GOP defense of Boy Scouts draws hypocrisy charge

[fgoodwin]

GOP defense of Boy Scouts draws hypocrisy chargehttp://www.gwinnettdailypost.com/index.php?s=&url_channel_id=36&url_article_id=16022&url_subchannel_id=&change_well_id=2

http://tinyurl.com/s74sr

 

By Dave Williams

06/11/2006

 

Several years ago, Republicans in the General Assembly pushed a bill to prohibit local governments and schools from banning the Boy Scouts from their buildings because of the organizations stand against gay scoutmasters.

 

Democrats running the Legislature at the time managed to bottle it up in committees.

 

Now, with the GOP in control, the Scouts may be back on the agenda at the Gold Dome.

 

The backdrop is a recent decision by Bank of America to withhold its usual charitable donation to a regional Boy Scouts council based in Valdosta because of the national organizations prohibition of gays serving as troop leaders.

 

That news has fired up two Republicans from Cobb County: Rep. Earl Ehrhart of Powder Springs the chief sponsor of the earlier Defense of Scouting Act and Sen. John Wiles of Marietta.

 

The two have vowed to introduce bills in their respective chambers next winter that would forbid the state from doing business with any company that discriminates against youth groups.

 

I cant understand why a business would want to discriminate against an organization that takes young men and turns them into good citizens, Wiles said. Its just wrong.

 

Given the political climate in Georgia, where a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage passed two years ago with 76 percent of the vote, any measure that directly or indirectly supports the Boy Scouts ban on gay scoutmasters wouldnt be hard pressed to find a lot of support in the General Assembly.

 

But thats not stopping critics from charging hypocrisy on the part of legislative Republicans.

 

Senate Minority Leader Robert Brown, D-Macon, said any move by lawmakers to dictate how a private business should spend its money flies in the face of what Republicans always have claimed to stand for.

 

This Georgia Republican Party has been topsy-turvy in its rhetoric and reality, Brown said.

 

Wiles turns that argument around. If businesses have a right to decide what to do with their money, he said, Georgia lawmakers have just as much right to determine where to invest the taxpayers money.

 

I dont think the citizens of Georgia want us to put their money in a place that openly discriminates against a group of Georgians, he said.

 

There are a lot of banks in Georgia that would probably choose not to discriminate against Georgians.

 

But Brown said hes not so sure.

 

I dont know where were going to put their money, he said. You can probably find somebody somewhere that all banks are discriminating against.

 

Wed have to end up establishing a state bank, and I know they dont want to do that.

 

Brown said the debate reminds him of the multiyear effort that longtime Rep. Tyrone Brooks, D-Atlanta, waged during the 1980s to convince the General Assembly to divest the state of investments in companies doing business with the then-apartheid government of South Africa.

 

The conservative position was that we shouldnt inject politics into the market system, Brown said.

 

But Wiles said interfering with the private sector is not what his bill would be about.

 

This is not us saying they cant do business in Georgia, he said. Were saying we wont do business with them.

 

This being an election year, its possible that neither Wiles nor Ehrhart will be around next year to introduce their bill.

 

However, thats unlikely. While both face Republican primary opposition, no Democrat signed up to run in either of their heavily Republican districts.

 

If the GOP retains control of the General Assembly, Ehrhart would be in a particularly strong position to ease the skids for the bill. As chairman of the House Rules Committee, he controls what reaches the floor for a vote.

 

Thats one less bill likely to get bottled up.

 

Dave Williams is a staff writer for the Gwinnett Daily Post. E-mail him at dave.williams@gwinnettdailypost.com

[Fuzzy Bear]

The GOP should simply pass a bill that states it won't do business with the Bank of America unless they do whatever the politicos want them to do no matter what the issue. This will short circuit the whole political mess making it the Grand Ole Party that we have come know for the past few years. Always being right makes tough love easy.

 

 

[yellow_hammer]

This is the same Bank of America that was fined for helping to launder South American drug money that funded Middle Eastern terrorist groups?

 

Why would we do business with them anyway?

[SaintCad]

"The backdrop is a recent decision by Bank of America to withhold its usual charitable donation to a regional Boy Scouts council based in Valdosta because of the national organizations prohibition of gays serving as troop leaders.

That news has fired up two Republicans from Cobb County: Rep. Earl Ehrhart of Powder Springs the chief sponsor of the earlier Defense of Scouting Act and Sen. John Wiles of Marietta.

The two have vowed to introduce bills in their respective chambers next winter that would forbid the state from doing business with any company that discriminates against youth groups."

 

So would this mean that BofA would need to fund all youth groups in Georgia equally including Neo-Nazis and NAMBLA Junior Auxillaries?

 

 

 

[SR540Beaver]

Whatever happened to the conservative belief in capitalism? Oh yeah, the neocons have hijacked the Republican party and are trying to push a religious agenda. So much for limited government. Let Bank of America do what they want and let their customers decide what they want to do about it. It is called the American way.

[GernBlansten]

So would this mean that BofA would need to fund all youth groups in Georgia equally including Neo-Nazis and NAMBLA Junior Auxillaries?

 

NAMBLA? What does the North American Marlon Brando Lookalike Association have anything to do with this?

[evmori]

NAMBLA = North American Man Boy Love Association!

 

Sick group!

[SaintCad]

"NAMBLA = North American Man Boy Love Association!

Sick group!"

 

We finally agree on something. I tried to think of the worst groups possible to show how bad this idea is when state legislatures tell private corporations how to contribute (viz. not discriminate) to youth groups. Does anyone know how "discrimination" is defined in this proposed law? Would it force a sort of all-or-none policy?

[yellow_hammer]

SR40Beaver said,

 

"Oh yeah, the neocons have hijacked the Republican party and are trying to push a religious agenda."

 

You've got your conservative groups mixed up. Neocons push for greater military funding and greater use of the military to mold the world in their image. As a group they don't care much about social issues.

[scoutingagain]

"You've got your conservative groups mixed up. Neocons push for greater military funding and greater use of the military to mold the world in their image. As a group they don't care much about social issues. "

 

Absolutely 100% true. Neocons also are in favor of a stronger executive branch of government, specifically the presidency. Although it will be interesting to see if they are supporters of a strong executive branch when, at some point their candidate doesn't hold the office.

 

SA

[GernBlansten]

Agreed. Neo-con wise.

They have used the religious right as a tool to get into power. They adopt their issues only to get votes then cast them aside on their quest for global domination.

[SR540Beaver]

Yellow,

 

I'll agree about the chickenhawk neocons love for using the military to mold the world in our image. Which supports what I said. The "image" they want to mold the world in is a government and society where morality is legislated based on religion. Oddly enough, that is the enemy we are currently fighting. Go figure.

[GernBlansten]

I'm not sure the neo-cons want a theocracy. They want world domination and control of resources and will use any means to get it.

 

The neo-cons are parasites. They latch onto groups to extract what they need to advance their own goals and ambitions. They have only have interest in the goals of their host as long as that host provides them power. Once that host no longer can or will support them, they cast them aside and move to the next host.

 

Classic case is Same Sex Marriage. They know it rallies the religious right but they have no intention of spending too much political capital getting it through. Ever notice when the religious right starts making noise and wandering off the plantation, the neo-cons whip out SSM. Then when everyone is back in line, it quietly goes away.

 

Same thing with paleo-conservatives. Their hot buttons are taxes and small government. Neos like big government and know it takes taxes to pay for it. So they drop rates for the top, most powerful paleos to placate them. The paleos don't like the deficits, but since they are paying less of it, they are happy.

 

Immigration is a tricky one for them. Paleos want cheap expendable labor. The religious right wants to keep America safe from immigrants and terrorists. Hard to play all the angles on that one. The net result is they come across as hypocrites.

 

Terrorism was a trump card they used effectively but I think its run its course. When the masses started grumbling, you could count on an "ORANGE ALERT!". You can only cry wolf so many times. I doubt we will see anymore terror alerts. I think America has become numb to the threat of domestic terrorism. But who knows? If the polling numbers come October look real bad for the neos, they may try anything.

[SR540Beaver]

Gern said, "Paleos want cheap expendable labor."

 

I have to disagree with you there. I look forward to reading Pat Buchanan's column twice a week. He has stressed borders, language and culture so long and so adamantly that he is often called a Nazi by both the left and right. Buchanan could easily be considered the poster boy of paleocons. He takes American companies and the federal government to task on a regular basis for the loss of manufacturing jobs that undercuts the middle class. He wants American jobs for english speaking Americans and is in full support of building a fence on the southern border.

 

I still say it is the neocons which actually had their start from the liberal side of the spectrum. Just like the left, the neocons see millions of Mexicans with Catholic and family values as a huge future voting block to tap and stay in power.

 

Paleocons come much much closer to America First'ers.

[Hunt]

"Let Bank of America do what they want and let their customers decide what they want to do about it. It is called the American way."

 

But the state is also a customer. I have trouble identifying the right principle here--should the state deal always with the low bidder, and never have any concern about the ethics of the businesses it deals with (as long as their activities are legal)?