Lgbt Group Will Pay Bsa $50,000 To Lift Ban On Gay Adult Leaders

[JoeBob]

 Perhaps to organizations who CO's are not a religion.. But, those whose CO is a religion will be left alone.. 

The owners of Memories Pizza were very religious.

And it showed in the store's decor:

 

http://a.abcnews.com/images/Business/wbnd_memories_pizza_religious_02_jc_150401_4x3_992.jpg

 

http://static1.businessinsider.com/image/551d4551eab8ea4e1ac2b3a4-915-545/screen%20shot%202015-04-02%20at%209.33.08%20am.png

 

http://www.westernjournalism.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Memories-Pizza-YouTube-Scripture-II-750x442.jpg

 

Which is how the TV 'News Reporter' knew to ask if this PIZZA JOINT would cater a gay wedding.

They were singled out because of their religion.

 

Now what are you going to tell the church COs?

Edited May 5, 2015 by JoeBob

[Stosh]

I'm not worried, the more they persecute the Church, the stronger it gets.  Well, that's been the pattern over the past 2,000 years, I don't think people today are going to be able to change that.

[moosetracker]

The owners of Memories Pizza were very religious.

And it showed in the store's decor:

 

http://a.abcnews.com/images/Business/wbnd_memories_pizza_religious_02_jc_150401_4x3_992.jpg

 

http://static1.businessinsider.com/image/551d4551eab8ea4e1ac2b3a4-915-545/screen%20shot%202015-04-02%20at%209.33.08%20am.png

 

http://www.westernjournalism.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Memories-Pizza-YouTube-Scripture-II-750x442.jpg

 

Which is how the TV 'News Reporter' knew to ask if this PIZZA JOINT would cater a gay wedding.

They were singled out because of their religion.

 

Now what are you going to tell the church COs?

 

Same thing I already said.. Church CO's are not on the agenda.. The Pizza joint is a place of business open to the public not a church, therefore if they sponsored a BSA unit, when it goes to local option, they will probably be pressured to change.. What a bummer... But, I would imagine they have learned a lesson and will not see an angry mob and cheerfully welcome them to direct all their anger at them.. Unless of course they believe they might get another great payday out of it.

[AZMike]

Moose, I can agree with you that local option would be a fair position.

 

But then take your reasoning:

and apply it to the recent actions of the LGBT lobbies.

 

Bakers, photographers, and florists are being forced out of business and sued because they don't wont to participate in a Gay wedding ceremony.  (Even one pizza joint that has never catered any wedding has been closed due to death threats!)

 

What rational can you use to comfort COs that want to have straight SMs that they won't be bludgeoned into submission by the Gay lobby?

 

JoeBob makes a good point. The recent trend in gay culture has been to demonize anyone who fails to accept the idea that gay marriage, and homosexuality in general, must not simply be tolerated but accepted. Careers have been ruined, like Brendan Eich, former CEO of Mozilla, as well as local people who for religious or moral reasons don't want to be involved in gay marriages. 

 

Should a local option be granted, local COs would essentially be forced to accept gay leaders, or face the possibility of local anti-discrimination and civil rights complaints and lawsuits, commercial pressure, anonymous calls in the middle of the night, human rights board complaints, a barrage of defamatory tweets, blog posts, demands to remove the CO's state tax exemption as a "discriminatory organization," forged Yelp! reviews of their company, hostile emails sent to one's business associates and clients, picket lines, MoveOn.org petitions directed against their CO and them personally, boycott demands, death threats, etc., etc.   It would be a fait accompli for the gay lobby, as they pick off each non-compliant CO until all cave, or drop out of scouting.

 

It's likely that should such happen, the exodus from Scouting would not be because volunteers don't want to be involved in scouting with gay leaders, as much as their desire not to be character assassinated, and not to have their names pop up as a "homophobic bigot" whenever someone does a Google search for their name. The personal satisfaction one gets from volunteering in a youth organization is not sufficient to outweigh the sort of harassment that is commonplace now for anyone who gets on the wrong side of the LGBT community.

 

Because of this I wouldn't stay in Scouting if the local option were to become policy. I would drop out within a minute. I wouldn't be alone, either.

Edited May 5, 2015 by AZMike

[AZMike]

Same thing I already said.. Church CO's are not on the agenda.. The Pizza joint is a place of business open to the public not a church, therefore if they sponsored a BSA unit, when it goes to local option, they will probably be pressured to change.. What a bummer... But, I would imagine they have learned a lesson and will not see an angry mob and cheerfully welcome them to direct all their anger at them.. Unless of course they believe they might get another great payday out of it.

 

Ah. They will be made to care. Once they have learned their lesson about the meaningless of religious convictions, all will be well.

 

Unlikely they will get a payday out of it, BTW. GoFundMe, under pressure from gay activists, will no longer collect funds for any such people.

[moosetracker]

 

Should a local option be granted, local COs would essentially be forced to accept gay leaders, or face the possibility of local anti-discrimination and civil rights complaints and lawsuits, commercial pressure, anonymous calls in the middle of the night, human rights board complaints, a barrage of defamatory tweets, blog posts, demands to remove the CO's state tax exemption as a "discriminatory organization," forged Yelp! reviews of their company, hostile emails sent to one's business associates and clients, picket lines, MoveOn.org petitions directed against their CO and them personally, boycott demands, death threats, etc., etc.   It would be a fait accompli for the gay lobby, as they pick off each non-compliant CO until all cave, or drop out of scouting.

 

It's likely that should such happen, the exodus from Scouting would not be because volunteers don't want to be involved in scouting with gay leaders, as much as their desire not to be character assassinated, and not to have their names pop up as a "homophobic bigot" whenever someone does a Google search for their name. The personal satisfaction one gets from volunteering in a youth organization is not sufficient to outweigh the sort of harassment that is commonplace now for anyone who gets on the wrong side of the LGBT community.

 

Because of this I wouldn't stay in Scouting if the local option were to become policy. I would drop out within a minute. I wouldn't be alone, either.

To prove this you will need to point out to me the public pressure (outside of their own church membership) that have been all over churches to force them to perform homosexual marraiges.. For this same prediction was raised by conservatives over the legalization of Gay marriages.. Your predictions have been wrong.. The only time you get in trouble is when you try to enforce your viewpoint on the public who do not hold your same belief .. 

[Stosh]

I think it would be the honorable thing just to roll over and take the 30 pieces of silver. At least you will get something out of the deal even if one has to take a moral hit in the process.  It's only a matter of time before someone plays the hate crime card and then one's going to lose it all and end up with nothing.

 

Remember, we are no longer living in a tolerant, live and let live society. Today it's PC-toe-the-line or else.  The Bill of Rights is no longer accepted as the basis of our culture.  The Constitution went by the wayside, now it's the Amendment's turn.

 

I have seen a staggering amount of freedom lost even in my lifetime, the pace of the loss has accelerated and shows no sign of slowing down or reversing any time soon.

 

The era of the American Dream has passed.

Edited May 5, 2015 by Stosh

[qwazse]

I think that all this in fighting is not good for your movement, and the sooner you just except the inevitable and move on the better, as this half way house just isn't working.

I've certainly had boys tell me they were sick of hearing about it.

At the same time, it's the issue of the day in nearly every sector of life in our divided country. (A very long day, starting in the 80s when so many young men -- not just the stereotypical homosexuals -- started dying of AIDS.) Although some see an inevitible trajectory, others see a backlash.

[AZMike]

To prove this you will need to point out to me the public pressure (outside of their own church membership) that have been all over churches to force them to perform homosexual marraiges.. For this same prediction was raised by conservatives over the legalization of Gay marriages.. Your predictions have been wrong.. The only time you get in trouble is when you try to enforce your viewpoint on the public who do not hold your same belief .. 

 

I think it's apparent that you get in trouble when you simply voice your opinion, Moosetracker. That pizza joint family in Indiana never discriminated against a single gay person. They simply answered, honestly, what they would do in the hypothetical instance that they were ever asked to cater a gay wedding. You can be punished even for voicing your opinion in private, by (for instance) donating money to a political initiative to preserve traditional marriage definitions (a ballot initiative that passed handily, incidentally, so it's hard to argue that Brandon Eich was "enforcing his viewpoint" against the majority.)

 

Certainly, the couple in Idaho that own the wedding chapel are being charged by the state for refusing to conduct a gay wedding ceremony. One could argue that they are running a commercial establishment rather than a church, but they are ordained ministers in their own denomination,and many church ministers in non-commercial religious churches accept payments and donations for conducting services. The Idaho ministers are looking at potential 6 month jail sentences and heavy fines.

 

Certainly, the "Human Rights Campaign," a non-Catholic gay rights pressure and lobbying group, has prepared slick advertising materials to pressure Catholic bishops to accept gay marriage and end orthodox teaching on human sexuality. You can read their material here: http://www.hrc.org/files/assets/resources/The_Best_of_the_Worst.pdf

 

Certainly, there are gay couples that are suing in England to force churches to marry homosexual couples: http://www.essexchronicle.co.uk/Gay-dads-set-sue-church-sex-marriage-opt/story-19597954-detail/story.html

 

Certainly, Obama's Solicitor General knows that religious colleges, and ultimately churches, will be pressured not to teach against gay marriages or risk losing their tax-exempt status. he admitted that much during his exchange with Justice Alito last week while arguing on behalf of the administration for recognition of gay marriage as a constitutional right:

 

JUSTICE ALITO: Well, in the Bob Jones case, the Court held that a college was not entitled to tax-exempt status if it opposed interracial marriage or interracial dating. So would the same apply to a university or a college if it opposed same-sex marriage? 

GENERAL VERRILLI: You know, I - I don’t think I can answer that question without knowing more specifics, but it’s certainly going to be an issue. I - don’t deny that. I don’t deny that, Justice Alito. It is - it is going to be an issue.

 

Ah, but we are not just talking about churches being made to perform homosexual marriages. We are talking about the risks of publicly opposing LGBT pressure groups.

 

We have businesses that have experienced all I described and more, not because they would not serve gay people, but simply because they would not participate in a particular kind of event:

 

â–  Masterpiece Cakeshop, Colorado: Owner Jack Phillips refused to make a wedding cake for a gay couple in July. The Lakewood bakery has faced at least two protests, a Facebook-driven boycott, and a discrimination complaint from the state Attorney General that was scheduled for a hearing in September. Phillips has said he would rather close his bakeshop than compromise his Christian beliefs. (Sources: news reports including Washington Times and Huffington Post.)

 

â–  Victoria’s Cake Cottage, Iowa: Baker Victoria Childress denied service to a lesbian couple hoping to get married in 2011. The Des Moines baker was called a “bigot†and faced a protest and Facebook boycott but refused to budge, citing her Christian faith. (Sources: news reports including Washington Times and Huffington Post.)

â–  Fleur Cakes, Oregon: Pam Regentin, the owner of the Mount Hood-area cake shop, refused to make a cake for a lesbian couple earlier this year, sparking another Facebook boycott in May. (Sources: news reports including local television.)

â–  Liberty Ridge Farm, New York: The family-owned farm in mid-state New York is facing a human rights complaint after refusing to host a lesbian wedding in 2012. (Sources: local news sources here and here and the Huffington Post.)

â–  All Occasion Party Place, Texas: In February, the Fort Worth-based wedding venue declined to host a wedding reception for a gay couple. An online boycott has now been launched against the business. (Sources: local news and the Huffington Post.)

â–  Gortz Haus, Iowa: After refusing to host a gay wedding (reported in August), Betty Odgaard, the owner  of the business, received threatening calls and e-mails and now must contend with a complaint the couple has filed with the state civil rights commission. (Sources: local news sources here and here and the Huffington Post.)

â–  Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association, New Jersey: In 2012, a state judge ruled that a Methodist-owned events venue in Ocean Grove violated state law when it refused to host a gay wedding in 2007. Also, while the discrimination case was still pending, the facility lost its state tax exemption because it was deemed “no longer met the requirements as a place open to all members of the public,†the New York Timesreported. (Sources: The New York Times here and here, Philadelphia Inquirer, and LifeSiteNews.)

â–  Elane Photography, New Mexico: The state Supreme Court ruled in August that a New Mexico photography business owned by Elaine Huguenin and her husband Jon could not legally deny services to same-sex couples. The photographer had refused service for a lesbian commitment ceremony in 2006. One of the women had filed a complaint with the state Human Rights Commission, which ruled against the photographers in 2008, prompting an appeals process that led to the high court decision. It’s now unclear what will happen to the business. (Sources: press releases and news reports including the Catholic News Agency and the Santa Fe New Mexican. The case is discussed further below.)

â–  Arlene’s Flowers, Washington: A florist refused to provide flowers to a gay wedding last March and now owner Baronelle Stutzman is facing a lawsuit from the state Attorney General. (Sources: news reports including local television and the Associated Press.)

â–  Wildflower Inn, Vermont: A lesbian couple sued the Wildflower Inn under the state public accommodations law in 2011 after being told they could not have their wedding reception there. The owners were reportedly open to holding same-sex ceremonies as long as customers were notified that the events personally violated their Catholic faith. It wasn’t enough. The inn had to settle the case in 2012, paying a $10,000 fine and putting double that amount in a charitable trust. Also, the inn is no longer hosting weddings, although the decision reportedly was made before the settlement. (Sources: The New York Times and Huffington Post.)

Oh brave new world.

Edited May 5, 2015 by AZMike

[AZMike]

I think it's apparent that you get in trouble when you simply voice your opinion, Moosetracker. That pizza joint family in Indiana never discriminated against a single gay person. They simply answered, honestly, what they would do in the hypothetical instance that they were ever asked to cater a gay wedding. You can be punished even for voicing your opinion in private, by (for instance) donating money to a political initiative to preserve traditional marriage definitions (a ballot initiative that passed handily, incidentally, so it's hard to argue that Brandon Eich was "enforcing his viewpoint" against the majority.)

 

Certainly, the couple in Idaho that own the wedding chapel are being charged by the state for refusing to conduct a gay wedding ceremony. One could argue that they are running a commercial establishment rather than a church, but they are ordained ministers in their own denomination,and many church ministers in non-commercial religious churches accept payments and donations for conducting services. The Idaho ministers are looking at potential 6 month jail sentences and heavy fines.

 

Certainly, the "Human Rights Campaign," a non-Catholic gay rights pressure and lobbying group, has prepared slick advertising materials to pressure Catholic bishops to accept gay marriage and end orthodox teaching on human sexuality. You can read their material here: http://www.hrc.org/files/assets/resources/The_Best_of_the_Worst.pdf

 

Certainly, there are gay couples that are suing in England to force churches to marry homosexual couples: http://www.essexchronicle.co.uk/Gay-dads-set-sue-church-sex-marriage-opt/story-19597954-detail/story.html

 

Certainly, Obama's Solicitor General knows that religious colleges, and ultimately churches, will be pressured not to teach against gay marriages or risk losing their tax-exempt status. He admitted that much during his exchange with Justice Alito last week while arguing on behalf of the administration for recognition of gay marriage as a constitutional right:

 

JUSTICE ALITO: Well, in the Bob Jones case, the Court held that a college was not entitled to tax-exempt status if it opposed interracial marriage or interracial dating. So would the same apply to a university or a college if it opposed same-sex marriage? 

GENERAL VERRILLI: You know, I - I don’t think I can answer that question without knowing more specifics, but it’s certainly going to be an issue. I - don’t deny that. I don’t deny that, Justice Alito. It is - it is going to be an issue.

 

Ah, but we are not just talking about churches being made to perform homosexual marriages. We are talking about the risks of publicly opposing LGBT pressure groups.

 

We have businesses that have experienced all I described and more, not because they would not serve gay people, but simply because they would not participate in a particular kind of event:

 

â–  Masterpiece Cakeshop, Colorado: Owner Jack Phillips refused to make a wedding cake for a gay couple in July. The Lakewood bakery has faced at least two protests, a Facebook-driven boycott, and a discrimination complaint from the state Attorney General that was scheduled for a hearing in September. Phillips has said he would rather close his bakeshop than compromise his Christian beliefs. (Sources: news reports including Washington Times and Huffington Post.)

 

â–  Victoria’s Cake Cottage, Iowa: Baker Victoria Childress denied service to a lesbian couple hoping to get married in 2011. The Des Moines baker was called a “bigot†and faced a protest and Facebook boycott but refused to budge, citing her Christian faith. (Sources: news reports including Washington Times and Huffington Post.)

â–  Fleur Cakes, Oregon: Pam Regentin, the owner of the Mount Hood-area cake shop, refused to make a cake for a lesbian couple earlier this year, sparking another Facebook boycott in May. (Sources: news reports including local television.)

â–  Liberty Ridge Farm, New York: The family-owned farm in mid-state New York is facing a human rights complaint after refusing to host a lesbian wedding in 2012. (Sources: local news sources here and here and the Huffington Post.)

â–  All Occasion Party Place, Texas: In February, the Fort Worth-based wedding venue declined to host a wedding reception for a gay couple. An online boycott has now been launched against the business. (Sources: local news and the Huffington Post.)

â–  Gortz Haus, Iowa: After refusing to host a gay wedding (reported in August), Betty Odgaard, the owner  of the business, received threatening calls and e-mails and now must contend with a complaint the couple has filed with the state civil rights commission. (Sources: local news sources here and here and the Huffington Post.)

â–  Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association, New Jersey: In 2012, a state judge ruled that a Methodist-owned events venue in Ocean Grove violated state law when it refused to host a gay wedding in 2007. Also, while the discrimination case was still pending, the facility lost its state tax exemption because it was deemed “no longer met the requirements as a place open to all members of the public,†the New York Timesreported. (Sources: The New York Times here and here, Philadelphia Inquirer, and LifeSiteNews.)

â–  Elane Photography, New Mexico: The state Supreme Court ruled in August that a New Mexico photography business owned by Elaine Huguenin and her husband Jon could not legally deny services to same-sex couples. The photographer had refused service for a lesbian commitment ceremony in 2006. One of the women had filed a complaint with the state Human Rights Commission, which ruled against the photographers in 2008, prompting an appeals process that led to the high court decision. It’s now unclear what will happen to the business. (Sources: press releases and news reports including the Catholic News Agency and the Santa Fe New Mexican. The case is discussed further below.)

â–  Arlene’s Flowers, Washington: A florist refused to provide flowers to a gay wedding last March and now owner Baronelle Stutzman is facing a lawsuit from the state Attorney General. (Sources: news reports including local television and the Associated Press.)

â–  Wildflower Inn, Vermont: A lesbian couple sued the Wildflower Inn under the state public accommodations law in 2011 after being told they could not have their wedding reception there. The owners were reportedly open to holding same-sex ceremonies as long as customers were notified that the events personally violated their Catholic faith. It wasn’t enough. The inn had to settle the case in 2012, paying a $10,000 fine and putting double that amount in a charitable trust. Also, the inn is no longer hosting weddings, although the decision reportedly was made before the settlement. (Sources: The New York Times and Huffington Post.)

Oh brave new world.

[packsaddle]

AZMike, Why did you post that second response in which you appear merely to have quoted yourself? Not a criticism, it's a little confusing..or maybe I'm just up too late.

 

Anyway, I'll respond to the last part of that post, the one that isn't a quote.

"Certainly, Obama's Solicitor General knows that religious colleges, and ultimately churches, will be pressured not to teach against gay marriages or risk losing their tax-exempt status. He admitted that much during his exchange with Justice Alito last week while arguing on behalf of the administration for recognition of gay marriage as a constitutional right:

 

JUSTICE ALITO: Well, in the Bob Jones case, the Court held that a college was not entitled to tax-exempt status if it opposed interracial marriage or interracial dating. So would the same apply to a university or a college if it opposed same-sex marriage? 

GENERAL VERRILLI: You know, I - I don’t think I can answer that question without knowing more specifics, but it’s certainly going to be an issue. I - don’t deny that. I don’t deny that, Justice Alito. It is - it is going to be an issue.

 

Ah, but we are not just talking about churches being made to perform homosexual marriages. We are talking about the risks of publicly opposing LGBT pressure groups."

 

In the case of BJU, the decision was with regard to racial discrimination for which there was written law and legal precedent (and remedy). Their position regarding race was based (in their minds) on scripture just the same as their prejudice against gays. But while your analogy is good, and while Verrillii may have honestly thought it was "going to be an issue" although he didn't think he could answer the question without more specifics, that is merely an opinion that an issue might arise in the future. It doesn't mean that he's going to raise it himself. LOL, Alito already did that with his question - in the Supreme Court no less! But none of that exchange mentioned anything about 'teaching', merely some nebulous 'opposition' to same-sex marriage (which may be removed as an issue later this summer - I predict pages of I&P discussion either way).

 

Besides, it already was an issue in the past, at least regarding access, and now, because they accepted federal funding for the museum, they allow gays entry to campus and to that museum. Are you saying that is a bad thing? 

 

As for those business examples, that kind of exercise of the 1st amendment has been happening for as long as this has been a country, or longer. If you don't like a business owner then don't do business - tell your friends and other people about it - organize a boycott. I won't attend any conference in this state because of a long-standing boycott. Am I bad because of that?

The fact that business owners hold a certain political view is not privileged information if they have divulged that fact publicly and people are free to inform others of the fact. People are also free to promote boycotts for any reason they like. I know of an informal boycott in which a very successful businessman has been driven to ruin merely because he publicly disagreed with a government decision regarding a construction project. He knew the score and felt it was worth the risk to be able to express his opinion. He paid the consequences. It's not a Brave New Word at all. Welcome to real life and a very old world of business. If you pretend to serve the public, it would probably be good business to actually DO it. 

Edited May 5, 2015 by packsaddle

[Cambridgeskip]

Stosh et al

 

A question fo you, and this is a genuine question, something that I have never quite figured out.

 

In the books of the law in the Bible there are all kinds of strange laws that we no longer follow. The most well known being no consumption of shell fish, or pork or wearing of mixed fibers. There's plenty more where they came from too.

 

The majoirty of these laws are ignored by the overwhelming majority of Christians.

 

Why is it that the law against homosexuality is one that you feel needs to be followed when so many of the other laws have been dropped?

[packsaddle]

Cambridgeskip, While i share your feeling that this doesn't make much sense, I can tell you that when I've asked this in the past, I've been informed that those laws you mention are Old Testament and that everything has been revised in the New Testament, so-to-speak, usually in the writings of Paul.

H'mmmm, maybe one person really CAN make a difference.....wait a minute..what am I saying?....of course one person can....look at THE POPE....Joseph Smith....L. Ron Hubbard...Reverend Moon...David Koresh...Bhagwan Shree Rajhneesh  Jim Bakker...Jim Jones...Bob Jones...Little Richard...Mayor Koch...Donald Trump...Tiny Tim....the examples are endless.

[tyke]

this is a first, I agree with cambridge skip The pizza shop and the cake shops are public places and should not be permitted to decide who they can and can't serve. In the UK we have  Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2006 which has been tested several times in court, the most famous was a B&B owner who wouldn't let a gay couple stay. They got took to court, fined and was also removed from any tourist literature, as the judge ruled that even though it was there house, once they made it a B&B it was now a public space and as such you discriminate.  The law also extends to employment and any company that got rid of someone who was gay would end up in court (its a lot harder to fire someone in the UK and Europe anyway) 

[qwazse]

Why is it that the law against homosexuality is one that you feel needs to be followed when so many of the other laws have been dropped?

Simply put, 'skip, sacrificial laws about food, etc ... were replaced by the the celebration of the Eucharist. Laws of order were left largely unchanged. (E.g. Romans 1 includes approbations against homosexuality, and gossip. The Apocolypse asserts that the sexually promiscuous are not welcome in the kingdom of heaven.) Punishments of violations of law and order were reduced (e.g. "let him who stole steal no more" and Paul's letter to Philemon to not treat Onesemus, a runaway slave, harshly) until Christianity became the imperial religion. At that point, there was a little mixing of principles. The Day of Worship was moved from the 7th to the 1st, Passover was outlawed, punishments for violations of order became harsher in some circumstance, less so in others. Throughout this, the vision of how people should comport themselves sexually remained largely unchanged.

 

So, what we are trying to do with normalizing sexuality in this modern era is new, but calling it Christian is a bit of stretch to many.

 

If anyone really wants to read the rationale for the traditional Christian stance on the matter, I recommend the scholarly works Robert Gagnon. He does try to put the point-counterpoint of both sides in decent order.