Posted on 10/20/2007 7:53:33 AM PDT by truthfinder9
The city of Philadelphia has decided to punish the Boy Scouts of America because it will not allow homosexuals to serve as Scout Leaders. City officials said they will charge the Cradle of Liberty Scouts Council $200,000 a year to use the city-owned headquarters. The Council was paying $1 per year (since 1928). The city owns the land on which the Council's 1928 Beaux Arts building sits.
The city says it is charging the scouts $200,000 a year because the scouts discriminate against homosexuals. But the city finds nothing wrong with their discrimination against the scouts because of the scouts' belief.
The action by city officials means that 30 new Cub Scout packs won't be organized, and that 800 needy kids will not be going to the Council's summer camp if the city charges them $200,000.
The Supreme Court ruled in 2000 that the scouts, as a private group, have a First Amendment right to bar homosexuals from membership. Philadelphia officials, in an effort to appease the homosexual activists, began searching for a way to punish the scouts. The rent increase was the vehicle to do that.
The Cradle of Liberty Council serves about 64,000 scouts in Philadelphia and its suburbs.
One of the more interesting arguments I’ve seen about this compares the Boy Scouts to the Democrat and Republican political parties, who also receive government freebies.
That is, if a neo-Nazi joined either political party, and they refused to let him air his views, then kicked him out for being a neo-Nazi, both political parties would have “denied him his rights”.
So if the Boy Scouts are denied this largesse because of their stand against homosexuals and atheists, then the political parties should be denied largesse because they restrict membership to only those who believe as they do, infringing on free speech rights.
Actually, I read an earlier, more detailed article posted here earlier about this, and the Philadelphia boy scout leaders claim that they DO apparently allow homosexual scouts and scoutmasters to participate.
They had a working arrangement with the city government along the lines of “don’t ask, don’t tell.” They merely refused to openly repudiate the policy of the national organization, probably because they don’t want to get kicked out.
Apparently that informal arrangement is not good enough for the city politician responsible for this confrontation.
I also read in another posting that the scouts had built the building, and had donated it to the city in return for a perpetual lease.
If this is so, the city better prepare for a lawsuit.
I’m sure Philadelphia, like all great liberal cesspools, has some kind of rent control law.
I assume that is being checked out by the legal beagles.
The scientific, medical, and death rate statistics provide overwhelming evidence that homosexuality is unnatural. Why would any administration cave in to morons or people with disordered minds on a matter so clearly obvious?
Philadelphia, once a great city, is now controlled by Marxists (Democrats). IMO, they sold their integrity to the homosexual lobby. Now they can count their money twice, “donations” from the homosexual lobby and $200,000 extorted from the Boy Scouts of America.
This is because they do not understand that the term, The City of Brotherly Love" has absolutely nothing to do with queers.
If the homos can’t force their way into the boy scouts tents, they will try to destroy the boy scouts entirely.
Better no BSA than the BSA turned into a gay hunting zone.
The rat is a loathsome creature. Notice there is no problem with the Girl Scouts. That is because they don’t exclude lesbians. I am told their national headquarters is wall to wall lesbians. The liberal dunces that send their little girls to Girls Scouts either don’t know or ( more likely ) don’t care.
The City of Philadelphia is a crime-ridden sinkhole. No surprise they’ve got everything exactly bass-akwards.
Is it possible to identify who this "city politician" is?
Ambition is an awesome thing.
I remember in the early 70s perversions were generally illegal, unlawful and occasionally prosecuted. Most states had laws specifically punishing perverts, even though it was rarely applied except for the most egregious criminals.
In the late 70s, a movement began seeking understanding and tolerance.
I was not sure at the time what the goal was (no one else did), but it was clearly a request for something that equally clearly could not be demanded. If the nascent gay and lesbian movement had started marches, riots and destruction, the "movement" would have been squashed like a cockroach instantly.
Now, 30 years later, the perverts rule politics in most major cities, and increasingly in state legislatures and national policies.
When exactly did the total inversion of societal power occur?
Again, had the objective been clearer, like the destruction of the Boy Scouts, the smaller closet would still be alive and well, and our country would be a better place.
And as such, it is now more unsafe to be there than in Iraq.
I hear libs say about Iraq, "Democracy isn't for everyone." Everytime I hear that I think of Philly and Detroit.
Philly punishes Scouts over 'gay' issue ^
If Philly can abrogate the perpetuity clause, then the BSA should abrogate the contract, and demand payment, at current price, for the building they built on the property.
Not all private organizations are equal with respect to the benefits of society. Generally society (rep’d by govt in some cases) recognized and understood this common sense fact and therefore encouraged these organizations. Such as scouting programs because they were beneficial in growing up kids that would be better people (hence better for society).
$200,000 a year is cheaper than settling lawsuits because a homosexual molested a kid. I bet the Catholic Church would have been willing to make that swap.
This Assistant Scoutmaster will not allow either to happen while I draw breath...
L
Amen.
I wonder,.... if in the 1928 when the deal was first struck if the words “in perpetuity” are in the city records. If they are that would make a most interesting legal case.
Personally, I think that the Council should have the property independently appraised for its value both historically and architecturally then offer to sell the building to the city for the appraised price. Yes it does set on city property but the building was built with scout money and is owned by the Scouts. If the city refuses then destroy the building and give the city back an empty lot.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.