• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Boy Scouts vote to welcome gay members

Wrong.

The 1964 Civil Rights Act is still in effect and you will never do away with it.

That is some argument. I seem to recall conservatives loving that argument in battles they lost eventually.

Btw, you realize I'm not talking about the entire law, right?


"Tolerance is giving to every other human being every right that you claim for yourself." ~ Robert Green Ingersoll

Why do you keep posting that quote? It doesn't apply here.
 
:lamo

Naw. But it's critical for you to think that, isn't it?

Why do you think that? I'm not the one who thinks that homosexuality is an offense against the moral structure of the universe.
 
The thirteenth amendment is redundant. Even before it was put in place no one had the right to own another human being or the right to anyone else's labor or service.

Btw, your argument is bizarre. I'm making a constitutional argument as it stands now. If you would like to change the constitution to make my argument invalid you would have to rip into some pretty well supported elements. Good luck.

Ok, since the clue by four has not yet reached critical mass to get through I guess i will point out that yes the constitution is not perfect today and we still have the ability to amend it because it is not always right. make your argument based on rationality and logic and not based on the rightousness of a document that admits it can be wrong. I know you want to make the lazy argument that the constitution says so so it must be right, but it simply is not the case since the constitution can be wrong which makes your basis for being right flawed logically. So you have to not be lazy and actually get into the reasoning and rationality behind the document and make an argument as to why every company should be allowed to discriminate even if it means denying land sales or even food to a minority because the store owners feel they should have the freedom to remove the rights of other people to do things like eat or own land.

Oh, and i would just like to point out the constitution actually says your initial argument that businesses can chose to discriminate in all areas due to freedom is not constitutional. So even by your own lazy piss poor argument that the constitution says so, your argument is wrong. What is worse is you are actually using the anti-prejudice amendments that actually restrict the prejudicial actions of commercial entities to argue with me which is insanity on an astronomical level since you are arguing businesses have a constitutional right to discriminate. Yes, you did the logical equivalent of dividing by zero. I was being very nice for not pointing out you don't even understand your own argument.
 
Ok, since the clue by four has not yet reached critical mass to get through I guess i will point out that yes the constitution is not perfect today and we still have the ability to amend it because it is not always right. make your argument based on rationality and logic and not based on the rightousness of a document that admits it can be wrong. I know you want to make the lazy argument that the constitution says so so it must be right, but it simply is not the case since the constitution can be wrong which makes your basis for being right flawed logically. So you have to not be lazy and actually get into the reasoning and rationality behind the document and make an argument as to why every company should be allowed to discriminate even if it means denying land sales or even food to a minority because the store owners feel they should have the freedom to remove the rights of other people to do things like eat or own land.

Yeah, and until you propose a change my argument will stand.

Oh, and i would just like to point out the constitution actually says your initial argument that businesses can chose to discriminate in all areas due to freedom is not constitutional. So even by your own lazy piss poor argument that the constitution says so, your argument is wrong. What is worse is you are actually using the anti-prejudice amendments that actually restrict the prejudicial actions of commercial entities to argue with me which is insanity on an astronomical level since you are arguing businesses have a constitutional right to discriminate. Yes, you did the logical equivalent of dividing by zero. I was being very nice for not pointing out you don't even understand your own argument.

Lol! So no one can put you into involuntary servitude but you can put business owners into involuntary servitude?! Yeah, that is some logic alright. Would you like to try again?
 
I got you. I was wondering what badges would be taken back. It seemed a bit absurd. "Sorry, no hiking badge for you".

I thought I read a story about them refusing to let an Eagle Scout earn that just because he was found to be gay before the ceremony, but I think if they did refuse to recognize any badges as "earned" for being homosexual, it would probably be ones that were about morality or religion or perhaps honesty (as a girl and really someone who doesn't plan on having her kids in scouts (because I don't approve of the "no atheists/agnostics policy) I just don't know what badges are available to begin with).
 
Yeah, and until you propose a change my argument will stand.



Lol! So no one can put you into involuntary servitude but you can put business owners into involuntary servitude?! Yeah, that is some logic alright. Would you like to try again?

I win. Your argument is stillc rap and wrong even by your own argument. Do not get mad at me because i know when you are beaten and you do not. I guess the clue by four is not sufficient to get through, but it was fun beating you over the head repeatedly with it.
 
I win. Your argument is stillc rap and wrong even by your own argument. Do not get mad at me because i know when you are beaten and you do not. I guess the clue by four is not sufficient to get through, but it was fun beating you over the head repeatedly with it.

Want to tell me how you can put someone into involuntary servitude and not violate the thirteenth amendment? No? Yeah, I didn't think so.
 
It is still private property regardless of subsidies or privileges from the government. The right to association and the right to control access to your property still stands.

Not when they use public buildings, which I believe they often do.
 
Not when they use public buildings, which I believe they often do.

If they are in a public building that changes nothing since the organization itself is private. Though I suppose you could kick them out of the public building.
 
The thirteenth amendment is redundant. Even before it was put in place no one had the right to own another human being or the right to anyone else's labor or service.

Btw, your argument is bizarre. I'm making a constitutional argument as it stands now. If you would like to change the constitution to make my argument invalid you would have to rip into some pretty well supported elements. Good luck.

No, you are making an appeal to authority and doing it badly

The constitution allows the govt to limit people's rights.
 
No, you are making an appeal to authority and doing it badly

The constitution allows the govt to limit people's rights.

Want to tell me how you can put someone into involuntary servitude and not violate the thirteenth amendment? No? Yeah, I didn't think so.

You know what it probably is? I bet it's some weird exception that if the business is "open to the public"(because we know that isn't actually a myth and actually exists in real life.) that you can make the owners of that establishment your servants against their will. Yeah, I bet that is how the logic goes.

Because what has practicing logic ever done for us? Nothing.
 
If they are in a public building that changes nothing since the organization itself is private. Though I suppose you could kick them out of the public building.

You know what probably is? I bet it's some weird exception that if the business is "open to the public"(because we know that isn't actually a myth) that you can make the owners of that establishment your servants against their will. Yeah, I bet that is how the logic goes.


Wrong. It is perfectly constitutional for the govt to prohibit businesses that engage in commerce from discriminating on the basis sexual orientation
 
Well, it seems that is true. I suppose time will tell whether the Gay Lobby will have won the battle, but lost the war.

What war? It's a step forward for accepting people as they are.

Personally, if they asked me I would have just removed any policy whatsoever on scouts or leaders. Leave that to the individual troops.
 
Wrong. It is perfectly constitutional for the govt to prohibit businesses that engage in commerce from discriminating on the basis sexual orientation

Is that an argument?

Btw, don't even open the can of worms about commerce. That is just another whole bucket of fail for you.
 
Wrong. It is perfectly constitutional for the govt to prohibit businesses that engage in commerce from discriminating on the basis sexual orientation

It appears that the U.S. Congress has addressed this issue:

Sec. 108.6 Equal access.

(a) General. Consistent with the requirements of paragraph (b) of
this section, no covered entity shall deny equal access or a fair
opportunity to meet to, or discriminate against, any group officially
affiliated with the Boy Scouts or officially affiliated with any other
Title 36 youth group that requests to conduct a meeting within that
covered entity's designated open forum or limited public forum.
No
covered entity shall deny that access or opportunity or discriminate
for reasons including the membership or leadership criteria or oath of
allegiance to God and country of the Boy Scouts or of the Title 36
youth group.
(b) Specific requirements. (1) Meetings. Any group officially
affiliated with the Boy Scouts or officially affiliated with any other
Title 36 youth group that requests to conduct a meeting in the covered
entity's designated open forum or limited public forum must be given
equal access to school premises or facilities to conduct meetings.
(2) Benefits and services. Any group officially affiliated with the
Boy Scouts or officially affiliated with any other Title 36 youth group
that requests to conduct a meeting as described in paragraph (b)(1) of
this section must be given equal access to any other benefits and
services provided to one or more outside youth or community groups that
are allowed to meet in that same forum. These benefits and services may
include, but are not necessarily limited to, school-related means of
communication, such as bulletin board notices and literature
distribution, and recruitment.
(3) Fees. Fees may be charged in connection with the access
provided under the Act and this part.
(4) Terms. Any access provided under the Act and this part to any
group officially affiliated with the Boy Scouts or officially
affiliated with any other Title 36 youth group, as well as any fees
charged for this access, must be on terms that are no less favorable
than the most favorable terms provided to one or more outside youth or
community groups.
(5) Nondiscrimination. Any decisions relevant to the provision of
equal access must be made on a nondiscriminatory basis. Any
determinations of which youth or community groups are outside groups
must be made using objective, nondiscriminatory criteria, and these
criteria must be used in a consistent, equal, and nondiscriminatory
manner.

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 7905)

I believe I'm reading this correctly: Equal Access to Public School Facilities for the Boy Scouts of America and Other Designated Youth Groups; 34 CFR Parts 75, 76, and 108; Final regulations [OCR]
 

I don't understand why you think that has anything to do with govts power to prohibit discrimination by businesses against GLBT's. The law you cite deals with access to public school facilities, not businesses.
 
I don't understand why you think that has anything to do with govts power to prohibit discrimination by businesses against GLBT's. The law you cite deals with access to public school facilities, not businesses.

I misread your post.

Never mind.
 
It's a fact

And yet you provided no supporting evidence or even an argument to support this "fact" of yours. Go figure.
 
The BSA is generally a more conservative organization whereas homosexuals are generally an ultra liberal demographic group.

Neither of those statements are particularly true. The Boy Scouts, as an organization, is indeed run by loony Mormons, but the individual troop leaders vary as much as anyone else. Same with the individual members.

Homosexuals, particularly young homosexuals, are probably the most liberal demographic there is.

If that's true, it's probably because conservatives keep trying to reduce them to subhuman status and strip away their rights. Would you support a faction that was trying to do that to you? Sexual orientation has nothing to do with one's positions on the fourth amendment, guns, or fiscal policy, however.

Part of what makes scouting so appealing to the conservatives that have made up the organization for generations is the belief that hard work and dedication is the route to success. Right or wrong, this is a belief liberals tend to reject.

Pretty much no part of this is true. Scouting has nothing to do with a proposition about hard work. It's about community service, the outdoors, and teamwork. Those are the three elements that pretty much every scouting activity is about. I've been involved with scouting for eighteen years. You can trust me on this. But let's hit the other nonsense assertion. "Errg, librulz hate hard werk!" Some of us (because liberals are less homogeneous in their positions than conservatives) view success as a team activity. Not the individual "I did it all by myself" nonsense that some conservatives (apparently you) like to tout. The idea that a person's success comes from them and them alone is a fantasy.

They tend to see success as being the result of the proper skin pigmentation

Race card! Those poor whites, so discriminated against by only having nine times as much average wealth as blacks.

and how wealthy one's parents are.

Right, that's why the left keeps doing all that "rich bashing" that conservatives get so incensed about. Because we're secretly oligarchs who want to ensure that the wealthy keep all the money. That's why we keep deregulating business and slashing taxes on the rich and protecting their offshore money. Do you only get your information in the form of talking points?

I'm not against letting gays into scouts but I wonder how long before the requirements to become an Eagle Scout are modified because it is suddenly culturally biased or single parent households can't take time off to do all the activities.

And then the slippery slope. Because apparently there's a similarity between banning a demographic from enjoying an American institution and having difficult requirements for an achievement. Man, if we let those blacks into our schools, how long before you only need a 40% to graduate and get your diploma? See how stupid that sounds?

Want to tell me how you can put someone into involuntary servitude and not violate the thirteenth amendment? No? Yeah, I didn't think so.

What exactly do you think involuntary servitude is? Because I do not think it means what you think it means. Especially when you said that owning other people was already illegal when the 13th amendment was enacted. Have you studied American history? Say, around the 1860s? Seriously, I don't think you understand what involuntary servitude is.

If they are in a public building that changes nothing since the organization itself is private. Though I suppose you could kick them out of the public building.

And that's generally what is proposed to do to the Boy Scouts if they keep discriminating. And let me tell you, the BSA does not have the kind of money to build its own buildings. Nor to pay full price for the space it uses for the Jamboree. The Boy Scouts gets a lot of benefits from the federal government. And the price they have to pay for those benefits is that they can't discriminate based on race, religion, sexual orientation, or many other elements. Honestly, the program shouldn't be sex-exclusive, either. The Girl Scouts and Venturers (who don't engage in all this discriminatory BS) are a different organization.

"Tolerance is giving to every other human being every right that you claim for yourself." ~ Robert Green Ingersoll

Quoting this quote. I like it very much.
 
I thought I read a story about them refusing to let an Eagle Scout earn that just because he was found to be gay before the ceremony, but I think if they did refuse to recognize any badges as "earned" for being homosexual, it would probably be ones that were about morality or religion or perhaps honesty (as a girl and really someone who doesn't plan on having her kids in scouts (because I don't approve of the "no atheists/agnostics policy) I just don't know what badges are available to begin with).

I was never a Boy Scout, so I can't write from experience.

It seems going forward, joining will require a thought process regarding policy that others previously ignored and rejected. Not sure why they did so, but I guess the point is moot now.
 
I don't know, do you think you have the right to involuntary servants?

I don't think businesses have the right to discriminate against people based on factors such as race, religion, sexual orientation, gender, etc
 
Back
Top Bottom