Philadelphia Boy Scouts to Lose Historic Building for Not Accepting Homosexuality

[KathleenElsie]

Nope, not dodged, simply identified as an attempt at misdirection from the topic at hand, which is whether the Boy Scouts are in fact entitled to preferential subsidies in the use of a government building in Philadelphia when they steadfastly refuse to follow the rules that all the other nonprofit groups must abide by in order to receive subsidies. Whether either KathleenElsie or I are interested in having our children be members of the group in question is irrelevant.

This goes the the heart of the question. Is forcing an unsafe situation on the children what government subsidy is based upon in this case? Can the rules of the game be changed in the middle of the game?

 

[rlg94086]

This goes the the heart of the question. Is forcing an unsafe situation on the children what government subsidy is based upon in this case? Can the rules of the game be changed in the middle of the game?

That’s exactly my problem with this situation. Nothing has changed in the Boy Scouts, so why should thier 80-year agreement involving an historic buidling they built (!) change?

 

[Elric]

This goes the the heart of the question. Is forcing an unsafe situation on the children what government subsidy is based upon in this case? Can the rules of the game be changed in the middle of the game?

I guess that cannoing and rock climbing can potentially be dangerous, same with hiking. I suppose that measures are taken to reduce any risks.

But are children really being forced into these unsafe situations?

 

[Ray_Scheel]

Refusing to give a private organization preferential subsidies in renting government buildings is not “putting children in danger”.

That doesn’t quite work logically considering that the previously preferential subsidy would continue under the city’s current policy if the BSA changed their policies to allow exposure to a known risk group to BSA’s primary clients (this risk is substantiated by what has been revealed in the cases where adult leaders abused Scouts). Changes in political climate are not a legitimate reason for a government to retroactively made a one-sided change in an agreement to the detriment of the other party.

If the city has changed its mind on the terms in agreed to when accepting ownership of the building, then its obligation is to roll back the agreement, no to simply take the part of the deal that benefits it and stiff the other party.

 

[KarenNC]

That doesn’t quite work logically considering that the previously preferential subsidy would continue under the city’s current policy if the BSA changed their policies to allow exposure to a known risk group to BSA’s primary clients (this risk is substantiated by what has been revealed in the cases where adult leaders abused Scouts). Changes in political climate are not a legitimate reason for a government to retroactively made a one-sided change in an agreement to the detriment of the other party.

If the city has changed its mind on the terms in agreed to when accepting ownership of the building, then its obligation is to roll back the agreement, no to simply take the part of the deal that benefits it and stiff the other party.

The elephant in the room here is “what exactly were the terms of the original agreement?” I have yet to see anyone offer up the wording of the original agreement, either here or in the media, so that others may use actual evidence as the basis for opinion.

Also instructive would be to see whether there are also other groups who have lost the option for a subsidy because of lack of willingness to comply with the laws (whether over the issue of non-discrimination against homosexuals or some other reason).

 

[KarenNC]

That’s exactly my problem with this situation. Nothing has changed in the Boy Scouts, so why should thier 80-year agreement involving an historic buidling they built (!) change?

If you sell your house, do you then, 80 years later, necessarily retain the right to dictate to the current owners what they may do with it simply because you built it, particularly when you knew up front that you did not own the land in the first place?

 

[KarenNC]

This goes the the heart of the question. Is forcing an unsafe situation on the children what government subsidy is based upon in this case? Can the rules of the game be changed in the middle of the game?

How in the world is anyone “forcing” a child into Boy Scouts against their parents’ will, whether they stay in this building or move somewhere else?

In this arena, yes, most assuredly the “rules of the game” can and frequently are changed. From what I can see of the situation (realizing that I am relying on media reports), the government subsidy is applied equally to all nonprofits—they must agree to include a nondiscrimination clause in their lease and that nondiscrimination clause must include sexual orientation. It is no different than if they had historically had a policy of not allowing African Americans to be leaders because they felt that was not in sync with their mission. This would have flown before the civil rights laws were enacted, but not afterwards.

The Boy Scouts are not being kicked out, they are being required to pay rent just like any other business would in that same location without benefit of the subsidy because they rejected the terms under which the subsidy is available. The Boy Scouts have the right to set their membership policies. The city has the right to set its policies under which it will offer subsidies to nonprofits.

 

[rlg94086]

If you sell your house, do you then, 80 years later, necessarily retain the right to dictate to the current owners what they may do with it simply because you built it, particularly when you knew up front that you did not own the land in the first place?

They didn’t sell their “house.” They turned it over to the city with an understanding that they could lease the building for $1. So, yes, they should still “retain the right” to lease it per the agreement.

 

[KarenNC]

They didn’t sell their “house.” They turned it over to the city with an understanding that they could lease the building for $1. So, yes, they should still “retain the right” to lease it per the agreement.

Do you have access to the original wording of the agreement? It would help the discussion if we could all look at it.

 

[Ray_Scheel]

If you sell your house, do you then, 80 years later, necessarily retain the right to dictate to the current owners what they may do with it simply because you built it?

In a sale arrangement the buying party doesn’t have the right to come back to the seller later to take back the payment and keep the property too. The long term use of the property was part of the deal, the city changing its other ordinances in the meantime isn’t an excuse for it to violate agreements it put into place before that point. Changes in how lease arrangements are made now also does not render prior arrangements moot

It seems that all parties agree that the original agreement was an ongoing trade of sorts, not an outright sale; the sweetheart lease is the payment to the Scouts, and the terms of the note have not been fulfilled. To address another question raised about who paid for maintaining the building, the Scouts have been the one maintaining the property through the years (including a $2.4 million project in 1994). The original agreement appears to be that the scouts were allowed to use land owned by the city for their headquarters provided that they built and maintained the building themselves, back in a day where political correctness and a fast buck didn’t overrule community service and encouraging solid character formation in our youth.

Further, the Phily scouts had already adopted a non-discrimination agreement with the approval of the prior city solicitor in 2005. The ink was not dry on the last gunpoint modification to the lease agreement before the city came back demanding for more - coincidentally as soon a a new, openly homosexual attorney became city solicitor.

I’d suspect that Scouting’s ongoing community service contributions was also considered to be part of the “lease value” under the original arrangement, as that kind of thing is fairly common in municipal settings. I’m on the board of a non-profit here that has a sweetheart deal with the city that specifies the work we do as part of the value provided to the city. There is no way for a municipal government to provide the kinds of services and benefits Scouting and other values-oriented charities offer on the limited budgets those programs make work because they are values-based.

 

[AgnosTheist]

thats not fair. why not create their own group called “Gay Scouts”?

 

[KathleenElsie]

How in the world is anyone “forcing” a child into Boy Scouts against their parents’ will, whether they stay in this building or move somewhere else? No one said they were forcing the boys to join. I said they were forcing the BSA to take leaders that do not qualify for the positions. Also if they move to the suburbs then there will be inner city youth that loose the chance to be scouts.

In this arena, yes, most assuredly the “rules of the game” can and frequently are changed. From what I can see of the situation (realizing that I am relying on media reports), the government subsidy is applied equally to all nonprofits—they must agree to include a nondiscrimination clause in their lease and that nondiscrimination clause must include sexual orientation. It is no different than if they had historically had a policy of not allowing African Americans to be leaders because they felt that was not in sync with their mission. This would have flown before the civil rights laws were enacted, but not afterwards.

The Boy Scouts are not being kicked out, they are being required to pay rent just like any other business would in that same location without benefit of the subsidy because they rejected the terms under which the subsidy is available. The Boy Scouts have the right to set their membership policies. The city has the right to set its policies under which it will offer subsidies to nonprofits.

I wonder how many parents of young boys want the leaders of the organization to be homosexual, bi-sexual or trans-sexual?

When will they start taxing religious orders for not taking atheists or those that publicly dispute the beliefs of their “employers?”

 

[KathleenElsie]

In a sale arrangement the buying party doesn’t have the right to come back to the seller later to take back the payment and keep the property too. The long term use of the property was part of the deal, the city changing its other ordinances in the meantime isn’t an excuse for it to violate agreements it put into place before that point. Changes in how lease arrangements are made now also does not render prior arrangements moot

It seems that all parties agree that the original agreement was an ongoing trade of sorts, not an outright sale; the sweetheart lease is the payment to the Scouts, and the terms of the note have not been fulfilled. To address another question raised about who paid for maintaining the building, the Scouts have been the one maintaining the property through the years (including a $2.4 million project in 1994). The original agreement appears to be that the scouts were allowed to use land owned by the city for their headquarters provided that they built and maintained the building themselves, back in a day where political correctness and a fast buck didn’t overrule community service and encouraging solid character formation in our youth.

Further, the Phily scouts had already adopted a non-discrimination agreement with the approval of the prior city solicitor in 2005. The ink was not dry on the last gunpoint modification to the lease agreement before the city came back demanding for more - coincidentally as soon a a new, openly homosexual attorney became city solicitor.

I’d suspect that Scouting’s ongoing community service contributions was also considered to be part of the “lease value” under the original arrangement, as that kind of thing is fairly common in municipal settings. I’m on the board of a non-profit here that has a sweetheart deal with the city that specifies the work we do as part of the value provided to the city. There is no way for a municipal government to provide the kinds of services and benefits Scouting and other values-oriented charities offer on the limited budgets those programs make work because they are values-based.

 

[KarenNC]

I wonder how many parents of young boys want the leaders of the organization to be homosexual, bi-sexual or trans-sexual?

Again, that is irrelevant. No one is forcing anyone to join the Boy Scouts or preventing them from doing so, to my knowledge.

When will they start taxing religious orders for not taking atheists or those that publicly dispute the beliefs of their “employers?”

Any private group is perfectly able to set any membership requirements they desire. The issue comes when they want a benefit from another group, particularly from the government, which is funded by all taxpayers, not just those who like that particular private group. In order to access this benefit, they must follow the rules set by the other group.

If a religious group exceeds the boundaries of the regulations offering them tax exemption, they will lose that benefit. If they don’t meet the IRS requirements for such, they won’t get it in the first place. There are limits, for instance, on political lobbying and other partisan activities, use of property, etc.

Again, until we see something that specifically states the terms of the original agreement in this case, it is all speculation. I have seen a wide range of media reports that offer conflicting information on what the original agreement actually entailed.

 

[Elric]

I wonder how many parents of young boys want the leaders of the organization to be homosexual, bi-sexual or trans-sexual?

I would hope that they would be more worried about abusive leaders (physical, emotional, sexual) than they are of individuals who have a different “lifestyle”.

Personally it would worry me about the same ammount as any other leader, especally if I didnt know them.

 

[drafdog]

“A Scout is trustworthy, loyal, friendly, courteous, kind, obedient, cheerful, thrifty, brave, clean and reverent.”

How trustworthy is an organization that accepts a small boy into its ranks and then a few years later says he must leave because of a condition which existed at the time he entered?
How loyal is a group that brings you into its bosom and later decides that for no action on your part they don’t want you any more?
How friendly is a troop that says you can’t join because of a condition that is not one of choice and which cannot be changed?
How courteous is it to bar the door to a fellow Scout when he reaches puberty and finds that he is different from most of his fellows?
How kind is it to throw out a friend for no offense on his part?
How brave is it to yield to xenophobia and reject others because they are different?

As long as the Boy Scouts of America are not behaving as good Scouts, they do not deserve any sort of preferential treatment. They have tauted themselves as an organization which promotes good citizenship and patriotism and then turn around and reject their own members. Phooey!!!

Matthew
Former Scout, Assistant Scoutmaster, Scoutmaster

PS Homosexuality and pedophilia are two separate and distinct disorders and should not be confused or equated with one another.

 

[Ray_Scheel]

As long as the Boy Scouts of America are not behaving as good Scouts, they do not deserve any sort of preferential treatment. They have tauted themselves as an organization which promotes good citizenship and patriotism and then turn around and reject their own members. Phooey!!!

Temptations towards moral evils are not a burden specific to homosexuals. The code of honor Scouting specifies insists that everyone officially involved with Scouting adhere to that code. Practicing homosexuals are not singled out as a special case, in reality the situation is quite the opposite as the active homosexuals are quite clearly demanding to be given a special exemption to the universal expectation within Scouting to stay on narrow path. They are the ones wanting preferntial treatment, wanting to be able act as they wish in that moral struggle while still claiming all the trappings. Scouting doesn’t work that way, no special interest group has the option to insist on picking and choosing what parts of the Scout Oath and Law they will follow if they want to remain affiliated with the national organization who’s prestige they are wanting to benefit from.

PS Homosexuality and pedophilia are two separate and distinct disorders and should not be confused or equated with one another.

From a technical perspective this is true, but technically, pedophilia is directed at pre-pubescent children and often isn’t tied to the actor’s “primary” preference when dealing with other adults.

However, in a very important bit of validation, the cases of abuse within Scouting have by and large been committed by homosexually inclined men against pubescent or post-pubescent boys/young men, thus falling into a realm of disorders that are tied to the actor’s “primary” sexual orientation. The mandatory high level parental involvement of Cub Scouts effectively prevents access to the age ranges the true pedophiles would be interested in.