“On my honor, I will do my best to do my duty to God and my country and to obey the Scout Law; to help other people at all times; to keep myself physically strong, mentally awake and morally straight.”
Now, who could be against such an oath? Gays and lesbians, that’s who,. Is it the “morally straight” part of the oath, the gay community does not like? Or, is there another objective? The gays have objected to the fact that the scouts uphold to their standards of not allowing a gay to lead these impressionable boys, on the basis of discrimination. The local council changed its policy and admitted gays in 2003, but shortly thereafter, the national scout organization overruled that decision. Back In 2000 the Supreme Court ruled that Boys Scouts of America was a private group, and could not be compelled to admit gays. So, you would think that the efforts by the gay community to infiltrate the Boy Scouts were over. Right. Think again.
The city council of the city of brotherly love has reversed its pledge, reversed its agreement, and reversed its long-standing contract with the Cradle of Liberty Council of Boy Scouts in Philadelphia. They voted 16 to 1 to break a 79-year-old agreement allowing the Cradle of Liberty Council of the Boy Scouts to occupy a building in a city park. The Scouts built the building in 1928, and turned it over to the city in exchange for a rent-free lease “in perpetuity.”
Why? Because of gay pressure.
“In a 16-1 vote, the council approved a resolution that would terminate the Scout’s rent-free lease on a building at 22nd and Winter streets. The resolution states, “The City of Philadelphia’s Home Rule Charter and the City’s Fair Practices Ordinance reflect broad City policy abhorring discrimination and the Boy Scouts’ policy and conduct is directly contrary to the principles of equal access and opportunity enshrined in Philadelphia law….”
The boy scouts continue to refuse to admit homosexuals as scout leaders, and that is considered as discrimination, so therefore, the city of brotherly love cannot have any of that stuff. “In light of that continued refusal, this council can no longer allow the organization to use a city building free of charge,” said Councilman Darrell Clarke.” More….
But the supreme court ruling…..means nothing to the council.
But, the agreement…. means nothing to the council
Over ½ million men who have sex with other men have contracted AIDS…..means nothing to the council.
The city of Brotherly Love means just that….brother loving brother, sexually of course.
All of those boys, impressionable boys. This city council does not care.
As I See It 
The supreme court ruling did not say that cities are obligated to lease public property to the Boy Scouts for $1/year; Philadelphia will still lease the building to the BSA if they pay the normal market rate.
By: Brian Westley on July 2, 2007
at 10:55 pm
Brian,
Like I said in the post, the City had a contract with the scouts “in perpetuity” rent free. That means as long as the scouts were the occupants. A contract.
By: As I See It Now. on July 3, 2007
at 6:45 am
The contract has always had a one-year notice that either party could exercise to end the lease. “In perpetuity” in a lease only means it doesn’t have to be renewed every month or year, etc. Such leases always have ways to end, since they never lapse. In this particular case, the lease says it can be ended by either party giving one year’s notice.
By: Brian Westley on July 3, 2007
at 1:43 pm
Thanks Brian, I stand corrected. But, it is still seen as an injustice. I did not see what the city had planned to do with the building when the scouts would leave. It all came about because of the activist pressure upon the city by the gay community. I stand firm against gays being allowed to have leadership roles over young boys. That morally straight part means morally straight in the traditional sense.
No one is preventing the gay community from starting their own scouting program. Have at it.
By: asiseeitnow on July 3, 2007
at 4:01 pm
Why should gay and atheist taxpayers support an organization (by a public subsidy of a building for $1/year) that dengrates them? The BSA fought to be considered a private organization; private organizations pay their own way.
No one is preventing the Boy Scouts from having their own program, just don’t make gays and atheists pay for it.
By: Brian Westley on July 3, 2007
at 7:32 pm
The Scouts have continually tried to reach a compromise with the City. In December 2006, the Scouts asked the city for a figure that represents fair-market rent. The city never answered that request.
In Feb of 2007 the scouts met with Clarke, who said he would look into certain matters and get back to the Scouts. He never did.
On the day the resolution was voted on, the Scouts had no knowledge the resolution was to be introduced and felt they were again blindsided.
How can you defend yourself when you don’t know when. How can you offer a solution when you don’t know when.
This appeared to have been a slam dunk from the very beginning, the intentions being to oust the scouts only because of the scouts stand against gay leaders. It’s not about fair market value of the rents as the city did not want to negotiate either.
The agenda had been set Either the scouts admit gays or out they go. Now, that is not fair. Now that is intimidation.
The sad part is that the boys in the neighborhood loose out on an excellent program.
By: asiseeitnow on July 3, 2007
at 10:03 pm
The scouts’ “compromise” always contained language that would allow the C of L council to continue discriminating against gays and atheists, so it was never a serious compromise; it was just a meaningless statement that would change nothing.
The city isn’t obligated to notify the BSA about upcoming votes on the lease, nor are they obligated to quote them what a fair market rate would be for the property. True, it would be nice if they did, but this is a legal dispute.
The BSA has had four years to come up with something, but it’s obvious that the national BSA will require the C of L council to discriminate, and the city will not continue with the lease under those circumstances. The city doesn’t want to subsidize discrimination, but the C of L council is required to discriminate by the national BSA.
The only solution is to end the lease.
By: Brian Westley on July 4, 2007
at 11:21 am
Utter crazyness. What do you mean the city is not obligated to quote a fair market value for the property? They own it. They know what kind of a rent they want out of it. It’s like someone looking to rent a rental home of mine and they ask: how much do you want? I’m the owner and I tell the renter what I want, and we go from there.
All for a legal technicality, the neighborhood kids get thrown out to the streets to find companionship and role models amongst the gangs etc. All of it to be able to say, we won another one.
Next month, or next year the city will be looking for a way to meet the needs of these kids who have just turned to the gangs, because a great program was removed from the neighborhood.
Nobody wins. Everybody loses.
By: asiseeitnow on July 4, 2007
at 5:36 pm
“What do you mean the city is not obligated to quote a fair market value for the property? They own it.”
Yes, when they decide to finally lease out the property (to the BSA or someone else), they will, of course, have to calculate the fair market value. But they aren’t required to come up with one before giving the BSA a year’s notice.
“All for a legal technicality, the neighborhood kids get thrown out to the streets to find companionship and role models amongst the gangs etc. All of it to be able to say, we won another one.”
Neighborhood kids who are gay or atheist are ALREADY being thrown out, so your concern seems kind of hollow. Don’t they matter? Why should gays and atheists have to help pay for a program that denegrates them and discriminates against them?
By: Brian Westley on July 4, 2007
at 7:58 pm
You forget about the rights of private organizations being just that, private. They are allowed to set their own rules and requirements for membership and be able to discipline, or throw out of the organization, someone who does not adhere to those rules and requirements.
This sounds a bit like Martha Burk and her attempt to intimidate the Augusta National Golf Club to admit women into their membership. Did not and rightly so.
We still live in a country that protects privacy rights, and God help us if that is ever forced out. Private donations still support the scouting program and it is not a public organization that MUST adhere to every every non-discrimination policy, rule and regulation as set forth in federal law. Those do not apply to the scouts.
By: asiseeitnow on July 5, 2007
at 10:08 am
They HAVE a right to be a private organization; a real private organization pays its own way. The BSA can rent the building at market rates instead of having taxpayers subsidise their “private” club. Would it be OK with you if taxpayers had to subsidise a private group that had a rule that Jews couldn’t join?
By: Brian Westley on July 6, 2007
at 9:05 am
Why would any parent want their 10 year old boy camping in the woods, with a gay scoutmaster???
By: bob creighton on June 12, 2008
at 8:29 am