Update On Adult Leadership Standards

[Gone]

I guess I'll have to figure out a way to show dripping sarcasm with a new emoticon of some sort. I seem to be losing my touch.

Here you go @@Stosh...

[walk in the woods]

FWIW from the NYT

 

"But Mr. Boies added: “I think this will be a way station on the road to full equality,†and he questioned whether the exemption for religious sponsors could endure."

 

The article describes him as "David Boies, a prominent lawyer, said of Monday’s expected decision. His firm helped create pressure for change, threatening to sue the Boy Scouts if the organization tried to bar a gay Eagle Scout from a camp job this summer in New York. "

 

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/07/27/us/boy-scouts-expected-to-end-ban-on-gay-leaders.html

[Sentinel947]

FWIW from the NYT

"But Mr. Boies added: “I think this will be a way station on the road to full equality,†and he questioned whether the exemption for religious sponsors could endure."

The article describes him as "David Boies, a prominent lawyer, said of Monday’s expected decision. His firm helped create pressure for change, threatening to sue the Boy Scouts if the organization tried to bar a gay Eagle Scout from a camp job this summer in New York. "

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/07/27/us/boy-scouts-expected-to-end-ban-on-gay-leaders.html

Aye, there be the scorched earth liberals.

[Gone]

FWIW from the NYT

 

"But Mr. Boies added: “I think this will be a way station on the road to full equality,†and he questioned whether the exemption for religious sponsors could endure."

 

The article describes him as "David Boies, a prominent lawyer, said of Monday’s expected decision. His firm helped create pressure for change, threatening to sue the Boy Scouts if the organization tried to bar a gay Eagle Scout from a camp job this summer in New York. "

 

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/07/27/us/boy-scouts-expected-to-end-ban-on-gay-leaders.html

 

Exactly what those opposing the ban fear.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Exactly what those opposing the ban fear.

 

No, that's over employment, which has been subjected to the 1964 civil rights act for half a century.  That has nothing to do with church-chartered BSA units.

[Gone]

No, that's over employment, which has been subjected to the 1964 civil rights act for half a century.  That has nothing to do with church-chartered BSA units.

 

What are you talking about? The article was pretty clear on what Mr. Boies said. He thinks that BSA is not going far enough and should compel religious units to open up to gays too. This other passage also says essentially the same thing; the liberals will not stop until ALL units are open to gays. It's there in black and white...pretty clear what both meant.

 

The step [opening units to gay leaders], if incomplete in the view of many gay rights campaigners, is nonetheless a momentous one for an organization that has struggled to keep the allegiance of conservatives as it faced open rebellion from more liberal regions.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

What are you talking about? The article was pretty clear on what Mr. Boies said. He thinks that BSA is not going far enough and should compel religious units to open up to gays too. This other passage also says essentially the same thing; the liberals will not stop until ALL units are open to gays. It's there in black and white...pretty clear what both meant.

 

I was responding to people who think litigation will result.

 

The only parts mentioning litigation were about employment:

The Scouts will also on Monday bar discrimination based on sexual orientation in all official facilities and paying jobs across the country, heading off potential suits.

 

The rest of it just reads as the usual social pressure.

[Rick_in_CA]

Not that it is a surprise, but the National Executive Board voted to pass the resolution. So it's done.

[SouthScout]

 

Does this photo not make you think twice about what BSA has now allowed. A male adult scout leader is leading a group male scouts in a celebration of male on male sex. You can spin it anyway you want, but the rainbow flag is a symbol of the homosexual lifestyle and the homosexual lifestyle is about...gay SEX. Yes, it is about sex. So how can anyone say that sex has no place in scouting and will not be discussed, so allowing gay scouts and leaders wont be a problem. Clearly in this photo the enitre event is about sex and the scouts are used to promote it. Its about sex.

 

Would we ever celebrate an adult male leader being granted approval to take girl scouts camping? Or celebrate a 14 year old straight boy scout being allowed to tent with a striaght 14 year old girl scout.

 

 

[Stosh]

 

Does this photo not make you think twice about what BSA has now allowed. A male adult scout leader is leading a group male scouts in a celebration of male on male sex. You can spin it anyway you want, but the rainbow flag is a symbol of the homosexual lifestyle and the homosexual lifestyle is about...gay SEX. Yes, it is about sex. So how can anyone say that sex has no place in scouting and will not be discussed, so allowing gay scouts and leaders wont be a problem. Clearly in this photo the enitre event is about sex and the scouts are used to promote it. Its about sex.

 

Would we ever celebrate an adult male leader being granted approval to take girl scouts camping? Or celebrate a 14 year old straight boy scout being allowed to tent with a striaght 14 year old girl scout.

 

A bit of knowledge about flag presentations might go a long way to show that this adult-led fiasco actually knows what it's doing.  Mr. Ego-SM out leading the line of flags? 3 US flags at one time?  Green shirt vs. the tan?  Looks like this guy might have missed the boat 40 years ago when they changed uniforms.  That is also the case of the scout in the upper left corner of the picture.  Are these really scouters or neighborhood organizers dressed up to look something like scouters?  All this picture does, regardless of the color of the flags, is show pride in how NOT to present the BSA to the world.  It basically looks like a spoof picture.

 

This also seems to fit into Seattle's unofficial motto,  "Find a really bad idea and stick with it."

Edited July 31, 2015 by Stosh

[Peregrinator]

It's hard to tell but I think the individual in the lead is dressed in a BPSA uniform.

[BDPT00]

Stosh,

There are so many details wrong with this photo, and we're on the same page.  Aside from the disrespect to the U.S. flag, what I don't like is Scouts carrying a rainbow flag, and a Cub wearing a rainbow neckerchief.  This whole picture is predictable and disgraceful . . . the tip on the iceberg.

[CalicoPenn]

According to my cousin, the CO does not realize (nor do they want) the unit's gear or money. The unit is taking their stuff (money, gear and all) and deciding to either join the new scouting program, do their own thing or find another CO.

So they're stealing from the Boy Scouts of America - the charter does require the CO to either store the equipment and escrow the funds until they can form a new unit or turn the equipment and funds over to the BSA since the presumption is the funds were raised using the BSA brand and the equipment was purchased from funds raised using the BSA brand.  How very upright and moral of those folks.

[Gone]

So they're stealing from the Boy Scouts of America - the charter does require the CO to either store the equipment and escrow the funds until they can form a new unit or turn the equipment and funds over to the BSA since the presumption is the funds were raised using the BSA brand and the equipment was purchased from funds raised using the BSA brand.  How very upright and moral of those folks.

 

The CO does not want the gear or the money. They were going to give it away. As far as the CO was concerned the unit (and the boys) raised the money, bought the gear, etc., and, in their mind, owned the gear....so it should go with the unit wherever they go.

 

If BSA wants "their" stuff back they are welcome to sue the unit, but I suspect they have more important things to do.

 

Let's not pretend that a vast majority of the units out there are not violating their charter or BSA policies in one way or another. You could self-righteously impune the honor of just about any unit if you looked hard enough at how they operate.

Edited July 31, 2015 by Bad Wolf

[CalicoPenn]

Page 3, Lines 14-16  at http://scoutingnewsroom.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/Religious-Organization-Protections-Memo-062915.pdf   That is, unless the web site is detecting who is logging in and providing a different document to different users...which would be overly clever and bizarrely confusing.

 

I agree with you that the text of the actual resolution is ambiguous at best. But the FAQ and the legal analysis both state that units chartered to non-religious COs may not discriminate.

 

Reading the actual resolution, it states that the BSA will not discriminate in employment on the basis of sexual orientation.  It states that National and Councils (presuming Regions as well since they're part of National and Districts since they're part of Councils) can not turn down volunteers for National and Council volunteer positions on the basis of sexual orientation (like Council Presidents, District Commissioners, etc.).

 

No where does the resolution actually state that non-religious chartering organizations can not turn down volunteers based on sexual orientation.  The only way that the resolution treats religious and non-religious organizations differently is that it specifically states that if a bona-fide religious CO is sued, that National will defend them.  It never states that they will defend non-religious CO's in a discrimination lawsuit over this issue.  In other words, it implies that all CO's can use sexual orientation as a criteria in choosing leaders and if you're a religious CO, we'll share the risk and we got your back but if you're a non-religious CO, you're taking the risk and you're on your own.