The city of Philadelphia is threatening to end a nearly 80-year building agreement with the nation’s third Boy Scouts chapter if the group doesn’t change its policy to accommodate gay employees.
All members of the local Scouts chapter, which operates as the Cradle of Liberty Council, must take the Scout Oath and Law in which they promise to do their duty to God and to be morally straight, as well as to be clean in their thoughts, words and deeds.
While the organization does not inquire about sexual orientation at the time of membership, the group bars an avowed homosexual from leadership because they believe such an individual would not be a role model for the values espoused in the Oath and Law, according to a past news release from Boy Scouts of America.
A 2000 Supreme Court ruling upheld the right of the national Boy Scouts to exclude openly gay members from its ranks since it was a private organization.
However, Philadelphia City Solicitor Romulo Diaz said the group’s currently policy amounts to discrimination and has set a Dec. 3 deadline for the Boy Scouts to either renounce their moral standards or lose the headquarters they have rented from the city for $1 a year since 1928, reported the Washington Post.
According to Diaz, the Boy Scouts’ policy conflicts with a local 1982 “fair practice” law which prohibits employers from conditioning employment on the basis of “sexual orientation.”
"While we respect the right of the Boy Scouts to prohibit participation in its activities by homosexuals, we will not subsidize that discrimination by passing on the costs to the people of Philadelphia," the Post reported Diaz as saying.
City officials have suggested that the Scouts can stay at the Beaux-Arts building if they agree to pay the building’s market value price which is tentatively set at $200,000 a year.
If the Scouts refuse the ultimatum, Diaz said he will begin looking for alternative tenants to take over the property June 1, 2008.
While the offer may seem fair, Robert Knight of the Media Research Center wrote in a column posted on TownHall.com Tuesday that the Post report left out many key facts to the dispute.
The Beaux-Arts building was in fact built by the Scouts and later given to the city in 1928, noted Knight.
He added that the Scouts had a lease “in perpetuity” with the city, an agreement that was not upheld by the City Council.
Knight also suggested that that the city stands to benefit greatly from the youth organization, noting that most of the crimes dealing with murder and violence are committed by fatherless young men.
In an interview on “Hannity & Colmes” Tuesday, Jeff Jubelirer, spokesman for Boy Scouts of America, said the group had already modified its policy with a non-discrimination statement issued by city officials.
The non-discrimination statement reads: "Prejudice, intolerance and unlawful discrimination in any form are unacceptable within the ranks of Cradle of Liberty Council.”
According to Jubelirer, the group was assured “that if you adopt this, we'll be fine, and nothing has happened since that time.”
The local chapter has also in the past tried to renounce an affiliation with the national policy in hopes of saving its headquarters but has met difficulties.
“We were trying to be amendable to all sides, but National would not allow us to keep that language, so we rescinded it,” said Jubelirer in the Post report. “We can’t have a policy where we put in specific words that National won’t allow or we’ll loose our charter. We can’t afford not to be part of the national Boy Scouts.”
RSS
Comments
The building that the BSA rents from the city of Philly is given to them at one dollar a year in rent. The building is owned byt the city. If rented at market value, it would bring in a few hundred thousand dollars. Therefore, the taxpayers of Philly are subsidizing the BSA.
That's fine, but then don't call it a private organization. If you want to be a private org, then don't accept public funds or subsidies. If you do, then you have to play by the rules, and that means, in the case of Philly, that you cannot discriminate based on sexual orientation.
Dont' like it? Then don't accept the subsidy, or change the law, or change the BSA.
Regardless of what one thinks about homosexuality, the BSA is a PRIVATE organization, THEY build the building which they've allowed the city of Philadelphia to use for all these years, and it is WRONG that any government at any level should dictate to them what they can or cannot do with it. If the solicitor were not a homosexual himself, this wouldn't even be happening. I hope someone in Philadelphia will be less concerned about being politically "correct" than doing the RIGHT thing.
"they’re a family, him, his four wives, and his very tall sons. I figure, if he ever becomes a Christian… we won’t ever let him become an elder."
Exactly. Marriage is between ONE man and ONE woman. Maybe if I repeat it a few times you might get it. How about some flash cards? You think you'll get it then? Maybe draw some stick figures for you on a marker board?
Sigh-h-h-h-h-h, I went to dictionary.com and retrieved this little tidbit.
Definition of a:
6. one (used before a noun expressing quantity): a yard of ribbon; a score of times.
Sometimes I think truth has become so relative in this crazy world that becoming a hermit seems to have more pluses than minuses.
GMG,
You asked, “am I missing something here?”
Yup, you’re missing something :^)
Ya know, it’s a funny thing this conversation. I live just a few miles from the second largest polygamist sect in the U.S. Some of their big houses are just a walk away from my home. I’ve even been to church with them once (that was an interesting experience). One of my best friends used to be a member. I know of one polygamous family that has since left that church, they keep up the arrangement for the sake of the kids and because… well… they’re a family, him, his four wives, and his very tall sons. I figure, if he ever becomes a Christian… we won’t ever let him become an elder.
Polygamy… it’s not abnormal here.
http://didymuspov.blogspot.com/
Ifeelfine and didymus - am I missing something here? Are you saying that these passages allow for more than one, such as 1 man and 2 women are okay, or whatever?
but the point is this....so try and follow along.... God ordained marriage between "one" man and "one" woman. Anything other than that is wrong.
youre right didymus...i looked up the word "a" in the dictionary. And it said "multiple of items, or more than one;numerous" sorry for being so presumptuous to think that "a" meant "one".
jester_the_King _of_dense,
1. You need to take an English refresher course.
2. More importantly, you need to learn some manners.
I'm sorry you're so dense, ifeelfine...let me quote it. It says the same thing:
Genesis 2:24 "For this reason A (singular, one, uno, solo, not two or more) man will leave his father and mother and be united to his WIFE (wife...not wives--singular, one, uno, solo, not two or more), and they will become one flesh."
Hold on...lets try New Testament....Ephesians 5:31 "For this reason A (singular, one, uno, solo, not two or more) man will leave his father and mother and be united to his WIFE (wife...not wives--singular, one, uno, solo, not two or more), and they will become one flesh."
Matthew 19:5 says "And said, For this cause shall A ( singular, one, uno, solo, not two or more)man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife (wife...not wives--singular, one, uno, solo, not two or more): and they twain shall be one flesh?
running out of arguments that you have to nitpick between "one" and "a"? Last time I checked the word "a" meant "one". I can't even believe you said "Jesus never said "one". I've heard better arguments from a 5 year old. But nice effort in tryng to avoid the truth...didn't work, but still looked good.
Jester - Jesus didn't use the word "one." Look it up
Jesus himself spoke of one man and one woman...so it's not quasi-biblical. Paul did too.
Thanks Didymus, I'll check him out.
maranatha7593 - I wasn't one. I know lots of other faiths consider homosexuality to be wrong. I'm not a part of those faiths, I'm a Christian. But even in the history of Christianity marriage hasn't always been defined as one man and one woman - its sometimes been one man and multiple women. The notion of "traditional marriage" is made up and only quasi-Biblical.
dont you realize that this country and world is going down the toilet? And that it has to? Things are just going to get worse...and worse.....until it's ripe for the antichrist to come in and "bring peace" to a divided world.
It's a rollercoaster ride, so sit down, buckle up, and hang on.....
token:
Your reasons for redefining marriage do not validate homosexual behavior as being normal, acceptable, right. There is no reason here in the US why homosexual "couples" cannot live in peace. They are not being deprived of being with anyone. They have been doing that for quite some time.
You said, "I realize that Christians do not interpret the world without the Bible for lense, and to me that only exemplifies the dangers religion pose on society."
If people do "interpret the world" without the Word of God being their standard, they are not Christians. This is not my theory, it's what Jesus Himself taught throughout His ministry on earth.