AZMike

Although we have been assured by many that it won't happen, and that the LGBT pressure groups will be happy with the scalp they got, it seems likely that the lawsuits against COs (whether religious or religiously affiliated (like the Knights of Columbus and church PTAs) will begin soon against COs, without the legal protections of the Dale decision or Headquarters to back them up. Unless they have the legal resources and the will to back them up, they will fold, either by acquiescing or closing up shop. The LDS will probably be safe as their troops are an official youth program of their religion, other groups will probably find they are not. Even religious groups who are the subject of a discrimination suit will still need the funding to defend themselves legally against LGBT legal funds and, probably, the government, which many will not have. Victory has to be total for the LGBT groups, it would appear. I'm ending my involvement with scouting. The old Scouting program is gone, and I honestly wish good luck to those of you who will continue with the new organization. Perhaps you will see more money and corporate sponsors come in for headquarters and youth enrollment will shoot up, but I doubt it. Take care, everyone.

Several people have posted that this is purely a Youth Safety Issue. There's nothing to see here, folks, move along smartly. It seems to be be a policy issue as well. If I'm not mistaken, were we not told that a) this sort of thing would not happen, as gay kids would have the sense and maturity to keep their hands to themselves, and b) COs could bounce a kid who is gay if he overtly acts on his sexual interests - i.e., one could self-identify as gay, but to act on those impulses should result in termination from the BSA. That seems to be the issue here: Can and should the gay scout be dropped from Scouting? He violated the rules, and in a way that will have a negative effect on the victim. For the victim in this case of unwanted sexual harassment, he will likely always associate this unpleasant experience with a) going to summer camp and b) perhaps, Scouting in general. He may brush it off, but it is just as likely that he will not want to participate in Scouting anymore, where that kind of thing happened to him. Politically, is the BSA still in a position where it would be able to remove a gay scout for acting out on his desires with other boys, or has that time passed?

The adult leader application is one of the few carbon-based non-life forms used today.

At party-supply stores, but I don't think dollar stores cut their prices even after holidays.

If you have an Eagle Court planned for your son or someone in your troop in the next year, stop by your local dollar store this week - you can pick up patriotic-themed decorations very inexpensively in the week before Independence Day. I spent $20 and got lots of flag-themed bunting, hangings, and table decorations. We put all our decorations, unused plates, napkins, blank invitations and programs, etc. in a big rubbermaid after a CoH and pass them on to the next family planning a CoH.

Lord Baden-Powell had a vision of Scouts stepping in to help after natural disasters, wars, etc. Nice to see this is going on in Derna, Libya, after the departure of the ISIS forces: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/derna-boy-scouts-step-in-to-help-run-city-after-isis-is-driven-out-of-libyan-stronghold-10344233.html

No one really knows who said it originally. Twain attributed it to Disraeli, but it's not in any of his writings. It was apparently a common expression long before Twain: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lies,_damned_lies,_and_statistics

For the same reason that a Episcopalian sponsored CO would not be able to demand that the BSA divest from any investments in the state of Israel (assuming it had any). The Episcopalian church recently changed its doctrine to allow for the ordination of homosexual men, just as it is likely to accommodate the interests of anti-Semites and call for the boycott and sanction Israel at its conference this summer (as the Presbyterian church already has). The BSA had a policy that was based on long-standing beliefs that were shared (until recently) by all the major religions. Those views sprang from moral teachings from those religions, but were not dependent on them. If the Episcopal church has decided to exhibit a certain moral flexibility on gays and Jews to appeal to a new world-view, the BSA should not be obligated to accommodate them in every change they make.

Perhaps you should declare yourself a troop that refuses to discriminate against black-powder firearms enthusiasts, or against handgun proponents. Surely discrimination of any kind is a bad thing (as we are now informed by the zeitgeist), so HQ should be willing to knuckle under and cease their support of discrimination. Likewise, the discrimination against alcohol imbibers, chainsaw users, convicted felons, and so forth. End all discrimination now.

If people want to put their sexual activity front and center as a significant marker of their identity, why should it be considered distasteful or rude to describe it? Even over rubber chicken?

Per NPR, a decision is going to be made by National by October. I think that's what I heard.

I would respond to you, but apparently we have been de-emphasized by the Powers That Be.

I have the strangest sensation that, like a dust bunny, those who disagree with what seems to be the new position of BSA headquarters are beginning to be swept under the rug...

Yep. If memory serves, the BSA did make a compromise two years ago. Wait, you mean that wasn't enough for the LGBT community?

As an example of what someone will face who has the effrontery of trying to preserve their CO's ability to decide whether to allow homosexual leadership, consider what happened to Esau Jardon up in Toronto. Leaving aside the differing degrees of religious freedom between the U.S. and Canada, it's an illustrative example of what social pressures can be brought to bear now on someone who did not even refuse to provide services to a gay wedding, but simply expressed the wrong opinions within his business. He did provide rings to a lesbian couple, who were happy with the rings he created for them. Another couple later went in to his store and saw a religious poster that said "The sanctity of marriage is under attack. Let’s keep marriage between a man and a woman." They told the lesbian couple, who then demanded their money back for their custom-made rings and went to the media to begin, yet again, another shredding of a man's reputation for expressing his religious beliefs. Initially, Jardon refused to refund their money - they were custom made rings, they had expressed satisfaction with the work done, and were only demanding money back out of spite for his beliefs. (http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newfoundland-labrador/jewelry-store-sign-prompts-same-sex-couple-to-ask-for-refund-1.3077192) Jardon expressed what most people would think are reasonable, and fairly tolerant views: “I have been posting different aspects of my religious beliefs the last 11 years, and I’ve never had one single problem with any of my customers,†he said… “One of the reasons my family chose to come to Canada was the freedom of rights,†he said, noting the freedom of religion and freedom of speech… “I feel really bad that [White] feels that we would in any way try to hurt or discriminate against her, but we will not retract from what we believe. I cannot say, ‘Well because you feel bad, I will stop believing what I believe,'†he said. “When I walk on Church Street in Toronto, where I am right now, and I see [LGBT rainbow flags], and I see a lot of signs and a lot of things on public property, I don’t have a problem with them. I accept it. I chose to come to Canada… and we accept the whole package… I don’t discriminate against that, nor do I come and tell them to take them down. For the same reason, I ask to have the same respect in return, especially when it’s in my own business.†That wasn't enough for the LGBT pressure groups. Using the media to attack the man as a bigot, and anonymous individuals who felt emboldened by the anonymity of social media, Jardon received so many death threats on his business's Facebook page that he had to close it down. Hackers posted false articles on his company's website. He finally offered to return their money in an attempt to make the whole thing go away...but where does he go to get his reputation back? (http://www.thetelegram.com/News/Local/2015-05-18/article-4150483/Jeweller-says-he-has-been-bullied,-threatened/1) The nature of society today is that one does not need to be threatened with the legal machinery of the state and the LGBT political pressure groups' lawsuits - the mob mentality of the progressive movement, where a belief that one is "hateful" is sufficient to advocate the destruction of an individual (because he's, you know, homophobic) will now do the job without the need of a lawsuit. Do you think the CO's position will be any different?