chuck norris wants to keep gays out of the boyscouts

markin ball

First of all...Chuck Norris is 72!?

Second of all...

http://youtu.be/MiqXPEsEY_o

ComeToTX

markin ball wrote:

First of all...Chuck Norris is 72!?

Second of all...

http://youtu.be/MiqXPEsEY_o

That lever is still Conan's greatest achievement.

markin ball

So, what we learned here today is that Chuck might be gay and have pedophilic thoughts. How many times have we seen this before?

LikeAnOcean

People who think being gay is a choice are closet homo or bisexuals. There's no other explanation because any truly straight individual knows they could not decide to go one way or another. It's not a decision. You can't choose to be gay. You can only hide it.


Didnt know this about him.. Keep hiding Chucky.

peacefrompaul

ComeToTX wrote:

markin ball wrote:

First of all...Chuck Norris is 72!?

Second of all...

http://youtu.be/MiqXPEsEY_o

That lever is still Conan's greatest achievement.

Hands down

catefrances

LikeAnOcean wrote:

People who think being gay is a choice are closet homo or bisexuals. There's no other explanation because any truly straight individual knows they could not decide to go one way or another. It's not a decision. You can't choose to be gay. You can only hide it.


Didnt know this about him.. Keep hiding Chucky.

no... people who think being gay is a choice arent exclusively closet homosexuals or bisexuals. that is too broad a stroke to paint themall with and in a great deal of cases incorrect. they are more likely to be simply bigotted... either due to their religious beliefs or their upbringing.

badbrains

I would call chuck gay but that would be an insult to gay people around the world. What an asshole!

mikepegg44

LikeAnOcean wrote:

People who think being gay is a choice are closet homo or bisexuals. There's no other explanation because any truly straight individual knows they could not decide to go one way or another. It's not a decision. You can't choose to be gay. You can only hide it.


Didnt know this about him.. Keep hiding Chucky.

his beard and chest hair was always a little too perfectly manicured :think:

mydogmookieblaylock

this furthers my point of Bruce Lee > Chuck Norris

Kat

mikepegg44 wrote:

LikeAnOcean wrote:

People who think being gay is a choice are closet homo or bisexuals. There's no other explanation because any truly straight individual knows they could not decide to go one way or another. It's not a decision. You can't choose to be gay. You can only hide it.


Didnt know this about him.. Keep hiding Chucky.

his beard and chest hair was always a little too perfectly manicured :think:

Say what? Not sure this thread should keep going. Gay bashing isn't ok so......how about getting on the topic of the boy scouts restrictive policy instead of personal comments about someone who made a comment.

PJ_Soul

I don't think there is any gay bashing going on here... I don't believe that the manicured chest hair comment is bashing. IMHO, it's just a play on a stereotype - I think it was a facetious comment, no? And the hiding comments weren't meant to suggest that there is something wrong with being gay, but, rather, that there is something wrong with CN's psyche...

Anyway, yeah, the Boy Scout's rule is the matter in question... Is it legal?? It doesn't seem legal to me.

unsung

If they are a legitimate private organization and are not receiving financial help from federal taxpayers then they should be able to exclude whomever they want. Given that they had better be able to deal with boycotts, protests, etc.

If they are tax exempt and are benefitting from tax dollars then they really are not private and should have to admit everyone interested.

PJ_Soul

unsung wrote:

If they are a legitimate private organization and are not receiving financial help from federal taxpayers then they should be able to exclude whomever they want. Given that they had better be able to deal with boycotts, protests, etc.

If they are tax exempt and are benefitting from tax dollars then they really are not private and should have to admit everyone interested.

I didn't know it was that simple... especially since it's a non-profit charity organization, as well as a private one. And I'd actually be surprised to hear that it's not somehow subsidized by the government as well. Even after all that, there aren't equality laws that wouldn't allow a private organization to ban people based solely on their sexuality? I'm totally ignorant in this matter, really, but I swear I've heard of cases where private organizations have been forced to allow certain races, etc. I mean, is it really legal for, say, a restaurant or a private school to hang a sign saying "no blacks or gays allowed", and to deny service to anyone in those groups who try to enter?? Hey, maybe you're right... it just does SEEM legal...

unsung

If I open a private club and I don't want certain people in for whatever reason I should be able to refuse service. Now it isn't the smartest thing to do since you will probably be protested non-stop but it should be my right.

If you accept taxpayer dollars but you won't admit gay people then I'd say you are in the wrong simply because their tax dollars probably went to your organization. So they pay to exclude themselves?

Maybe it's not that simple but that's how I see it. And no I do not believe in keeping people out based on race or religion or sexuality. I do think a private, autonomous organization has that right, but they might have to deal with consequences for doing do. The government should not be able to force them to admit anyone if they are truly private.

PJ_Soul

unsung wrote:

If I open a private club and I don't want certain people in for whatever reason I should be able to refuse service. Now it isn't the smartest thing to do since you will probably be protested non-stop but it should be my right.

If you accept taxpayer dollars but you won't admit gay people then I'd say you are in the wrong simply because their tax dollars probably went to your organization. So they pay to exclude themselves?

Maybe it's not that simple but that's how I see it. And no I do not believe in keeping people out based on race or religion or sexuality. I do think a private, autonomous organization has that right, but they might have to deal with consequences for doing do. The government should not be able to force them to admit anyone if they are truly private.

That's a fine belief ... Anyone know the actual laws connected to this though?

mikepegg44

PJ_Soul wrote:

unsung wrote:

If I open a private club and I don't want certain people in for whatever reason I should be able to refuse service. Now it isn't the smartest thing to do since you will probably be protested non-stop but it should be my right.

If you accept taxpayer dollars but you won't admit gay people then I'd say you are in the wrong simply because their tax dollars probably went to your organization. So they pay to exclude themselves?

Maybe it's not that simple but that's how I see it. And no I do not believe in keeping people out based on race or religion or sexuality. I do think a private, autonomous organization has that right, but they might have to deal with consequences for doing do. The government should not be able to force them to admit anyone if they are truly private.

That's a fine belief ... Anyone know the actual laws connected to this though?

from the ACLU

Under the Civil Rights Act of 1964, all persons are entitled to "the full and equal enjoyment of … any place of public accommodation ... without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race...." But this requirement of non-discrimination does not apply to "a private club or other establishment not in fact open to the public". The Pennsylvania Human Relations Act, which also prohibits discrimination in "public accommodations," has a similar exemption for “accommodations which are in their nature distinctly private”.

Following the passage of the Civil Rights Act in 1965, dozens of businesses and facilities – including swimming pools – tried to argue that they were "private clubs" so that they could exclude African Americans. The courts quickly developed a test to distinguish between truly "private" organizations and those that only claimed to be. Very few facilities qualified as truly "private."

In order to be exempt from the civil rights laws, a "private" club must truly reserve its facilities for members, and must have genuinely exclusive membership criteria – a club that will admit anyone who is not African American does not qualify. Courts deciding whether a club is “private” in this sense will consider the history and purpose of the club (including whether it was created to circumvent desegregation), the club advertises for members, it is directly controlled by its members and operated solely for their benefit, and the club is operated for profit.

so basically, if a club is truly private and they have certain criteria for membership they can. If a club is generally open to the public like the Boy Scouts they cannot discriminate.

I didn't realize the distinction.

PJ_Soul

mikepegg44 wrote:

PJ_Soul wrote:

unsung wrote:

If I open a private club and I don't want certain people in for whatever reason I should be able to refuse service. Now it isn't the smartest thing to do since you will probably be protested non-stop but it should be my right.

If you accept taxpayer dollars but you won't admit gay people then I'd say you are in the wrong simply because their tax dollars probably went to your organization. So they pay to exclude themselves?

Maybe it's not that simple but that's how I see it. And no I do not believe in keeping people out based on race or religion or sexuality. I do think a private, autonomous organization has that right, but they might have to deal with consequences for doing do. The government should not be able to force them to admit anyone if they are truly private.

That's a fine belief ... Anyone know the actual laws connected to this though?

from the ACLU

Under the Civil Rights Act of 1964, all persons are entitled to "the full and equal enjoyment of … any place of public accommodation ... without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race...." But this requirement of non-discrimination does not apply to "a private club or other establishment not in fact open to the public". The Pennsylvania Human Relations Act, which also prohibits discrimination in "public accommodations," has a similar exemption for “accommodations which are in their nature distinctly private”.

Following the passage of the Civil Rights Act in 1965, dozens of businesses and facilities – including swimming pools – tried to argue that they were "private clubs" so that they could exclude African Americans. The courts quickly developed a test to distinguish between truly "private" organizations and those that only claimed to be. Very few facilities qualified as truly "private."

In order to be exempt from the civil rights laws, a "private" club must truly reserve its facilities for members, and must have genuinely exclusive membership criteria – a club that will admit anyone who is not African American does not qualify. Courts deciding whether a club is “private” in this sense will consider the history and purpose of the club (including whether it was created to circumvent desegregation), the club advertises for members, it is directly controlled by its members and operated solely for their benefit, and the club is operated for profit.

so basically, if a club is truly private and they have certain criteria for membership they can. If a club is generally open to the public like the Boy Scouts they cannot discriminate.

I didn't realize the distinction.

Excellent, thank you for posting that info. Looks like the Boy Scouts and Chuck Norris can officially bite me.

Jason P

PJ_Soul wrote:

unsung wrote:

If I open a private club and I don't want certain people in for whatever reason I should be able to refuse service. Now it isn't the smartest thing to do since you will probably be protested non-stop but it should be my right.

If you accept taxpayer dollars but you won't admit gay people then I'd say you are in the wrong simply because their tax dollars probably went to your organization. So they pay to exclude themselves?

Maybe it's not that simple but that's how I see it. And no I do not believe in keeping people out based on race or religion or sexuality. I do think a private, autonomous organization has that right, but they might have to deal with consequences for doing do. The government should not be able to force them to admit anyone if they are truly private.

That's a fine belief ... Anyone know the actual laws connected to this though?

I think Augusta National is a good example. They were very exclusive to rich white dudes for a long time. They have made concessions begrudgingly over the years, but to this day they still don't allow women to be members. They get the national stinkeye during the Masters, but it's usually forgotten after play ends.

The Boy Scouts need to determine their values and see if they are detrimental to the club and it's membership count. Personally, I think their uniforms are more detrimental. Looking back on it, I think I could have learned a lot of useful outdoor information, but there was no way in hell I was going to wear that uniform ... and this was back in the 80's when fashion was at it's all-time low!

PJ_Soul

Jason P wrote:

PJ_Soul wrote:

unsung wrote:

If I open a private club and I don't want certain people in for whatever reason I should be able to refuse service. Now it isn't the smartest thing to do since you will probably be protested non-stop but it should be my right.

If you accept taxpayer dollars but you won't admit gay people then I'd say you are in the wrong simply because their tax dollars probably went to your organization. So they pay to exclude themselves?

Maybe it's not that simple but that's how I see it. And no I do not believe in keeping people out based on race or religion or sexuality. I do think a private, autonomous organization has that right, but they might have to deal with consequences for doing do. The government should not be able to force them to admit anyone if they are truly private.

That's a fine belief ... Anyone know the actual laws connected to this though?

I think Augusta National is a good example. They were very exclusive to rich white dudes for a long time. They have made concessions begrudgingly over the years, but to this day they still don't allow women to be members. They get the national stinkeye during the Masters, but it's usually forgotten after play ends.

The Boy Scouts need to determine their values and see if they are detrimental to the club and it's membership count. Personally, I think their uniforms are more detrimental. Looking back on it, I think I could have learned a lot of useful outdoor information, but there was no way in hell I was going to wear that uniform ... and this was back in the 80's when fashion was at it's all-time low!

You're right. I wouldn't want my (hypothetical) kid to look that dorky, but I'd love it if he could learn all that stuff and look cool doing it at the same time.

chadwick

chuck sucks