If you give an inch...

[JoeBob]

[h=1]California trying to strike out tax-exempt status for Little League, ‘discriminatory’ groups[/h]

 

"Boy Scouts of America has a discriminatory policy because it won’t allow gay adults to be members."

 

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/aug/26/california-bill-targets-tax-exempt-status-for-disc/?page=2#ixzz2dBmslBnG

 

[st0ut717]

This is a thinly disguised money grab. i dont think the true purpose of this legislation is what it proponent claim it is.

[King Ding Dong]

How does Little League discriminate ?

[fred johnson]

Little league? It discriminates because it splits genders into "separate but equal" groups. The gender groups are NOT equal in focus, resources or performance. When was the last time the "girls" little league championship made national news. Seems like Little League would need to hold gender-less try outs to see who can play in which group. I know many 2nd grade girls that could out-hit 2nd grade boys.

 

...

 

IMHO, it is arrogant to assert who discriminates and who doesn't. Heck, most high school sports teams discriminate strongly because they favor the kids who've been in the sport for years and years. Newbies are generally unwelcome.

 

...

 

All the more reason BSA should adopt a local option. BSA can be in-reality non-discriminatory and leave unit specific membership choices to their charter organizations. It is really a meaningful two edge sword and BSA is almost there now. And BSA may be able to weather this one better than others. Most units are "owned" by other groups, i.e. churches. To really hurt BSA, California would need to strip non-profit status from discriminating churches. Mormon. Catholic. Baptist. Protestant.

 

Then, you need to decide which church discriminates.

[King Ding Dong]

Little league? It discriminates because it splits genders into "separate but equal" groups. The gender groups are NOT equal in focus, resources or performance. When was the last time the "girls" little league championship made national news. Seems like Little League would need to hold gender-less try outs to see who can play in which group. I know many 2nd grade girls that could out-hit 2nd grade boys.

 

...

 

IMHO, it is arrogant to assert who discriminates and who doesn't. Heck, most high school sports teams discriminate strongly because they favor the kids who've been in the sport for years and years. Newbies are generally unwelcome.

 

...

 

All the more reason BSA should adopt a local option. BSA can be in-reality non-discriminatory and leave unit specific membership choices to their charter organizations. It is really a meaningful two edge sword and BSA is almost there now. And BSA may be able to weather this one better than others. Most units are "owned" by other groups, i.e. churches. To really hurt BSA, California would need to strip non-profit status from discriminating churches. Mormon. Catholic. Baptist. Protestant.

 

Then, you need to decide which church discriminates.

I can see the issues with focus and resources, but isn't that a function of parental involvement ? I assume it is volunteer based like most youth sports. Making national news is a media decision.

 

I don't know the answer to the gender in sports issue. But we have to realize there are differences. For example in swimming at the younger ages the girls can generally swim faster than the boys and if not get disqualified less often, but once the testosterone kicks in things flip. Are swim teams discriminating by dividing up the sexes ? What about the Olympics ?

 

Most HS sports also discriminate on economic class as well. I know of one public HS swim team that requires $2k in suits. On suit is $500 and can only be used for the final championship. That's nuts.

[skeptic]

Here is an Opinion piece from the L.A. Times back in April regarding this bill. It does a pretty good job of noting the problems beyond Scouting, though it is still obviously biased against BSA. http://articles.latimes.com/2013/apr/12/opinion/la-ed-boy-scouts-20130412 What is really troublesome for me is that somehow we seem to think it is okay for our so called representatives to propose legislation that is punitive and a personal vendetta. If you look at the original sponsors, they are all anti BSA, and have even admitted the bill is specifically aimed at BSA. This is likely unconstitutional I would think. But, even if not, it is really bad representation.

[walk in the woods]

"Mr. Lara has said the Boy Scouts of America has a discriminatory policy because it won’t allow gay adults to be members. Other groups named in the bill are Bobby Sox, Campfire Inc., 4-H Clubs, Future Farmers of America, Future Homemakers of America, Boys’ Clubs, Girls’ Clubs, Pop Warner football and several soccer organizations."

 

Clearly a bunch of rabble rousing organizations aiming to destroy the very fabric of America.

 

[JoeBob]

What would they tax? Popcorn sales? Dues? Ad Valorem tax on tents? Ain't no money anywhere...

[st0ut717]

What would they tax? Popcorn sales? Dues? Ad Valorem tax on tents? Ain't no money anywhere...

Camp property. that way they can take the camp and the land resell it to developers for actual tax revenue either residential or business.

[King Ding Dong]

What would they tax? Popcorn sales? Dues? Ad Valorem tax on tents? Ain't no money anywhere...

Great. That would force the BSA to become a church.

[walk in the woods]

To really hurt BSA, California would need to strip non-profit status from discriminating churches. Mormon. Catholic. Baptist. Protestant.

 

Then, you need to decide which church discriminates.

 

Which is exactly why potential charter organizations, including churches otherwise open to the BSA, are leaving or not signing up. It's only a matter of when, not if, CA and beyond start this step in attacking churches.

 

 

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

To really hurt BSA, California would need to strip non-profit status from discriminating churches. Mormon. Catholic. Baptist. Protestant.

 

Then, you need to decide which church discriminates.

 

Which is exactly why potential charter organizations, including churches otherwise open to the BSA, are leaving or not signing up. It's only a matter of when, not if, CA and beyond start this step in attacking churches.

 

 

I doubt that could be the reason, since the first amendment wouldn't allow it.

[gumbymaster]

I'm no longer in California, but I have set up several business in several states, including non-profit corporations.

 

Churches receive their no-tax status because they are non-profit organizations; However, there in nothing in the Constitution which would prevent a State from taxing all non-profit corporation just like they tax any other corporation. It is a courtesy the State extends to all non-profit organizations (meeting the IRS definition, but that could be changed to a State specific definition if they so desired) that they do not tax the non-profit in the belief that the non-profit organization brings more community benefit that would otherwise be raised by tax revenues. The State would, as a matter of the Constitution, be required to treat all such organizations equally (i.e. they could not elect to Tax just Churches just because they are Churches); but I do not know if a "non-discrimination" litmus test would pass (but probably not with the current Supreme Court).

[desertrat77]

What would they tax? Popcorn sales? Dues? Ad Valorem tax on tents? Ain't no money anywhere...

JoeBob, here is a strange tale about money....

I was in Mount Diablo Silverado Council, CA, last year. (Since moved out of state). Huge area, this council, including well-to-do districts, and ones poor as church mice.

There was an effort to merge MDSC with SF Bay Area Council, but the motion ultimately was defeated.

Back story/word on the street: SF Bay Area Council had incredible funding from trusts and such, more money than they could spend. Couple that with declining youth and adult numbers, SFBAC proposed the merger to help MDSC with financial needs, among other benefits that would come about from such an effort.

Don't know why the merger was voted down.

But I was shocked to hear of a council, any council, having money!