Sure sounds like it to me. At the end of the day, no one is demanding that you do anything. You can go avail yourself of public services without anyone forcing you to renounce a tenet of your faith. And the Boy Scouts are free to discriminate in whatever way they want, as the courts have held. The issue is whether they can claim a right to government subsidy, and the courts so far have held that they don't.
good people are now being shut out because they won't prostrate themselves in front of some pervert who wants to take little boys on camping trips and to pass himself and his perversion off to them as worthy of emulation
Again, the Boy Scouts have refused to change their policy. No one has been forced to go on a camping trip with a gay scoutmaster, or forced to choose not to go on such a trip.
Name one positive thing about homosexuality.
I know lots of gay people, I work with a lot of gay people. And I don't recognize any of them in the stereotypes of predatory, child-molesting, coprophilia-lovin', disease-ridden animals that I see described here. I know them as good people, many in long-term relationships. For the most part they're just as happy, or unhappy, as my straight friends. And as far as I can tell, no more likely to roll around in excrement or molest a child as anyone else. Maybe my sample is skewed, but there it is.
Incorrect. The Scouts have been abused for years now over their failure to capitulate to homosexual (and also atheist) demands. They had to go all the way to the Supreme Court, where they won a narrow 5-4 ruling to keep from being booted out of the public schools and initially out of the National Parks. Even with that narrow victory, the left has continued trying to marginalize the Scouts at every opportunity by denying them public benefits that are readily available to groups which approve of homosexuality. Again, why should the Scouts have to adopt the religious ideals of the radical left?
And the Boy Scouts are free to discriminate in whatever way they want, as the courts have held.
Barely. By one vote.
The issue is whether they can claim a right to government subsidy, and the courts so far have held that they don't.
No. That would be the issue if they were going to court over this Philadelphia issue. The issue here is a political one. Should male-on-male sodomy be considered a superior value to the values of the Boy Scouts?
Again, the Boy Scouts have refused to change their policy. No one has been forced to go on a camping trip with a gay scoutmaster, or forced to choose not to go on such a trip.
Only because the Scouts won their court case 5-4, and because Congress passed a law protecting them. Those things can be reversed unless we stand up to the bullying tactics being used by militant homosexuals and their leftist allies against the Scouts.
I asked you to name one positive thing about homosexuality. Instead, you told me that you know homosexuals who are good people. I know alcoholics who are good people, but I wouldn't defend alcoholism. I couldn't. Just as you obviously couldn't think of anything good to say about homosexuality. I certainly wouldn't defend booting a children's organization out of a public building unless they agree to hire alcoholic leaders and provide alcoholic role models for the kids. Homosexuality is a behavior, and even if you were correct that homosexuals are no more likely to molest kids than heterosexuals (which I doubt), it's a moot point since pedophile heterosexual males obviously aren't interested in molesting little boys. Pedophile homosexual males are, and we'd be endangering these kids if we placed them in their care. Nor should we present such people as role models for children.
I can name plenty of positive things about Scouting. About Christianity. About heterosexuality.
Can you name one positive thing about homosexuality? Given the desire of so many people to protect this activity, and even to promote it above Scouting, surely there must be all kinds of wonderful things to say about it. So let's hear them.