Robert Knight wrote: "sponsoring organizations could now coerce Scout troops to accept openly homosexual men and boys. "
Here we see yet another phony champion of personal responsibility and private property. What rightful claim do the Boy Scouts have to anyone else's property? NONE. Just like ANY claim anyone makes to others' private property. Sponsoring organizations, when private, should be able to demand WHATEVER they want, or withhold sponsorship. THAT's what private property looks like.
The problem is that many of these sponsoring organizations aren't private. They use public money, collected BY FORCE from the unwilling.
So if you want to attack the real problem, get rid of public sponsors altogether. Examine the true...
Boy Scouts learn to start fires by rubbing two sticks together. Now, the national Scout leadership is playing with fire. Scratch that; they’re playing with explosives.
Under consideration for a vote during a Feb. 4th to 6th board of directors meeting is a rules change that would overturn the Scouts’ ban on openly homosexual members and leaders.
A press release on Jan. 28 by Scouts spokesman Deron Smith said, “This would mean there would no longer be any national policy regarding sexual orientation, but that the chartered organizations that oversee and deliver Scouting would accept membership and select leaders consistent with...
they meet in public buildings NOT IN USE,they aren't putting anyone else out by doing so.
they don't TAKE the property.
But for a company (or city) to deny their charitable contributions over some GAYSTAPO tactics(yes,there's an implied threat of force against the business/city by the GAYSTAPO) is cowardly and dishonest.
To the extent that the Scouts are supported through public schools or other public entities, then people ARE forced to contribute to the scouts. They should not be--this support should end because it should never have existed in the first place. ...
you're not rational.
private sponsors only "demand" the Scouts accept homos only because the GAYSTAPO is COERCING them.
without that threat,the sponsors would be fine with their support.
Telling the public sponsors how to act is swallowing a spider to catch the fly. The answer is to throw up the fly.