Tolerance for Me But Not for Thee

Freedom of association includes the right to discriminate.

Gay-rights organizations have been quick to defend the Richmond Federal Reserve Bank after it came under attack for hoisting a gay-pride flag on a pole directly beneath the American flag. The Fed did so at the request of, and to show support for, its gay, lesbian, and transgender employees.

Republican Del. Bob Marshall, the conservative Family Foundation, and others have blasted the Fed for flying the gay-pride flag. James Parrish, the executive director of Equality Virginia, says the Fed is "a private business and should be able to make its own personnel and corporate policy decisions without Bob Marshall's guidance or the Family Foundation's approval."

It's nice to see a gay-rights group take that position. The homosexual community has not always been so open-minded.

A little over a decade ago, gay-rights groups attacked the Boy Scouts of America for refusing to let James Dale, a gay man, become a Scoutmaster. Some argued that this violated a New Jersey law barring discrimination in public accommodations. The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that the Scouts, as a private organization, had a right to "expressive association": They could not be forced to accept as members people who did not share their fundamental values.
In that case, groups such as the Lambda Legal Defense Fund and the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force argued strenuously that the Boy Scouts had no business keeping Dale out—just as social conservatives, who now denounce the Fed for flying the gay-pride flag, stood up for the right of the Scouts to exclude gays.

Although the positions look hypocritical, they have a certain convenient logic: Gay-rights groups will support whatever they deem good for the cause of gay rights, and religious conservatives will oppose the same, and each will take whatever position on any other issue best serves that end at any given moment. There's a lot of that going around.

Granted, all analogies are inexact. Social conservatives are not suing the Federal Reserve. They recognize that the private institution has the right to fly any flag it wants. What's more, the Scout case did involve a New Jersey statute, which gave gay-rights groups some legal ground on which to stand. Nevertheless, the guiding principles on each side lack internal consistency.

Since then, other cases about the freedom of association have arisen. Last year, the Supreme Court ruled in one concerning the Christian Legal Society at the Hastings College of Law in California—a public institution. The CLS allowed gays and lesbians to join but not to serve as officers. Hastings therefore declined to accept the legal society as a registered student group, thereby denying it funding. In that case, the Supreme Court split 5-4 in favor of the school.

Set alongside the Scouting decision, the Hastings case tells private groups: You can discriminate if you wish—but the public is not obliged to subsidize your discrimination. That makes sense.

Now the issues raised by the Boy Scout case have come full circle. A gay softball group has been taken to court in Seattle over its policy limiting the number of straight players. U.S. District Judge John Coughenour ruled last week that the North American Gay Amateur Athletic Alliance has the same right as the Boy Scouts do to set its membership rules. "It would be difficult for the NAGAAA to effectively emphasize a vision of the gay lifestyle" if it were "prohibited from maintaining a gay identity" by excluding straight people, the judge wrote.

Back when the Scout case was being litigated, a small number of homosexuals could see this coming. Charlottesville resident Richard Sincere, the leader of Gays and Lesbians for Individual Liberty, wrote at the time that "freedom of association is the key" to striking down anti-homosexual laws—which are based on the presumption that when any two gay people get together, straight people should have a say in what they do next. But straight people shouldn't, any more than homosexuals should be able to interfere in the friendships and relationships of heteros.

What both gay-rights and religious-conservative groups seem to have yet to realize is that you cannot claim a right for your friends but deny it to your enemies. If gay groups want the right to exclude straight people, then straight groups must have the right to exclude gays, and vice versa. Picking our own friends is, thus far, one of the least trampled of our liberties—and it ought to stay that way.

A. Barton Hinkle is a columnist at the Richmond Times-Dispatch. This article originally appeared at the Richmond Times-Dispatch.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • ||

    Why do I keep forgetting that the Federal Reserve is a private business? When I think of private businesses I imagine businesses that I can choose to do business with or not.

  • X||

    no shit. my professional license is partially regulated by this private institution. I say partially because it's regulated by about 6 different agencies with regulations that are not harmonized.

  • PPACA||

    Choice is overrated.

  • Commerce Clause||

    Don't forget about me, bitch.

  • ||

    Excellent point, PACW...mind if I use it?

  • jsmith||

    The Fed, heavily subsidized by tax victims, had to fly the fag..err flag..because "the public is not obliged to subsidize discrimination"

  • rather||

    The players they want to dump are bisexual, and not straight. Talk about lack of tolerance: you ain't gay enough!

  • A Straight Softball Player||

    No way. I've been waiting for years for a gay softball team to start up in my area so I can sue them for not accepting me.

  • ||

    It's actually extremely common for bisexuals to be held in "purer-than-thou" contempt by gay folks.

  • hodown||

    It's actually extremely common for bisexuals to be held in "purer-than-thou" contempt by gay folks

    This is so true. All too frequently, the gay community will also go after any gay or bisexual who does not wholeheartedly support liberal policies that have nothing directly to do with gay interests.

  • BigT||

    Same for atheist groups. Apparently they cannot understand that atheism is not necessarily a liberal position.

  • Michael||

    Among the atheists I know, there are only three who aren't progressive: myself, an Objectivist (who is at odds with the rest) and on the other side, a Communist. Black sheep, indeed (or red, in the one case? He's still closer than us, being a former Progressive who went even further Left.)

  • ||

    Sort of like lighter-skinned blacks?

  • Mr. FIFY||

    RAAAAAACIST!!!

    lol.

  • L4Freedom||

    That's because bisexual men use men for fun and women for marriage. I can understand their resentment. Besides, everyone should stick to their own kind. In my case my kind is anyone who enjoys my company and entertains me.

    http://libertarians4freedom.blogspot.com/

  • ||

    "everyone should stick to their own kind"

    Before being wed to Mrs. Libertymike, I kind of liked the challenge of seducing a statist sylph. It was good sport. I would be offending everybody's bullshit detectors if I did not admit that things did not always end up well.

  • CoyoteBlue||

    Yeah, they're just "bisexual" with a killer fastball. Fags don't have a fastball. It's just the way God made them.

  • Barney The Frank||

    I got two fast balls!

  • Brian D||

    Fags may not have a fastball, but you do have to watch out for their backdoor slider.

  • El Tigre chinois||

    Well according to the eminent sociologist Phoebe Buffet " then there are bisexuals, but some just say they're kidding themselves"

  • Bill Clinton||

    Monica's SS code name was Freebie Buffit.

  • Mike||

    My only problem with the BSA is that they are only vaguely a private institution. They have numerous federal laws passed giving them special privileges, including free access to federal grounds for camping, and complete ownership of the word "scouting" - which they use to sue any alternative scouting group that tries to pop up. If they were purely a private group I would say they have every right to discriminate - as it is, I feel that if they want to make that claim they should not receive so many special legal privileges.

  • Doctor Whom||

    That's been my beef with the BSA all along, that they get so many special privileges from government at all levels, from Congress down to school boards. They want to be a private organization when it suits them.

  • Brian Brady||

    Kind of like, the Fed, banks, auto companies, and hospitals. As Nixon once said "We're all Ststists now"

  • OO||

    the doc musta been that weird kid who got beat-up in boy scouts

  • ||

    And what exactly caused your permanent brain damage?

  • Jeffersonian||

    There's something to this, but it's not that the BSA is "only vaguely a private institution." We can agree that government at any level ought not bestow special privileges on any particular group, but doing so does not make it a public entity.

  • ||

    Perhaps, but when the government consistently bends over backwards to stroke the egos of these para-military uniformed youth brigades, than yes, they too should be forced to adhere to the ideas of equality that other government funded organizations do.

    The BSA use and abuse the system and then hide behind the very protections they ignore in order to discriminate against select groups. The current BSA is a religious group and no more deserves government funds than any of the other organizations that suck from the Faith Based Initiative teat.

  • Hemlock||

    As someone who has been involved with the BSA for many years, I find your clueless rant amusing.

    Please carry on.

  • ||

    As an atheist, taxpayer and friend to several gay people, I find your defense of said organization both biased and un-libertarian. Remember it's only been in the last few decades that the BSA has been taken over by religious fundies, so there is hope for change.

  • Hemlock||

    What is your evidence that the BSA has been "taken over by religious fundies", because I am seeing no evidence of that at the local, district, state, or national level. Sorry that supporting a private group's right of free association and to set thier own rules is "un-libertarian", but you just exposed your own biases in your previous remark.

  • Mike||

    Anecdotally, I have quite a number of family members who have been eagle scouts or scout masters, and all of them talk about the top down organization changing. Technically the scout pledge has always included religion, but no one remembered anyone making a big deal out of it before.

  • ||

    How bout the fact that the Mormon overlords have decided that campfire skits with dirty limmericks or boys dressing as girls can't be allowed.

    Sorry, the scouts was a great organization when I went thru it but it has changed dramatically in the last 10 years. And I know a lot of people at the headquarters here in Irving feel the same way.

  • ||

    There is nothing un-libertarian about discrimination. Discrimination only becomes un-libertarian if you use the power of government to impose discrimination.

  • RADIOACTIVE||

    You're just mad cause the scoutmaster never tried to pat you on your ass...too fucking ugly no doubt, even for a pedophile.

  • Boooo!||

    I find adults involved in the BSA vaguely creepy.

    Please carry on.

  • Hemlock||

    Me too...but then I find creepy adults involved in every youth organization, and I find more in government...

  • RADIOACTIVE||

    especially public schools...talk about creepy adults...

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    I find adults involved in the BSA vaguely creepy.

    I believe the proper term for them is "parents".

    Please carry on.

  • rather||

    I find your defense of said organization both biased and un-libertarian.

    Oh SNAP! Duel at dawn with your boy scout uniforms -hot

  • Hemlock||

    I have a spare Brownie uniform for you, rather...

  • proegg antichicken||

    Yeah! There were zero non-parents involved in my Boy Scout troop. And I got to go camping, skiing, fishing, kayaking, rock climbing, backpacking, and best of all, shoot 22s.

  • rather||

    Ya, but did you earn your Spread Eagle Badge© ® ™?

  • ||

    That was the thing--it was all parents or grandparents who were in charge.

    The single guy without kids who wants to be a scoutmaster--why?

    Maybe the scouts are being aggressively pro-active, taking no chances as it were--I bet there are a lot of altarboys who wish the Catholic Church had done the same.

  • RADIOACTIVE||

    BSA = Baby Sitters of America. Parents just slow down to drop their get off at the who's ever house is being used for the meeting that week

  • ||

    when the government consistently bends over backwards to stroke the egos of these para-military uniformed youth brigades

    Perhaps, if the feds bent over forwards, instead of backwards, the BSA would be more open to homosexuals.

  • Doctor Whom||

    But it does raise the "state actor" issue.

  • Fiscal Meth||

    You should be able to discriminate against any group or individual you want as long as I am free to discriminate against you(ie choose not to associate with you[ie not give you one red cent of my money]). If my money is being given to you without my permission, then it is proper that your little group has limitations on its freedom of association.

  • Hemlock||

    Do you have a link to those "special" privileges?

    I find it difficult to believe that similar privileges are not extended to other groups.

  • Jim||

    Contrary to popular belief, BSA has "equal" access to gov't facilities, but not "special" access. However, several municipalities, such as San Diego, gave them sweatheart deals, such as leasing several acres of land at $1/acre, which, since the city has an anti-discrimination ordinance, would seem to violate that.

    Additionally, as has been previously pointed out, they have a monopoly on use of the word "scouting" and have, in the past, sued other organizations for using the term. This makes it difficult for alternative, inclusive organizations to get established.

    One good suggestion that I've seen is to allow local troops to allow gays or athiests if the leadership of that troop so chooses. Unfortunately, the BSA national organization has stated that this is not optional, thus imposing a strange level of top-down, straight-jacket control on an organization that ostensibly wants to teach the values of independent thought and action.

    There's a good episode of Bullshit on this very subject that you should watch; it raises some points that I can't think of off the top of my head.

  • Mike||

    I will admit that I did not know that BSA had changed many of its charters following this membership controversy. When I was growing up, thousands of boy scout troops were run by military groups and public schools. They have seen re-worked their charters to be more explicitly private.

  • show me your tent||

    They have seen re-worked their charters to be more explicitly private.

    That's called self-defense against the efforts of gays to use government power to redefine their organization.

  • hodown||

    they have a monopoly on use of the word "scouting"

    This inequity can be fixed by granting the Fed a monopoly on the use of the word "fisting".

  • RADIOACTIVE||

    or "dog fucking"?

  • show me your tent||

    Additionally, as has been previously pointed out, they have a monopoly on use of the word "scouting" and have, in the past, sued other organizations for using the term. This makes it difficult for alternative, inclusive organizations to get established.

    I'm sure the difficulty of establishing alternative organizations has nothing to do with parents not wanting their boys to be part of an organization that is more inclusive. I'm sure that parents, even if they support inclusiveness themselves, don't decide to have their kids participate in scouting for no other reason than that the BSA has a long and very successful record of positively shaping a child's character, especially given all the negative influences present in today's culture.

    One good suggestion that I've seen is to allow local troops to allow gays or athiests if the leadership of that troop so chooses.

    And by "allow" you mean "get the Government to compel". How very libertarian of you.

  • ||

    Actually by "allow" he meant the organization could allow troops to be inclusive if they so chose. Not a damn thing about the government in that.

  • ||

    Too lazy to do a Wikipedia search, Hemlock?

    The BSA was granted a Congressional charter in 1916, now codified as 36 U.S.C. Chapter 309,[35]...

    I would consider a congressional charter and a whole chapter of the US Code (of laws) to be "special" in the extreme.

    Sure congress has extended special privileges to other groups, ie the Olympics, but they are still special privileges unless they are extended to all people.

  • T-Brack||

    Oh no! Unrelated gay rights groups are have different ideas about equality and use different tactics.
    Hypocrisy! We demand consistency!

  • ||

    A gay softball group

    Why didn't they just say, "Women's softball league?"

  • Fiscal Meth||

    Isn't "gay softball" redundant?

  • Realist||

    Good one.

  • Brett L||

    At rec level? Nah.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    I don't want to be part of any group that would have me as a member.

  • Beavis||

    Heheh... he said "member"...

  • Anthony Weiner||

    I have a picture I'd like to text real quick...

  • ||

    I hate everybody.

  • Paul||

    Equally?

  • Gilbert Martin||

    Even yourself?

  • Citizen Nothing||

    So -- how do you prove you're gay? Is there some sort of test to make sure no team brings in a "ringer" so to speak?
    No gay.

  • Citizen Nothing||

    'Cause, you know, I've always figured it's possible I'm bisexual and just haven't met the right man yet.
    No gay.

  • PantsFan||

    you need to try at least 10 guys to make sure though

  • Citizen Nothing||

    And I'm not playing catcher.

  • Brian Brady||

    Bigot

  • Brian Brady||

    Just because they wear masks, and look different from everyone other player.

  • mr simple||

    Its really hard on the knees.

  • DLM||

    Its really hard on the knees.

    It's also hard when they forget to wear their crotch pads and miss that low fast ball.

  • Brian Brady||

    If you could just look under that mask, you'd see a human being, just like you.

  • RADIOACTIVE||

    heh, heh...you said hard....heh, heh

  • Sudden||

    I think it really depends on whether you join the human centipede occurring in the post game shower.

  • ||

    "Nevertheless, the guiding principles on each side lack internal consistency."

    Internal consistency in politics. L - O - FUCKING - L.

  • Gay Softball League||

    That straight guy batting cleanup is a ringer!

  • Paul||

    I was wondering when Reason was gonna cover this.

  • tito||

    It took a while for Reason to figure out how to draw a moral equivalence between a quasi-governmental agency advertising for gays by flying the gay flag and a private organization that doesn't let gay men sign up to take adolescent boys on camping trips out in the wilderness.

    The whole premise of this article is flawed. Straights don't want to join gay organizations, but gays do want to join straight organizations, sometimes for no other reason than to wave their gayness in straight people's faces or to impose their values on said organization.

  • ADA||

    Picking our own friends is...one of the least trampled of our liberties

    Our customers, not so much. We must accommodate. Or else.

  • Sudden||

    Charlottesville resident Richard Sincere, the leader of Gays and Lesbians for Individual Liberty, wrote at the time that "freedom of association is the key" to striking down anti-homosexual laws

    Oh the lulz when the leader of the truly and consistently libertarian gay rights group is named Dick Sincere.

  • ||

    I'm pretty sure I'm a lesbian trapped in a man's body; does that count?

  • Kant feel Pietzsche||

    Only if you use a strap-on.

  • GILMORE||

    I've used that line with girls. It works pretty well, actually. I think it might be time to retire it.

  • ||

    What does the BSA or a gay softball team have to do with the Fed? The Fed is a quasi-private government institution. Which means it is a government institution. Not comfortable with unelected government officials pushing an ideology. Any ideology. The Fed's job is to... destroy the economy? Whatever it's mandate it sure isn't push a gay agenda. I wouldn't want the Energy dept. pushing an anti-gay position. This is just more proof that 99% of these govt. depts. serve no real purpose and need to go. And again, that has nothing to do with private groups of scout or gay softballers.

  • A Serious Man||

    Well duh, we want the state enforcing its own secular (ie arbitrary) code of morality. According to my statist friends, if it don't involve Jesus than it's perfectly kosher for the state to set standards for operating a private business, property rights be damned.

  • MNG||

    Yes, liberals do not see property rights as a trump over any other concern.

  • typical progressive||

    Hey!
    Property rights trump other concerns when it's my property or the property of another tolerant and inclusive equal of mine!
    It's only when the property belongs to someone who isn't one of us that property rights take a back seat.

  • MNG||

    Hm, never heard that at the Sunday meetings.

  • Gilbert Martin||

    That's because they're communists.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Liberals do not see property rights.

    FIFY'd for you, MNG.

  • typical progressive||

    What's the big deal?

    Tolerance means you must always tolerate me because I'm tolerant, and I don't have to tolerate your intolerance.

    Inclusiveness means you must always include me, but I can exclude you because you aren't inclusive enough.

    Equality means you must treat me as an equal, and I get to treat you with all the contempt that your intolerant and inferior ass deserves.

    Besides, there are more lawyers and judges on my side than yours, so you're gonna lose.

    Loser!

  • MNG||

    Actually I don't think there is anything about being tolerant that means you must tolerate the intolerant. That slogan always struck me as dumb as the anti-death penalty one: how do you teach people not to kill by killing.

  • BigT||

    The lesson is not soon forgotten.

  • OO||

    progressives know one cannot define a word by using the word to be defined in the definition. silly libtoids

  • MNG||

    I'm not sure there is any contradiction here, private businesses can put up a gay or anti-gay flag if they want under that NJ law, they just could not discriminate against gays when they invite the rest of the public in.

  • ||

    Preach it baby!

  • hodown||

    This is such a great article and the point is so spot on.

    I hope the Senate takes into account the discriminatory policies of the Boy Scouts when the President nominates the next Chairman of the Boy Scouts of America.

  • Gilbert Martin||

    The idea that the Federal Reserve is a "private business" is patently abusrd.

    It is a legal fiction. No REAL private business has the power to print money.

  • ||

    There's been an excellent discussion thread on the gay softball thing over at volokh.com for a while.

    it's actually a unique case on the legal issues and basically comes down to
    1) is the league a "public accomodation"
    2) do they have a first amendment ground to discriminate

    it's a very bizarre ruling, and confusing as hell (in the justification the courts gave for their ruling)

  • ||

    There is nothing inherently wrong with being intolerant of intolerance. But those who do, yet still claim to be tolerant, are idiots, and are hypocrites for demanding tolerance when they themselves demonstrate intolerance.

  • Almanian B. H.Heimerschmidt||

    Yeah! Wait...what?

  • Almanian B. H.Heimerschmidt||

    A. Barton Hinkle Heimerschmidt
    His name is my name, too!
    Whenever we go out
    People always shout
    There goes A. Barton Hinkle Heimerschmidt
    LALALALALALALA...

    Old that never gets

  • show me your tent||

    Last year, the Supreme Court ruled in one concerning the Christian Legal Society at the Hastings College of Law in California—a public institution. The CLS allowed gays and lesbians to join but not to serve as officers. Hastings therefore declined to accept the legal society as a registered student group, thereby denying it funding. In that case, the Supreme Court split 5-4 in favor of the school.

    Set alongside the Scouting decision, the Hastings case tells private groups: You can discriminate if you wish—but the public is not obliged to subsidize your discrimination. That makes sense.

    Obviously, the CLS's mistake was to put their discriminatory policies in writing. I count 70 student organizations listed on the HCL website. Of these, 21 organizations explicitly mention race, sex, ethnicity, or specific region of the world (e.g. Middle Eastern Law Students Association) in their group's name. 3 of the groups mention religion in their names (Counting the Hastings Jewish Law Students Association in the religious category, not the ethnic category). Many of the names of the rest of the groups suggest a specific political interest (e.g. American Constitution Society, Environmental Law Society).

    Does anyone seriously believe that many of the other student organizations at HCL don't discriminate in choosing their officers? How likely is it that someone named Anderson would be elected to leadership in the La Raza Law Students Association? How likely is it that a white guy could be in the leadership of the Black Law Students Association. I cry BS. The real problem is that any student organization is subsidized at all. Why should all students be forced to provide grants to the Hastings Democrats, the Hastings Irish Law Society or the Hastings Soccer Club?

    Don't get me wrong. I liked that the UC San Diego skydiving club with its 3 members got a yearly $6400 subsidy from the student activities fund. It was like free money, but I doubt that the other students would have approved.

  • *||

    Today's vocabulary quiz is to define every term in Article II of the bylaws of Hastings OUTLAW:

    The purpose of Hastings OUTLAW (hereinafter “OUTLAW”) is to promote a positive atmosphere at UC Hastings for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgendered, intersex, asexual, two-spirit, and queer students and their allies. The objective of OUTLAW is to educate the community-at-large about the issues and concerns specific to the LGBT community to help alleviate and eradicate homophobia, transphobia, racism, sexism, and other affronts to the dignity of individual human beings.

    I'm having some trouble with "two-spirit" and "intersex".

    Also, is it possible to affront the dignity of an individual if the individual is "two-spirit"?

  • Doctor Whom||

    GIYF.

  • *||

    Maybe my point was too subtle.

  • Mensan||

    "I'm having some trouble with "two-spirit" and "intersex"."

    Intersex is a person born with both male and female biological characteristics. The more commonly used term is hermaphrodite, but that is technically incorrect in humans since a hermaphrodite has both male and female reproductive organs, whereas an intersex person often has ambiguous genitalia and/or gonadal abnormalities.

    Two-spirit people are traditional in Native American cultures. Some were intersex, but most were homosexual or bisexual. They held a unique position in many tribal cultures as a third gender with their own gender roles. They were called two-spirits because they were believed to have both a male and a female spirit.

  • ||

    Boy, you and your two other teammates could jump a lot on a subsidy of over $6000. My college skydiving club got a room on campus for our monthly meetings. And we had more members than your club.

  • ||

    I'm gay and I have ball leukemia!

  • Ray||

    My god, they will follow you to he'll if you asked them too.

  • Five Dollar Fag||

    I always thought G.A.Y. was an acronym for Got Aides Yet?

  • LarryA||

    Nope. Sex with aides is a politician's thing.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Hey, bisexuals:

    Pick a hole and stick with it. You're just being greedy.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Forgot to attribute that to Dennis Miller. Back when he was funnier, that is.

  • Robert||

    You are COMPLETELY WRONG.

    The BOY SCOUTS OF AMERICA takes TAXPAYER MONEY and has a CONGRESSIONAL CHARTER.

    Until they stop demanding SPECIAL ACCESS TO GOVERNMENT PROPERTY, stop TAKING PUBLIC MONEY, and ask to have the GOVERNMENT CHARTER REVOKED, it's fair to criticize them.

    They are an evil organization NOT BECAUSE they have membership standards we don't all agree with but because THEY TAKE PUBLIC MONEY and still want to be "private."

  • Mensan||

    Has anyone else noticed all the new handles on this thread? It's mostly from the people defending the boy scouters and/or bashing teh gheys.

    Is it regular commenters who are afraid to use their normal handle, or did some anti-gay, pro-boy scouting (redundant, I know) group post a link to this article?

  • Pandora UK||

    Is it regular commenters who are afraid to use their normal handle, or did some anti-gay, pro-boy scouting (redundant, I know) group post a link to this article?

  • Tony||

    Reason isn't so much about freedom as being the self-appointed hypocrisy police. You guys have any idea how ridiculous you sound waving your finger at gay rights advocates for not supporting groups' alleged right to discriminate against gay people?

  • ||

    Ahh Tony, how I have missed your rants about our hypocrisy.

  • Paul||

    "What both gay-rights and religious-conservative groups seem to have yet to realize is that you cannot claim a right for your friends but deny it to your enemies."

    'Tis interesting that the gay mafia has more in common with "religious-conservative groups" than members of either would care to admit.

  • ||

    But the Boy Scouts are NOT a private organization, they receive millions in taxpayer dollars and land grants, as well as money and equipment and special rights and privileges direct-from-Congress. If the boy scouts were a true private company the "Dale" case would have been a no brainer.

  • nike air force 1||

    is good

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement