12/06/2007
Philadelphia Boy Scouts Evicted Over Anti-Gay Bigotry
On Monday, I mentioned that The Cradle of Liberty Council, the Boy Scouts chapter in Philadelphia, was facing eviction from the building they have leased for nearly 80 years if they failed to meet a deadline to change its policies to meet nondiscriminatory language in its lease determined by the city's anti-discrimination ordinance. They failed to meet the deadline and will be evicted on June 1st. What a way to start Gay Pride month.
The Scouts have been leasing the building for $1 a year since 1928.
The New York Times reports: "Municipal officials said the clash stemmed from a duty to defend civil rights and an obligation to abide by a local law that bars taxpayer support for any group that discriminates. Boy Scout officials said it was about preserving their culture, protecting the right of private organizations to remain exclusive and defending traditions like requiring members to swear an oath of duty to God and prohibiting membership by anyone who is openly homosexual. This week the Boy Scouts made their last stand and lost. 'At the end of the day, you can not be in a city-owned facility being subsidized by the taxpayers and not have language in your lease that talks about nondiscrimination,' said City Councilman Darrell L. Clarke, who represents the district where the building is located. 'Negotiations are over.'"
Perhaps the city can fill the Beaux Arts building with a museum of tolerance.
Boy Scouts Lose Philadelphia Lease in Gay-Rights Fight [nyt]
Posted 5:30 PM EST by Andy Towle in Discrimination, News, Philadelphia, Real Estate | Permalink
Like it?
Subscribe to FREE Towleroad daily headlines with our RSS feed!
RECENT STORIES:
Comments
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
So, let me get this right....
You're upset because an intolerant organization (the Boy Scouts) was called out for its' intolerance by a tolerant organization (the city), and believe that the tolerant organization should create a "museum of tolerance"?
Museums are places where visual history is recorded for future generations. I think what you want the city to create is a museum of intolerance, because it sounds like this city is pretty tolerant, already. Sounds to me like intolerance will soon be history in this city, so maybe that's what needs to be "remembered" in the museum.
Or maybe you believe that to be TRULY tolerant, the city should tolerate those who are intolerant.
That's some reeeeeeaallllly good Republican reasoning, there!!
Posted by: steve | Dec 6, 2007 5:39:57 PM
My theory on this--which is based on considerably more than just a hunch ('nuff said)--is that the Boy Scouts organization (especially at the national level) is like the Catholic Church: Vociferously, staunchly, intransigently opposed to acceptance of homosexuality precisely because it's an organization with deep roots in the secret harboring and facilitation of homosexual pedophiles. And it's not that the open acceptance of gay scouts and leaders would somehow expose this--that's not the fear. The fear is that open acceptance would diminish their ability to facilitate it.
Posted by: rascal | Dec 6, 2007 5:46:32 PM
Nice try, Steve, but all that "reasoning" is solely your own. I don't see where Mr. Towleroad mentions being upset.
Though I must agree with you, "museum of tolerance" means absolutely nothing to me. It does, however,invoke a hilarious recollection of a South Park episode.
Personally, I believe the Philadelphia government was long overdue in taking this action. Coercive reallocation of public funds by the government is a crime against the people. By my lights, that's a greater wrong than the private club's view of my love of dick.
Posted by: Princess Superstar | Dec 6, 2007 6:00:05 PM
To clarify, that last sentence was not meant to be taken seriously.
Posted by: andy | Dec 6, 2007 6:05:56 PM
I wish you had continued more of the NYTimes story because the Boy Scouts' defense makes them look even worse:
“Since we were founded, we believe that open homosexuality would be inconsistent with the values that we want to communicate with our leaders,” said Gregg Shields, national spokesman for the Boy Scouts. “A belief in God is also mentioned in the Scout oath. We believe that those values are important. Tradition is important. Our mission is to instill those values in scouts and help them make good choices over their lifetimes.”
So, according to the Scouts, because God is mentioned in their oath, that makes it acceptable to ban gays. Should that same standard be applied to the Pledge of Allegiance, that also mentions God? Should America ban all homosexuals? And,
of course, being gay is not a "good choice" according to the Scouts. Ignoring the fact that most people believe that being
gay is not, in fact, a choice. If the Boy Scouts had wanted to create an iron-clad reason about why they should not be permitted to occupy this building virtually rent-free, they did it.
It's clearly a group of bigots, whatever their rationale might be.
I would also like to point out the photo in the NYTimes article
which shows the statue of a Boy Scout in front of the building.
The statue is clearly modeled on Michelangelo's David - note the
bended right knee position. Ironically, Michelangelo is believed to have been gay. Hmmm....perhaps that's why the statue is outside the building. It's a memorial to the gay Scout they wouldn't permit inside.
Posted by: gr8guyca | Dec 6, 2007 6:11:47 PM
Gr8Guy: That pose predates Michelangelo by a few years.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contrapposto
But I will admit our little bronze scout is most definitely serving Keira Knightley Red-Carpet Realness.
http://z.about.com/d/fashion/1/7/X/i/2/keira.jpg
http://images.scotsman.com/2007/05/14/en14keib.jpg
Posted by: 24play | Dec 6, 2007 6:25:31 PM
the scouts have consistently tried to frame issues like this rental as the evil secular homos trying to destroy their organization which, of course, is hogwash. they are welcome to go their merry way, with the supreme court's blessing, excluding anyone they want from their membership since they are a PRIVATE organization. why then, however, should they be benefitting from PUBLIC dollars that make up for the cost of their rental spaces in prime city real estate while they continue discriminatory practices outlawed by the city ? they can pay the rent like everybody else or move to cheaper digs if they are hurting for funds.
Posted by: el polacko | Dec 6, 2007 6:31:23 PM
Does Philly have a center for teh gehz already? Some very gay group should sweep right in and scoop up that impressive edifice at a steeply discounted rent.
Posted by: 24play | Dec 6, 2007 6:40:15 PM
They should give the building to the girl scouts, who aren't bigoted about teh gays or non-christians. Plus, there would be cookies!
Posted by: Wheezy | Dec 6, 2007 7:32:28 PM
I think Rascal is on to something in his comments above. The Sea Scouts (an affiliate of the Boy Scouts) got kicked out of their free berth at the Berkeley marina a couple of years ago for the same reason and their leader was the same type of bigot we're used to hearing from those types. Sadly, he appears to be the same type of hypocrite we're used to as well. He was just arrested for molesting four of the Sea Scouts.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/12/06/BACLTONGF.DTL&hw=Sea+Scouts&sn=001&sc=1000
Posted by: Kyle Childress | Dec 6, 2007 7:40:20 PM
Good, kick the BSA's ignorant, prejudiced asses to the curb where they belong...
Posted by: Robert In WeHo | Dec 6, 2007 8:31:12 PM
Here's the TRUE face of those who fight hardest to keep the Boy Scouts' anti-gay, "morally straight" policy:
http://www.pamshouseblend.com/showDiary.do;jsessionid=04729DB2589CA2B5C3B4F045F50EB861?diaryId=3842
Just a few years ago one of the very top executives of the Boy Scouts, who fought so hard to maintain the "no gays" policy, went to jail for molesting boys.
It's clear that it's only out, proud, moral and well behaved gays that they want to keep out. Like the Republican Party and fundamentalist churches, they seem to have no problem with closeted perverts as long as they stay closeted.
Posted by: Zeke | Dec 6, 2007 8:44:33 PM
Hooray! The BSA has been hiding their bigotry, prejudice and intolerance behind a Norman Rockwell painting for far too long. And getting tax breaks too. If they want an exclusive club with exclusive membership, then let them pay for one.
Posted by: JOHN | Dec 6, 2007 8:46:20 PM
24PLAY: Thanks for the comment. I was being a bit facetious.
Of course, if that pose if based on a Greek model, we know how the ancient Greeks felt about homosexuality too.
Posted by: gr8guyca | Dec 6, 2007 8:56:25 PM
what's also somewhat sad and ironic is how many young men who ARE homosexual are attracted to organizations like the BSA simply for the reason that it IS an organization of men. hence - it's own fundamental reason for being - men mentoring young men - is explicitly based on homosocial - if not some base level homoerotic potential. I know - because it was one of the main reasons I joined& stayed with the BSA through Eagle Scout -- it was an organization of men.
And no - I was not molested or abused within the organization. But there were definitely adults in positions of authority that I knew to avoid - because of the propensity for abuse. And as Zeke noted above, there were one to a T married, conservative and "pillars of the community."
Let the BSA pay its own way like the great American success story it spins. Intgerity, tolerance and compassion don't come cheap enough for them.
Posted by: resurrect | Dec 6, 2007 10:19:12 PM
Complicated issue. The Scouts will probably sue over the terms of the lease.
There are plenty of organizations that we disagree with, but we are free to create our own, so a gay-friendly boys club would be possible (not sure about popular).
The Scouts are deathly afraid that gays in the organization will reduce their solicitation potential (particularly with Mormons who control a huge swath of the BSA) and expose them to charges of sexual abuse of boys (founded or unfounded based on the perceived risk).
I'm generally opposed to greenmail by govt. agencies--this is the Trojan horse of Bush's "faith based initiatives", among other things. Courts have not ruled that there are at risk limitations when it comes to greenmail, so it's now a slippery slope. Let's just hope the FCC doesn't get its hands on the Internet and start regulating content. (It's a miracle that the Internet wasn't regulated from the start, but then computer geeks tend to be libertarians.)
Posted by: anon (gmail.com) | Dec 6, 2007 10:33:11 PM
STEVE,
once again you rear your stupid head.
Posted by: nic | Dec 6, 2007 11:31:07 PM
The boys scouts have their rights and city goverments should not make private groups change their rules to fit everyone needs. I would happy help the boys scouts rent if needed.
Posted by: Crystal | Dec 7, 2007 1:03:10 AM
How about a holocaust museum? The girl scouts center is a good idea, though.
Posted by: greg | Dec 7, 2007 1:05:31 AM
The same issue - with basically the same resolution - arose in San Diego re. the Boy Scout facility in Balboa Park.
Posted by: Joe | Dec 7, 2007 1:18:12 AM
I'm not sure I'd want my kids to join a youth organisation which expressed ANY opinion on sexuality, religion or politics, gay straight or otherwise, these are adult topics. I don't think I'd give them that authority.
Can anyone sensibly argue that anti-discriminatory policies are bad?
This is unpleasant and needless but they brought this on themselves.
Posted by: Nonplussed | Dec 7, 2007 7:32:09 AM
The Boy Scouts are welcome to have any rules they wish, as they are a private organization. In exchange for that freedom, they should be treated like any other private organization. That means that they should not receive public funds (or the equivalent) for their facility expenses. I don't know why this is so difficult for people (like Crystal, above) to understand. No one's asking them to change their rules... in fact, the Supreme Court has been quite explicitly supportive of the organization's right to have those rules. But every decision has consequences, both good and bad. The decision of the BSA to hang on to these rules that they know are discriminatory is the loss of legally-protected public funding. They knew this when they went to court to fight for their right to discriminate.
The Boy Scouts made their bed. They will now need to lie in it.
Posted by: Brian | Dec 7, 2007 9:29:37 AM
Steve, you seem to have misunderstood the post completely. Try re-reading it.
Princess Superstar and others, Although he was being facetious, Andy did not make up the concept of a Museum of Tolerance, as other posters seem to think he did;; there is a rather prominent one in Los Angeles: http://www.museumoftolerance.com/site/c.juLVJ8MRKtH/b.1580483/k.BE32/Home.htm
Posted by: Thomasina | Dec 7, 2007 9:31:14 AM
I must admit to also being [somewhat] facetious with my comment about a museum of tolerance (South Park was the clue;). I'm rarely more than 50% serious at any given time, so I appreciate the link ref, Thomasina.
Posted by: Princess Superstar | Dec 7, 2007 11:29:07 AM
The BSA spokesman is quoted in the NY Times comparing gays with agnostics and athiests - both being contradictions to traditional family values - and apparently unwelcome. As an eagle scout, and a former BSA leader, i wonder whether BSA now refuses admission to scouting applicants or leaders who don't profess to believe in god?
Posted by: Grego | Dec 7, 2007 5:32:16 PM