Boooo Boyscouts...promoting discrimination

[asscherisme]

Booo Boyscouts of america! They have just officially confirmed their policy of not only not allowing gay adult leaders, but gay boyscouts as well.


http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/18/us/boy-scouts-reaffirm-ban-on-gay-members.html?_r=1&amp

I never let my boys join scouts because of their policy against allowing gay leaders. As my boys have grown, I explained why I would not let them join and they respected my reasons. Hard for them to grasp when they were little and their freinds were all boyscouts but now they respect me for it.

What is this teaching our sons? That its OK to discriminate against people? In this day and age, its sad that they are still promoting discrimination. Boyscouts is HUGE where I live and I have gotten flack from other moms over my decision for not letting my boys participate but I stand my ground on this. I am not gay and have gotten comments like "Why do you care, why does this affect you". Because I think that allwoing my kids to participate in an organization that practices discrimination is the opposite of how I am raising them. I don't believe in supporting organizations that promote a culture of discrimination.

 

[StacylikesSparkles]

Yeah, this really pissed me off when I read the article this morning. Glad to hear what you've done with your kiddos though!

 

[davi_el_mejor]

Boy Scouts of America's acronym is BSA... at least they have the BS right

Asscher- My mom didn't let me join them either. Her reasoning was a bit different from yours though... she said they were a cult

 

[kenny]

BSA's history of shameless discrimination is well documented.



Mon, 1911-07-31
The Scout Oath: "On my honor, I will do my best to do my duty to God and my country and to obey the Scout Law; To help other people at all times; To keep myself physically strong, mentally awake, and morally straight."

This date celebrates the founding of America’s first "Negro Boy Scout" troop in 1911. Initially started in Elizabeth City, North Carolina, opposition was encountered immediately, but troops continued to meet in increasing numbers. In 1916, the first official Boy Scout Council-promoted Negro Troop 75 began in Louisville, KY. By the next year, there were four official black troops in the area. By 1926, there were 248 all-black troops, with 4,923 black scouts and within ten years, there was only one Council in the entire South that refused to accept any black troops.

During this time as more troops started up, the Inter-racial Committee was established in January of 1927, with Stanley Harris as its leader. Also as part of the Boy Scouts of America (BSA) Inter-racial Service was "Program Outreach," a program that combined racial minorities with rural, poor, and handicapped boys. These programs were often ineffective, especially with immigrants who feared the BSA as a means to recruit for the Army. Another problem with Program Outreach was that it often didn't distinguish between the boys it viewed as "less chance" and those who were simply not white.

For example, the program's reports categorize some scouts as “Feeble-minded, Delinquency Areas, Orphanages, and Settlements." Many of the scouts in "Delinquent Areas" were blacks, who were measured as "Special Troops." Instead of embracing black Scouting, the BSA systematically categorized blacks, bringing a literal meaning to "racial handicap" as the color of their skin was why they were considered "special."

Scouting for minorities wasn't just confined to cities, Scouting in rural areas were also common. One of these programs was called "railroad scouting," where employees of the BSA would ride trains throughout the rural South, stopping at every town on the way to distribute information and encourage the formation of troops. This policy originated to cut down on railroad vandalism, and the BSA realized it was a great way to promote its organization. Native Americans were also a large portion of the minority Scouts, and lived in settlements in rural areas. With the help of these programs, the two Southern Regions, Region V in Memphis and Region VI in Atlanta, had growth rates of 28.2% and 47.9%, respectively. In 1937, 57.9% of black Scouts were from these two regions.

By the 1960s, with the industrialization of the South, the BSA shifted more towards urban expansion and improvement. In 1961, the Inter-Racial Service turned into the Urban Relationship Service and added inner-city children of all races. William Murray, author of "History of the Boy Scouts," wrote, "Negro lads in the South and in the northern industrial centers were somewhat out of the stream of American boy life and needed special aid." The Inner-City Rural Program was also developed to expose rural Scouts to the city and vice versa, but was small in scope. Programs targeting gangs were unexpectedly successful, and in many cities as many as 25% of boys living in housing projects were enrolled in the Scouts, many former gang members.

In the South, with the "separate but equal" mindset of the times, black troops were not treated equally. They were often not allowed to wear scout uniforms, and had far smaller budgets and insufficient facilities to work with. The BSA on a national level was often defensive about its stance on segregation. "The Boy Scouts of America] never drew the color line, but the movement stayed in step with the prevailing mores." Even so, there was only one integrated troop before 1954 in the Deep South compared to the frequent occurrence of integration in the North. Also, the Scouts in the South did not support social agencies that were allies of the BSA. The YMCA was historically one of the BSA's strongest supporters, but in Richmond, Virginia, blacks were not allowed to use the Y's facilities to earn merit badges, specifically for swimming.

While nationally the BSA has a large endowment (approximately $2.6 billion), local councils had to raise money on their own. BSA is not a non-profit organization, and if local councils had pushed for integrated troops, it would not have gone over well with the general public and it would have made raising money difficult. It would have also been dangerous, because the Ku Klux Klan had strongly denounced the Scouts for even having segregated black troops. They claimed the BSA was a puppet of the Catholic Church, and it was not unheard of for Scout Jamborees and rallies to be broken up, often violently, by the Klan.

After the Civil Rights Act, slowly, troops began to integrate throughout the nation, even in the South. Currently several troops remain all black. After integration, many segregated black organizations, especially churches, remained segregated, not by law but by choice. It provided a heightened sense of community and unity that complemented their internal needs. If they made it this far under such extreme oppression, why should they happily submit themselves to white churches and social clubs? Since these organizations sponsored such a large number of Scout troops, many remained all black by choice. In 1974, after 53 years of segregation, the Old Hickory Council (North Carolina) and BSA councils throughout the South, started to integrate troops.

As an organization dedicated to developing morally strong and virtuous men out of boys, the BSA stresses the importance of understanding what it means to be a Scout. When applying for the Eagle Scout Award, the highest rank in Scouting, applicants must submit an essay along with documentation of their earned merit badges. In the essays, Scouts are asked, "In your own words, describe what it would mean to you to become an Eagle Scout." Essay lengths differ greatly, from one sentence to four handwritten pages. Generally, Eagle Award applicants write about what it has meant to work several years to receive this award, and what they plan on doing after the receive it.

In the responses immediately following integration, different values and goals emerged based on race and oppression. One young man says, "When applying for a job or trying to enter college being an Eagle Scout is a great advantage." "Being white in Winston-Salem, opportunities to go to college and to get a good job were there. As a black young person, such opportunities did not always exist, and instead of mentioning college and a job, there was a tendency to make more references to the army and military. Not necessarily saying outright that a future in the military is what they are striving for, but there are references like, '[if I get my Eagle Award] it will be like 'becoming an Eagle Scout is like being a Captain or lieutenant in an army, working towards the Generals position.'"

Historically, the military has been one of the few ways blacks achieved distinction and respect. These youths had seen their fathers and uncles come back from World War II and the Korean War with medals and get the help of the G.I. Bill. Many saw this as their only way to eventually get into college or have a good career. With the aid of the civil rights movement, black Scouts saw the Eagle Award as a further means of proving their dignity and achievement. blacks in the first half of the 20th century were not allowed much dignity. America and the South were set up to make sure this dignity was never achieved. Through Scouting, black young people finally had something to be proud of, something that would make them, in at least one realm, equal or even superior to white children. It gave them a sense of identity that was lacking for centuries. They were no longer just "Boy," they were an Eagle Scout.

Before de-segregation, in nearly all-white Eagle Scout applications, the essays included references to leadership opportunities to come out of their Award. Leadership is mentioned much less often among the black applicants, having not seen the same opportunities for leadership in their communities as they progressed through the Scouts. Another theme among the pre-civil rights applications was the frequent mentioning of God and Church in the white applications, compared to the black applications. The white applications tended to connect God and Country together as an important trait of an Eagle Scout, as, for example, "The Eagle award would show me that I have been doing my duty to God and my Country as a Scout." The black Scouts did not mention citizenship nearly as often and when they did, it was usually in a secular manner. "I am an American on whom the future of this wonderful Country depends . . . learning to be of service to others." This distinction the result of the lack of citizenship experienced by blacks from the beginning of this country.

It is telling that an organization like the Boy Scouts of America, dedicated from its inception to raising men of high moral strength and conviction supported racism. But at the same time, on a national and local level, the Scouts did have certain leaders that pressed against the grain of society for racial change. In the end, though, our most valuable insight is into the minds of these young black men who wrote of an equal chance for distinction and success in their Eagle Award essays. This relatively small achievement may have helped and inspired them to push on in their fight for liberty.

http://www.aaregistry.org/historic_events/view/african-americans-boy-scout-movement

 

[asscherisme]

Wow Kenny, thanks for posting.

I read this article in 2001 around the time my friends started putting their boys in cub scouts.

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/01/10/us/jewish-group-recommends-cutting-ties-to-boy-scouts.html

 

[natascha]

I find this really disheartening. That in this day and age, discrimination continues and in some areas increases. I just can't understand how a majority of the population find this acceptable. I get the rational explanation for why people can have this type of opinion but I still don't "get" it.

I read these types of things and have a hard time of imagining that this is the reality a lot of people face. I find it so hard to understand that this can be legal. Is not the state meant to defend people and work on leading opinion? How is this morally defensible? How can people defend that discriminating both adults and children is morally right?

Discrimination due to sexuality, race, etc is not acceptable nor legal over here. Right now some people are promoting the use of hen instead of referring to children as him or her, since many believe that a child should not be put into a box due to what sex they are. And guess what, this has not lead to the moral decline of our society so what are people so scared of?

 

[kenny]

The problem is folks like these are certain they are being moral, not discriminating.
In their minds they are teaching children to be 'moral', just at they were taught.

Perspectives on morality are not seen by them as mere perspectives.
They are deeply held convictions of right and wrong, for which they do not claim personal responsibility.
What's right is simply right, to them.

You can't just flip a switch or pass a law to change such things in people's minds.
IMHO, it will take generations raised in an ever more equal world for negative views of homosexuality to be left in the dustbin of history.

 

[natascha]

They are certain they are being moral, not discriminating.

Perspectives on morality are not seen by them as mere perspectives.
They are deeply held convictions of right and wrong, for which they do not claim personal responsibility.
What's right is simply right, to them.

You can just flip a switch or pass a law to change such things in minds.
IMHO, it will take generations raised in an ever more equal world for negative views of homosexuality to be left in the dustbin of history.

I know that very well. I have experienced discrimination and have seen family and friends suffer and some continue to suffer from it. I have sat hiding in the car holding my friend's hand because he can't be seen by his aunt crossing the street because they don't accept that he is gay (this was not in Sweden).

Changing opinion is not a one step process but the state allowing this to continue and fester is wrong (don't get me wrong, I do understand why and how this is happening). I have lived in different society's with different cultural norms and have been integrated in them so I do understand what is going on. But I have also seen what can be done.

Changing the law will not change people mind in an eye blink but it will help speed up the process. People are all worth the same and should have the same rights. With the state, the law, etc accepting that people are discriminated it sends the message that it is ok and right. People with these types of opinions on morality are not challenged nor taught differently in many cases. Other people who may not have a strong opinion regarding homosexuality are often ending up outwardly supporting bigots just to not rock the boat. Few people are as strong as assherisme, most choose to turn a blind eye since it does not affect them, and they don't want their kids to lose out on going to Boy Scouts.

By changing laws (and implementing these changes) we help change the view of right and wrong, we help those people on the fence to make the right decisions. People should be allowed to believe what they want but there views should not be allowed to negatively affect other people.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

For me this has nothing to do with who is being excluded, it has to do with the right of a private organization to set their own rules. Just like Asscherisme, I choose not to join an organization I disagree with. I went to a private all female college, and I did not at all feel that the college was discriminating against men. My husband happened to go to an all male college, and I did not feel that they were discriminating against women. I support the right of a college to set the parameters of who will be admitted. I won't be insulted if a private religious university not of my own faith would not admit me. There are all sorts of organizations that have membership requirements that are going to exclude someone from attending based on the values and purposes of that group. Thank God we are still in a country that allows the freedom to have private organizations that can make their own choices whether I agree with all of them or not. It will be a tragic day when we lose that freedom.

In this case, someone could so easily start a similar organization that includes gays, girls, etc. Just do it and then set your own rules.

 

[kenny]

BSA just kicked out and stripped a respected 19-yr old eagle scout with 10 years of honors because he came out as gay.

The meeting was secretly recorded and will appear in an upcoming documentary

http://www.cnn.com/video/?hpt=hp_c2#/video/us/2012/07/18/dnt-gay-eagle-scout-kicked-out.kmbc

 

[kenny]

For me this has nothing to do with who is being excluded, it has to do with the right of a private organization to set their own rules. Just like Asscherisme, I choose not to join an organization I disagree with. I went to a private all female college, and I did not at all feel that the college was discriminating against men. My husband happened to go to an all male college, and I did not feel that they were discriminating against women. I support the right of a college to set the parameters of who will be admitted. I won't be insulted if a private religious university not of my own faith would not admit me. There are all sorts of organizations that have membership requirements that are going to exclude someone from attending based on the values and purposes of that group. Thank God we are still in a country that allows the freedom to have private organizations that can make their own choices whether I agree with all of them or not. It will be a tragic day when we lose that freedom.

In this case, someone could so easily start a similar organization that includes gays, girls, etc. Just do it and then set your own rules.

Frankly I agree with even the KKK's right to exist today.
I defend Fred Phelp's right to picket at funerals of straight veterans who died in combat with signs that say "God Hates Fags".

Freedom of expression is a cherished aspect of America ... frankly the BSA and guys like Phelps help America march towards equality more than away from it.

Let's just hope BSA never is allowed to use taxpayer-funded facilities like public schools for events.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Okay, I am glad we agree, Kenny. Very important not to have the government decide the rules of private organizations! I have no desire to join the Boy Scouts, who discriminate against me, too, Kenny, just for the record.

 

[iheartscience]

BSA just kicked out and stripped a respected 19-yr old eagle scout with 10 years of honors because he came out as gay.

The meeting was secretly recorded and will appear in an upcoming documentary

http://www.cnn.com/video/?hpt=hp_c2#/video/us/2012/07/18/dnt-gay-eagle-scout-kicked-out.kmbc

Wow, seriously disgusting.

 

[kenny]

Okay, I am glad we agree, Kenny. Very important not to have the government decide the rules of private organizations! I have no desire to join the Boy Scouts, who discriminate against me, too, Kenny, just for the record.

Also, the elephant in the room is the deteriorating public image of the BSA.
They used to be pretty universally looked up to, well at least by people to didn't know about or ignored all that "skin-color thing".
Today BSA increasing looked down upon as backwards and discriminatory, poisoning young minds.
I wouldn't be surprised if some parents won't let their kids play with boys who are in the BSA; I wouldn't.

Look at the beginning of their website:



"Values-based"???
Who's values?

Women exposing their ankles in public in America used to be a display of poor values.
I assume the BSA changed with the times and lets that one slide these days.

Values change.
That's okay.
Actually it's good, since a good society marches towards equality.

 

[natascha]

For me this has nothing to do with who is being excluded, it has to do with the right of a private organization to set their own rules. Just like Asscherisme, I choose not to join an organization I disagree with. I went to a private all female college, and I did not at all feel that the college was discriminating against men. My husband happened to go to an all male college, and I did not feel that they were discriminating against women. I support the right of a college to set the parameters of who will be admitted. I won't be insulted if a private religious university not of my own faith would not admit me. There are all sorts of organizations that have membership requirements that are going to exclude someone from attending based on the values and purposes of that group. Thank God we are still in a country that allows the freedom to have private organizations that can make their own choices whether I agree with all of them or not. It will be a tragic day when we lose that freedom.

In this case, someone could so easily start a similar organization that includes gays, girls, etc. Just do it and then set your own rules.

I hope this is taken in the intent it was written. I am genuinely interested in understanding your thoughts about this.

You are focusing on the importance of private organizations having the freedom to make their own choices. Do you not consider their exclusion of homosexuals and their teachings to have a negative effect on the children enrolled in their programs? Or do you believe that this has a negative effect but that private organisations freedom to be exempt from external influence in these matters is more important?

Over here there is a strong focus on everyone being equal and having equal rights. This includes the right to not be discriminated. The right to not suffer discrimination is considered stronger than the right of organisations to exclude members. You are allowed to believe what you want, do what you want as long as you are not hurting someone.

What the boy-scouts are doing has a negative impact on children. Many times children join when their sexuality is still not in the open. They are taught that what they are is morally wrong and they then have to choose between fitting in and retaining what they have (friends, honors, etc) and being who they truly are. At least this is my understanding. I am very interested in hearing your opinion

 

[rubybeth]

Let's just hope BSA never is allowed to use taxpayer-funded facilities like public schools for events.

I'm pretty sure they're allowed to meet in a public school or public library as long as they meet the requirements for meetings in those spaces. I work in a public library and we allow all kinds of groups to meet in our public meeting rooms.

 

[kenny]

Let's just hope BSA never is allowed to use taxpayer-funded facilities like public schools for events.

I'm pretty sure they're allowed to meet in a public school or public library as long as they meet the requirements for meetings in those spaces. I work in a public library and we allow all kinds of groups to meet in our public meeting rooms.

Time to write some letters to Washington.

 

[diamondseeker2006]

For me this has nothing to do with who is being excluded, it has to do with the right of a private organization to set their own rules. Just like Asscherisme, I choose not to join an organization I disagree with. I went to a private all female college, and I did not at all feel that the college was discriminating against men. My husband happened to go to an all male college, and I did not feel that they were discriminating against women. I support the right of a college to set the parameters of who will be admitted. I won't be insulted if a private religious university not of my own faith would not admit me. There are all sorts of organizations that have membership requirements that are going to exclude someone from attending based on the values and purposes of that group. Thank God we are still in a country that allows the freedom to have private organizations that can make their own choices whether I agree with all of them or not. It will be a tragic day when we lose that freedom.

In this case, someone could so easily start a similar organization that includes gays, girls, etc. Just do it and then set your own rules.

I hope this is taken in the intent it was written. I am genuinely interested in understanding your thoughts about this.

You are focusing on the importance of private organizations having the freedom to make their own choices. Do you not consider their exclusion of homosexuals and their teachings to have a negative effect on the children enrolled in their programs? Or do you believe that this has a negative effect but that private organisations freedom to be exempt from external influence in these matters is more important?

Over here there is a strong focus on everyone being equal and having equal rights. This includes the right to not be discriminated. The right to not suffer discrimination is considered stronger than the right of organisations to exclude members. You are allowed to believe what you want, do what you want as long as you are not hurting someone.

What the boy-scouts are doing has a negative impact on children. Many times children join when their sexuality is still not in the open. They are taught that what they are is morally wrong and they then have to choose between fitting in and retaining what they have (friends, honors, etc) and being who they truly are. At least this is my understanding. I am very interested in hearing your opinion

The parents of minor children have the right to choose what organizations, sports, music, scouting, religious training their children have. I don't have the right to tell you what activities are best or right for your children based on my values. I decide what is best for mine. Again, I am excluded by that organization but my self worth isn't determined by them. I am not a better or lesser person because of their rules. As children we are usually raised within the value system of our family and then when we grow up we are totally free to make our own choices. As Kenny says, "People differ."

 

[diamondseeker2006]

Let's just hope BSA never is allowed to use taxpayer-funded facilities like public schools for events.

I'm pretty sure they're allowed to meet in a public school or public library as long as they meet the requirements for meetings in those spaces. I work in a public library and we allow all kinds of groups to meet in our public meeting rooms.

Time to write some letters to Washington.

Now Kenny, that would be as bad as a group writing letters to forbid a gay group from renting similar facilities. Don't be just like the people you criticize.

 

[aviastar]

For me this has nothing to do with who is being excluded, it has to do with the right of a private organization to set their own rules. Just like Asscherisme, I choose not to join an organization I disagree with. I went to a private all female college, and I did not at all feel that the college was discriminating against men. My husband happened to go to an all male college, and I did not feel that they were discriminating against women. I support the right of a college to set the parameters of who will be admitted. I won't be insulted if a private religious university not of my own faith would not admit me. There are all sorts of organizations that have membership requirements that are going to exclude someone from attending based on the values and purposes of that group. Thank God we are still in a country that allows the freedom to have private organizations that can make their own choices whether I agree with all of them or not. It will be a tragic day when we lose that freedom.

In this case, someone could so easily start a similar organization that includes gays, girls, etc. Just do it and then set your own rules.

I hope this is taken in the intent it was written. I am genuinely interested in understanding your thoughts about this.

You are focusing on the importance of private organizations having the freedom to make their own choices. Do you not consider their exclusion of homosexuals and their teachings to have a negative effect on the children enrolled in their programs? Or do you believe that this has a negative effect but that private organisations freedom to be exempt from external influence in these matters is more important?

Over here there is a strong focus on everyone being equal and having equal rights. This includes the right to not be discriminated. The right to not suffer discrimination is considered stronger than the right of organisations to exclude members. You are allowed to believe what you want, do what you want as long as you are not hurting someone.

What the boy-scouts are doing has a negative impact on children. Many times children join when their sexuality is still not in the open. They are taught that what they are is morally wrong and they then have to choose between fitting in and retaining what they have (friends, honors, etc) and being who they truly are. At least this is my understanding. I am very interested in hearing your opinion

The parents of minor children have the right to choose what organizations, sports, music, scouting, religious training their children have. I don't have the right to tell you what activities are best or right for your children based on my values. I decide what is best for mine. Again, I am excluded by that organization but my self worth isn't determined by them. I am not a better or lesser person because of their rules. As children we are usually raised within the value system of our family and then when we grow up we are totally free to make our own choices. As Kenny says, "People differ."

+1 DiamondSeeker!

It is the job of the government to protect our liberty; they have no business influencing opinion. Afterall, the government is made of people, just like me, who have opinions that may also be right or wrong, according to you, or me, or Joe Schmoe- so what opinion exactly should they go about promoting and changing?

It is our responsibility as citizens, and frankly as decent human beings, to change society for the better (again, such a subjective term!) according to our own moral convictions for ourselves, to put our money and our support where our convictions are, to live our lives as examples of the morals we wish to see in the world. This is not the government's responsibility, it is MY responsibilty and I take it very seriously. It is the government's responsibility to protect my liberty so that I may do this without fear for my life. I do not agree with this organization's policies and I will not be supporting it with my participation or my money.

 

[natascha]

The parents of minor children have the right to choose what organizations, sports, music, scouting, religious training their children have. I don't have the right to tell you what activities are best or right for your children based on my values. I decide what is best for mine. Again, I am excluded by that organization but my self worth isn't determined by them. I am not a better or lesser person because of their rules. As children we are usually raised within the value system of our family and then when we grow up we are totally free to make our own choices. As Kenny says, "People differ."

I respect that you don't want to respond to my questions, I hope you did not take them the wrong way . I am embarking on a Masters program which emphasis cross cultural management, so it is pretty much a given that I am interested in how peoples base values relate to their interpretations of other matters, such as freedom, homosexuality and the boy scouts.

I find it interesting to see how your thoughts regarding freedom relate not just to organisations but to children s rights and to right vs wrong.

Hmm I wonder if it would be OK to start a thread discussing these types of issues.

 

[natascha]

Realized that I was deviating from the thread

 

[diamondseeker2006]

The parents of minor children have the right to choose what organizations, sports, music, scouting, religious training their children have. I don't have the right to tell you what activities are best or right for your children based on my values. I decide what is best for mine. Again, I am excluded by that organization but my self worth isn't determined by them. I am not a better or lesser person because of their rules. As children we are usually raised within the value system of our family and then when we grow up we are totally free to make our own choices. As Kenny says, "People differ."

I respect that you don't want to respond to my questions, I hope you did not take them the wrong way . I am embarking on a Masters program which emphasis cross cultural management, so it is pretty much a given that I am interested in how peoples base values relate to their interpretations of other matters, such as freedom, homosexuality and the boy scouts.

I find it interesting to see how your thoughts regarding freedom relate not just to organisations but to children s rights and to right vs wrong.

Hmm I wonder if it would be OK to start a thread discussing these types of issues.

Well, my point was simply that we don't want to lose the freedoms our ancestors fought and died for, so we need to be careful when we disagree with a private organization, because when we start having the government dictate to private organizations what they can and cannot think, we are in trouble. One day it might be our freedom taken away.

Aviastar +1! I am glad you understood what I was trying to say! Thanks!

 

[rubybeth]

Let's just hope BSA never is allowed to use taxpayer-funded facilities like public schools for events.

I'm pretty sure they're allowed to meet in a public school or public library as long as they meet the requirements for meetings in those spaces. I work in a public library and we allow all kinds of groups to meet in our public meeting rooms.

Time to write some letters to Washington.

Good luck getting the folks in Washington to care about what a small town library does!

 

[davi_el_mejor]

Some backlash

Major League Soccer won't renew their partnership with the BSa

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/major-league-soccer-not-renew-204000549--mls.html

 

[blackberry16]

For me this has nothing to do with who is being excluded, it has to do with the right of a private organization to set their own rules. Just like Asscherisme, I choose not to join an organization I disagree with. I went to a private all female college, and I did not at all feel that the college was discriminating against men. My husband happened to go to an all male college, and I did not feel that they were discriminating against women. I support the right of a college to set the parameters of who will be admitted. I won't be insulted if a private religious university not of my own faith would not admit me. There are all sorts of organizations that have membership requirements that are going to exclude someone from attending based on the values and purposes of that group. Thank God we are still in a country that allows the freedom to have private organizations that can make their own choices whether I agree with all of them or not. It will be a tragic day when we lose that freedom.

In this case, someone could so easily start a similar organization that includes gays, girls, etc. Just do it and then set your own rules.

+1