Up to and including the U.S. Supreme Court) and turning to guerrilla tactics of intimidation and destruction by attrition when all LEGAL means failed. In this case, the Gay Community showed everything for tactics they should be deeply ashamed of and whatever lesson it taught the kids? They ought to make fine little activists to carry on the tradition later.
They sure saw it up close for outright viciousness.
As I said. Tyranny of the few upon the many. It's just as ugly and just as wrong as Tyranny of one.
While perspectives and opinions vary significantly, parents, adults in the Scouting community, and teens alike tend to agree that youth should not be denied the benefits of Scouting.
Overall key findings that the Executive Committee considered to be critical to the development of a resolution:
• Attitudes and opinions among Americans related to gay and lesbian relationships have changed rapidly
over the past three years.
• While a majority of adults in the Scouting community support the BSA’s current policy of excluding
open and avowed homosexuals, younger parents and teens tend to oppose the policy.
• Views among parents under the age of 50 have changed significantly in the past three years, with a
majority now opposing the BSA’s current policy.
• Parents in three of four BSA regions oppose the current membership policy.
• Of six scenarios presented in surveys to parents, teens, and members of the Scouting community, the
one scenario with which overwhelming majorities of parents, teens, and members of the Scouting
community strongly agree is that it would be unacceptable to deny an openly gay Scout an Eagle Scout
Award solely because of his sexual orientation.
Originally posted by Wrabbit2000
reply to post by MichaelPMaccabee
I'm sorry but you seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of a difference of terms. Boycott is a temporary effort made against a business or group to bring about political or policy change.
15 YEARS OF IT is not a boycott, it's economic terrorism. I didn't understand myself just HOW long, HOW deep and how VICIOUS this fight against the BSA has been for soooo many years, non stop, until getting into this to learn last night for this and another thread. It's atrocious.
If a minority *NEEDS* these tactics and *NEEDS* national support just to tread water and survive as a functional group? (As it seems to be claimed at times), then perhaps they need to look at THEMSELVES for just why and how they are a super minority among the population and stop acting like they are 90%, dealing with the few stragglers for intelligence left in the world.
The attitude is as outright offensive and purely counter-productive to the 'cause' as the fanatic and frankly, sick levels of obsessive action we see taken against targets of them.
These are the strong-arm tactics of community agitators like Jessie Jackson, Al Sharpton, Obama, etc. This is the new formula for jamming things down our throats. They presume most will cave under the pressure and in most cases they do. It’s disgusting that companies allow themselves to be bullied like that. If I was the president of BSA I would have told them exactly where they can go… My kids won’t be in the Scouts now; that’s a shame.
You've got a lot of hate in you for gays - I see that. Did you know that the BSA sent out surveys of its regions, and its scout parents, as well as the older scouts, asking for their viewpoints? This was very smart of the BSA. They knew that if the respondents overwhelmingly supported the traditional policies, they would have a stronger case against changing those policies. What they found may have surprised them. Surprised them enough to make them take another look at their policies.
Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I was happy to hear this the other day. And there are rumors of supporters pulling out and parents pulling their kids out. Can you imagine punishing your child like that for political reasons???
I think it's important for people who support getting rid of this ban to contact the Boy Scouts and let them know.