Lesbians Look to Boot Boy Scouts From Own Facilities

feel free to act like an angry child thowing a foot stomping fit because you were told that you can't have a toy every time you enter a wal mart.


:thup:
I feel the same way about the brats that think every time they push their agenda they are going to get their own way.
 
feel free to act like an angry child thowing a foot stomping fit because you were told that you can't have a toy every time you enter a wal mart.


:thup:
I feel the same way about the brats that think every time they push their agenda they are going to get their own way.

well.. in this case... they ARE going to get their way. Take YOUR agenda, the one that actually discriminates, to private property. You'll be losing this one every time until you can prove that you've actually been discriminated against above and beyond being restricted from stringing up your particular ****** class.

:thup:
 
What is wrong with boys learning from men how to be a man? Are you telling me that your dad never took your brothers camping? Is a pair of tits and a uterus required to teach boys how to be men these days?

I think a lot of the problems our society has is because here aren't enough men teaching boys how to be men. If the boy scout tradition is in favor of more men teaching boys to be men then I'm all for it.

Fair enough... AND, as long as the scouts insist on filtering gays in a discriminatory manner I'll continue to support them being kicked off of tax based, public property. This would be a non-issue if the scouts had their own property to sit back and hate gays on. I support the premise of the boy scouts but not the martyr routine that comes along with their stance on gays.

Do you dispute what the article says about the public having access to the property leased to the scouts? If not, why does any of this matter? If so, do you have a source that says this?
 
What is wrong with boys learning from men how to be a man? Are you telling me that your dad never took your brothers camping? Is a pair of tits and a uterus required to teach boys how to be men these days?

I think a lot of the problems our society has is because here aren't enough men teaching boys how to be men. If the boy scout tradition is in favor of more men teaching boys to be men then I'm all for it.

Yeah, send those impressionable kids to a troop meeting so they can learn how to scratch their balls, burp and spit. Ya know, those manly things :)

What exactly would be in a lesson you teach to kids on how to be men?

How would I know? I know what I like about men, but I don't think I could teach it to anyone.
 
Do you dispute what the article says about the public having access to the property leased to the scouts? If not, why does any of this matter? If so, do you have a source that says this?

Its NOT private property. Its public property leased to the Scouts for their benefit. Can you tell me why the US government should be leasing its property, the property of the people, to discriminatory groups?

I don't want the US government to lease property to the KKK either, even if its merely for an office to do accounting and there is no racism at all on the property. Its giving benefit to a certain organization which promotes beliefs against the public good. And that benefit comes directly from taxpayer money.
 
I think a lot of the problems our society has is because here aren't enough men teaching boys how to be men. If the boy scout tradition is in favor of more men teaching boys to be men then I'm all for it.

Fair enough... AND, as long as the scouts insist on filtering gays in a discriminatory manner I'll continue to support them being kicked off of tax based, public property. This would be a non-issue if the scouts had their own property to sit back and hate gays on. I support the premise of the boy scouts but not the martyr routine that comes along with their stance on gays.

Do you dispute what the article says about the public having access to the property leased to the scouts? If not, why does any of this matter? If so, do you have a source that says this?

It matters because it's public land. NOT, scout property. The public having access to Niggerland Park (sponsored by the klan) doesn't invalidate the discrimination involved. EVEN IF no blacks ever set foot in Niggerland Park the klan cannot legally use gov property for their whims. end of story. If the Scouts make their haven of gay hating campsites open to the public THERE IS STILL A MATTER OF THE INHERENT DISCRIMINATION INVOLVED WITH THEIR POLICIES.


Should Overland Park be subletted to the local Klan chapter in order to create Niggerland Park?
 
You need to look at the history of the Boyscouts. It is a Christian faith based organization and it has alway been a Christian faith based program. That is why they are being sued and have been sued over and over again throughout the nation.

If we are going to make religious comparisons let do this. It is like having a jihadist saying they do not "feel" welcome into your synagogue and then sueing it for not being able to disrupt services with a bomb.

The Salvation Army has also always been a Christian faith based organization. That is why they have also been sued. They have certain moral beliefs and they sets their standards by those core values. Like it or not they do have that right.

The "core beliefs" is why they are being sued. Did you not read the quotes in the initial OP? They "feel" like they are being discriminated against even though they have never went to the campground.

Going to a city govenment and asking to lease ground from the city so you can build a facility for your organization is like walking through a jihadist camp? This does not make sense Jillian.

Boy Scouts discriminate against gays. This is a simple, and well known fact. Hence, they should not be given preferential treatment by the United States government. Whether the premises were open or closed to the public is irrelevant.

And did you seriously just compare letting gays into the boy scouts to setting a bomb off in a synagogue? Sorry, but theres just a slight difference between the two. Like, oh I don't know, all the dead people.
You are a bit late there Nik. And you do not read very well. You apparently have not read the article either. The Boyscouts already leased the land from the city. It is the gays and atheists desiring to set off a bomb.


Boy Scouts Petition U.S. Supreme Court for Appeal


For over a half a century, the Boy Scouts have partnered with the City of San Diego and leased a 16-acre parcel at Balboa Park. In exchange for paying a nominal fee to the city, the Scouts were allowed to lease the park and make numerous improvements to the property, including a public campground. Hundreds of other groups have similar arrangements with the city.

These relationships constitute what urban developers and economists call public-private partnerships.

A growing number of countries are experimenting with and implementing public-private partnerships. These partnerships can take on a variety of forms; a construction contractor may take temporary ownership of a school building project, or a private transit company may operate a metropolitan subway system, a nonprofit agency might take over the management of a public golf course or zoo. In projects like these, the private ability for efficiency and quality has shown to outpace whatever government could do.

In 1987, San Diego leased an additional half-acre parcel to the Scouts at Mission Bay Park. Again, the Scouts spent millions of dollars to build an aquatic center, which is open to the entire community. The ACLU filed suit against the city and the Boy Scouts, on behalf of a lesbian couple and an agnostic couple who alleged that leasing public land to a private group that requires members to adhere to religious faith, is a violation of the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution. The couples are additionally offended that the Boy Scouts requires its leaders to maintain sexual ethics consistent with the organization’s beliefs.
In June 2003, U.S. District Judge Napoleon Jones ruled in the case of Barnes-Wallace v. Boy Scouts of America that the Scouts are a “religious organization” and that their lease agreement with the city of San Diego thus violates the establishment clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The Scouts are now asking the Supreme Court to take the case.

On June 11, 2008, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit ruled that the ACLU could challenge the leases, even though its clients had never even been to the parks, been exposed to any religious symbols at the parks, or been denied any services by the Boy Scouts. The court found they had standing to proceed with their lawsuit because they were offended at the idea of having to contact Boy Scout representatives to gain access to the facilities. (View 9th Circuit’s Order) The Scouts are now asking the Supreme Court to take the case.

Boy Scouts of America have filed a petition for a writ of certiorari with the Supreme Court of the United States asking the Court to review the 9th Circuit’s recent decisions about Scouting leases in San Diego.

Religious orientation and/or religious preference is a right also. If you are offended by my beliefs you have the right to sue me even though I have denied you nothing? This does not seem right to me.
 
Last edited:
I think a lot of the problems our society has is because [t]here aren't enough men teaching boys how to be men. If the boy scout tradition is in favor of more men teaching boys to be men then I'm all for it.

Yeah, send those impressionable kids to a troop meeting so they can learn how to scratch their balls, burp and spit. Ya know, those manly things :)

What exactly would be in a lesson you teach to kids on how to be men?

How would I know? I know what I like about men, but I don't think I could teach it to anyone.

Just wondering how you'd know that a boy was successfully taught to be a man if you can't define it.
 
Do you dispute what the article says about the public having access to the property leased to the scouts? If not, why does any of this matter? If so, do you have a source that says this?

Its NOT private property. Its public property leased to the Scouts for their benefit. Can you tell me why the US government should be leasing its property, the property of the people, to discriminatory groups?

I don't want the US government to lease property to the KKK either, even if its merely for an office to do accounting and there is no racism at all on the property. Its giving benefit to a certain organization which promotes beliefs against the public good. And that benefit comes directly from taxpayer money.

I don't know any of the particulars about the land, but from what I read they did millions of dollars in improvements which the gov't will get if/when the scouts give up the lease or are booted off. Maybe that's why. Maybe the land was nothing before the scouts got it. I don't know.

More to the point, if no one is excluded from using it, who cares who it's leased to?

I believe there's benefit to both the scouts AND the gov't. I'm not sure I understand how this is costing taxpayers money, can you elaborate on that point?

I think the concept of the "public good" is fairly subjective.
 
feel free to act like an angry child thowing a foot stomping fit because you were told that you can't have a toy every time you enter a wal mart.


:thup:
I feel the same way about the brats that think every time they push their agenda they are going to get their own way.

well.. in this case... they ARE going to get their way. Take YOUR agenda, the one that actually discriminates, to private property. You'll be losing this one every time until you can prove that you've actually been discriminated against above and beyond being restricted from stringing up your particular ****** class.

:thup:
Again, I call bullshit. No one was discriminated against. It had not happened they just thought they would be. They were allowed to sue for something that did not happen.
 
Yeah, send those impressionable kids to a troop meeting so they can learn how to scratch their balls, burp and spit. Ya know, those manly things :)

What exactly would be in a lesson you teach to kids on how to be men?

How would I know? I know what I like about men, but I don't think I could teach it to anyone.

Just wondering how you'd know that a boy was successfully taught to be a man if you can't define it.

If I can't define what? I wouldn't know how to teach a boy to be a man because I've never been a man. I'm not going to elaborate on the qualities on men I find admirable because I'm sick of threads becoming about me and getting closed because I answered someone else's question. So, if you're having fun go ahead and keep trying to bait me, I'm not biting.
 
IMO, any group that benefits from taxpayer's money has no right to discriminate.

I agree 100%.

But in this case, I don't see how the Boy Scouts are benefitting from taxpayer money. It doesn't say anywhere that the lease is subsidized or that they're paying below market rates.
 
More to the point, if no one is excluded from using it, who cares who it's leased to?


Tell me.. how many of your black friends want to go picnicking down at NIGGERLAND PARK?
 
I feel the same way about the brats that think every time they push their agenda they are going to get their own way.

well.. in this case... they ARE going to get their way. Take YOUR agenda, the one that actually discriminates, to private property. You'll be losing this one every time until you can prove that you've actually been discriminated against above and beyond being restricted from stringing up your particular ****** class.

:thup:
Again, I call bullshit. No one was discriminated against. It had not happened they just thought they would be. They were allowed to sue for something that did not happen.

We are ALL familiar with the scout's take on homosexuality. Tell me how many of YOUR black friends wants to frolic in the summer breeze down at NIGGERLAND PARK.


it's all good though. The Scouts will lose on this every time. Bitch about it all you need to.
 
well.. in this case... they ARE going to get their way. Take YOUR agenda, the one that actually discriminates, to private property. You'll be losing this one every time until you can prove that you've actually been discriminated against above and beyond being restricted from stringing up your particular ****** class.

:thup:
Again, I call bullshit. No one was discriminated against. It had not happened they just thought they would be. They were allowed to sue for something that did not happen.

We are ALL familiar with the scout's take on homosexuality. Tell me how many of YOUR black friends wants to frolic in the summer breeze down at NIGGERLAND PARK.


it's all good though. The Scouts will lose on this every time. Bitch about it all you need to.
I guess if one is allowed to sue for something they think might happen then look out banker they will be coming after you next.
 
Again, I call bullshit. No one was discriminated against. It had not happened they just thought they would be. They were allowed to sue for something that did not happen.

We are ALL familiar with the scout's take on homosexuality. Tell me how many of YOUR black friends wants to frolic in the summer breeze down at NIGGERLAND PARK.


it's all good though. The Scouts will lose on this every time. Bitch about it all you need to.
I guess if one is allowed to sue for something they think might happen then look out banker they will be coming after you next.

that was a pretty sad attempt at a slippery slope fallacy there, yo. How would a banker become a target if he is providing loans for PRIVATE property? This is the kind of mellowdrama that Im talking about.


ps.. you haven't yet posted a single example of heteros or xtians being discriminated against AND you haven't told me how your black friends would enjoy a cookout down at NIGGERLAND PARK. Why is that?
 
I did too. It is right there in black and white. I can't help it that you cannot see. The judge said the Boyscouts were a faith based organization. He didn't say that I said that.


Me and my ****** friends are doing quite well thank you. I don't know what's going on down at niggerland park. Maybe you can enlighten me there on that issue.
 
How would I know? I know what I like about men, but I don't think I could teach it to anyone.

Just wondering how you'd know that a boy was successfully taught to be a man if you can't define it.

If I can't define what? I wouldn't know how to teach a boy to be a man because I've never been a man. I'm not going to elaborate on the qualities on men I find admirable because I'm sick of threads becoming about me and getting closed because I answered someone else's question. So, if you're having fun go ahead and keep trying to bait me, I'm not biting.

Again, a simple question based on a comment you made and now you think I'm baiting you:cuckoo:.

You're all for "men teaching boys to be men" yet you can't define how that would be done? What qualities would you want to see a boy acquire to be considered a man? Did I dumb it down enough for you? Why do you even bother making assertions that you can't support?
 
Last edited:
IMO, any group that benefits from taxpayer's money has no right to discriminate.

I agree 100%.

But in this case, I don't see how the Boy Scouts are benefitting from taxpayer money. It doesn't say anywhere that the lease is subsidized or that they're paying below market rates.
SAN DIEGO -- The San Diego City Council Tuesday approved a 25-year extension of the Boy Scouts' lease in Balboa Park, with an option for another 15 years. The City Council approved the lease on a 6-3 vote during a City Council meeting that dragged on for more than seven hours. For more than 80 years, the prime location has cost the Boy Scouts next to nothing to lease, 10News reported. Now critics wanted to see that deal brought to an end.Camp Balboa has been home to the Scouts since 1948. In 1957, the organization signed a lease deal with the city costing just $1 a year for 50 years.
City Council Renews Boy Scout Lease - San Diego News Story - KGTV San Diego

I'd say $1.00 a year for 16 plus acres is waaay below market value.
 

Forum List

Back
Top