Disney Cuts Donations to Boy Scouts over Gay Exclusions

The gayest picture you'll see today.Credit: quinn.anya / Foter / CC BY-SAFor some unknown reason neither Disney park ever makes the list of gay-friendliest cities in America. Having a Main Street is not enough to qualify, apparently, but the parks are full of gay people. Last year Disney named an openly gay man president of Walt Disney World in Orlando. And while the parks insist they are not officially connected to the annual “Gay Days” activities, visitors to the park on those days will plenty of representations of rainbows on the merchandise.

So Disney’s really gay, which for many folks is like saying water is wet, but there are some who still have an old Liberace fan level of denial about it.

Disney’s also all about volunteering to the point that it had to incorporate an obnoxious pun into the affair (“VoluntEARS” – get it?) and has a whole big program for it. Through a program titled “EARS to You” (get it?) the company donates money to charities of their employees’ choosing and to places where they volunteer.

In 2013, under a significant amount of cultural pressure, the Boy Scouts of America ended its ban on gay boys participating in the program. But they kept the ban on gay men serving as adults as troop leaders and such. Once an openly gay scout turns 18, he's out. This halfway decision wasn’t enough for Disney. Walt Disney World is cutting off funding for troops in the Orlando area.  An area scout president sent out a letter that is making the media rounds:

We recognize that many Scout Units have received financial support over the last several years from this grant opportunity and are sad to see it go. The National BSA Council has reached out to WDW to try to resolve the situation, however, according to WDW, their views do not currently align with the BSA and they are choosing to discontinue this level of support.

We will continue to keep an open line of communication with them, but at this time, are unable to reverse their decision. If you are a WDW employee and have any concerns or questions about your volunteer service, I encourage you to reach out to your direct supervisor.

So the pressure hasn’t eased up on the Scouts to finish what it has started and just let gay people participate in all capacities. It’s not clear how much money the Boy Scouts stand to lose, but Walt Disney Company boasted $370 million in total giving last year (though that includes product donations and in-kind support, not just cash).

Nick Gillespie, an Eagle Scout, wrote last year about how he doesn’t allow his sons to participate because of the Boy Scouts of America’s policy of exclusion.

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.

  • ||

    Market failure success!

  • Almanian!||

    second

    Also, my son was in Scouts for a couple years when we lived in Ohio. I thought it was a great experience for him - he seemed to think the same.

    I continue not to understand why BSA continues not to allow gay scout "leaders" or whatever they're called, and I still think the South Park episode with Big Gay Al remains on of the best ever - both in terms of being a funny cartoon and in terms of social commentary.

    So....SUPER! Thanks, for asking!

    Markets - continue to work as you were...

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    I continue not to understand why BSA continues not to allow gay scout "leaders"

    Go to this link and scroll down to the table titled "Top 10 Chartered Organizations associated with the Boy Scouts of America, by Total Youth". Look at the number one spot and notice that the total number of units chartered to that organization is almost 4 times as much as the number two spot.

    You don't bite the hand that feeds you.

  • Auric Demonocles||

  • Michael Bluth||

    As someone who, by nature of my "calling" in the Young Men's Organization in the LDS Church, I would love to see the Scouts and the Church cut ties, if only because so few of the boys are even interested in Scouting. But you make a good point about not biting the hand that feeds you. There has to be a breaking point where that changes, however.

  • wareagle||

    is there some onrush of gay men wanting to be scout leaders?

  • Tonio||

    See below.

  • Loki||

  • Tonio||

    I have fond memories of scouting; overall a good organization despite their discrimination against both atheists and gays.

    I find the discrimination against gay scouts to be far more heinous than their discrimination against gay scout leaders. On principle it should be all or nothing, but given the hysteria which conflates homosexuals with child molesters I can't imagine any gay man wanting to be in that position.

  • CampingInYourPark||

    I have fond memories of scouting; overall a good organization despite their discrimination against both atheists and gays.

    How is that possible? You were banned, right?

  • Tonio||

    I was pulled out of scouting against my will by my family. This was when I was like twelve so gay wasn't even on the horizon and atheism was only a glimmer.

  • wareagle||

    are there a lot of gay men wanting to be scout leaders? What am I missing here? Unless they were scouts and loved it, I'm not seeing a huge demand.

  • Tonio||

    It's not the old guys like me, BassBoat, it's the young gay guys who just aged out of scouting and want to transition into leadership.

  • Tonio||

    So the supreme irony is that the scouts are often rejecting bona fide Eagle Scouts as leaders.

  • CampingInYourPark||

    Why don't they start a GBSA?

  • Tonio||

    I don't know. Why don't you ask them and get back to us?

  • Tonio||

    Also, GBSA? Really?

    I don't see them seeking to exclude straight scouts or leaders. Which is rather different from what the BSA is doing.

    Plus the actual scouts may not know they are gay until well along in the process. Most scouts join the organization as Cub Scouts which is open to boys 7-11.

  • wareagle||

    okay, the ones who were themselves scouts I totally get. I suppose one could ask what sexuality has to do with scouting at all, to include questioning prospective leaders or their volunteering the information.

    And where is bassboat from?

  • Tonio||

    The top search result for "wareagle" is the wareagle boat company, who make aluminum jonboats.

  • Vincent Milburn||

    I think the idea is that they don't want openly gay leaders/ role models for the young boys whereas young boys who struggle with same-sex attraction should not be cruelly shunned.

  • R C Dean||

    I continue not to understand why BSA continues not to allow gay scout "leaders" or whatever they're called,

    Local Boy Scout troops are often supported by local churches.

  • Tonio||

    And, as pointed out by the wonderful HM, the largest institutional supporter of scouting is the Mormons.

    LDS have basically owned scouting for as long as I can remember. It's a big part of their ongoing PR campaign to mainstream themselves.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    The economic pressure of one business voluntarily deciding not to contribute to an organization that doesn't meet its values is not enough. We must apply the coercive pressure of government upon the Boy Scouts to force them to change their policy under threat of deadly force.

  • playa manhattan||

    I thought we tried that first.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Well, if at first you don't succeed...

    *sound of 'peace officer' placing shotgun shell into chamber*

  • Tonio||

    And where has that been done, Heroic? No, witholding special treatment is not the same as coercive pressure.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    I seem to remember an attempt circa 2000.

    However, don't get me wrong. I'd love to see the BSA chuck this stupid exclusionary policy, and when I was a Cubmaster I voted for them to do so.

    The collective membership of the BSA coming to its senses and voluntarily changing the policy would send a much stronger message than being forced to by government diktat, no?

  • Tonio||

    Oops, my bad. Memory isn't perfect.

    Someone do shoot me before I get to the place which Red Tony now occupies.

  • Tonio||

    And it would be the leadership and the sponsoring organizations, not the membership.

  • CampingInYourPark||

    How could anyone support a sexist organization like BSA to begin with? These are the front lines of the war on little wimmen!

  • ||

    There's also the girl scouts, so like, separate but equal or something.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    The BSA has co-ed programs for older kids like Explorers and Venture Scouts. I don't think the Girl Scouts have anything equivalent.

  • Albertus Magnus||

    Curves Gym?

  • Tonio||

    little wimmen

    +1 Louisa May Alcott

    Also, there is the Campfire International organization, fka Campfire Girls, which is now sexually integrated.

  • Marshall Gill||

    Nick Gillespie, an Eagle Scout, wrote last year about how he doesn’t allow his sons to participate because of the Boy Scouts of America’s policy of exclusion.

    Doesn't allow?! So the fucking turd forces his children to make political statements? Color me shocked! When is he going to start writing for HuffPo, anyway?

  • ||

    Um, what? Parents everywhere are deciding what activities their kids are and are not allowed to do.

  • Dances-with-Trolls||

    Yeah, I mean who goes around not allowing their kids to do stuff or trying to influence their morality? Some hardcore repression there.

  • ||

    So the commentariat goes ballistic about making the personal the political until it's convenient. Cheerlead for Nick's impeccable ethics if it pleases you, but don't pretend like he's not doing the same shit that every free-range-organic-helicopter-progressive or homeschool-southern-baptist is doing.

  • ||

    It's not political, he as a private actor is making a decision to not associate with another private actor. He's never stated that the government should force the Boy Scouts to change.

  • ||

    Private interactions can't be motivated by politics?

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Yes, they can be. However, where in Gillespie's post do you see that his choice was motivated by politics as opposed to his own ethical values?

  • ||

    The Boy Scouts organization doesn't force Gillespie to violate his ethics in order for his kids to participate, so I mean, it's more about the statement than the ethics I think. If Gillespie is that much of an ethical purist he'd never be able to leave his house if he applied it consistently. That's the rabbit hole down which you travel when you turn every transaction you make into an ethical dilemma. It's not unlibertarian, but it's a pretty miserable way to go through your life. I think Nick himself actually made precisely that point wrt the Duck Dynasty fiasco.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    The great irony in this is that I made the exact opposite decision as Nick. Even though I disagree with the BSA's policy, when asked to help start up a new Cub Scout pack, I decided to participate as an adult leader. For me, starting a place where 15 kids could learn and have fun outweighed contributing my time to an organization that would have excluded me if I were gay. Likewise, I recognized that the policy was extremely unpopular on the ground, as shown by the votes of the various troops and packs in our district and council. The holdouts are really in the upper echelons of the organization. If I didn't participate, I wouldn't be in the position to help change the organization.

    I assume Nick went through a similar thought process and came to a different conclusion, which is entirely his prerogative and I see no reason to criticize him for it.

  • Pro Libertate||

    It seems to me that there is a macro-vs.-micro issue here, as it's not something that really shows up much at the local level, anyway. I was a Boy Scout for a couple of years and liked the camping, hiking, and shooting shit parts of it well enough. It's always had a religious overtone, of course, but that wasn't anything overt in my troop.

    One of my sons was a Scout for a while, and it seemed pretty much the same. I think sometimes it's good to keep ones views of a national organization/brand separate from the local one. But whether or not to boycott is a personal choice, and I fully understand the decision of some to boycott the organization for these practices.

  • ||

    I'm fine with Nick making whatever conclusion he wants, I just think it's inconsistent with the criticism he's sometimes leveled at others for brand or company boycotts. And I think depriving your kids of an experience they might enjoy that doesn't cause them any harm because you don't like the product/manufacturer/organization/etc that provides it is kind of... I don't know, not stupid exactly, just not something I'd necessarily do.

  • Calidissident||

    This isn't like say the Chik fil A boycott. People boycotted Chik fil A cause their CEO doesn't like gay people. It's not like Chik fil A doesn't serve gay people. The Boy Scouts have policies that discriminate against gay people. I'm at a loss as to why people are giving Nick so much shit for this.

    Is there no point at which you'd change your mind? If, for example, in Libertopia, Nick didn't let his kids go to a restaurant that didn't serve black people, would you criticize him for that?

  • ||

    "I'm at a loss as to why people are giving Nick so much shit for this."
    Because they are homophobes, but don't want to admit it.

  • Stimpy's Invention||

    "When you turn every transaction you make into an ethical dilemma..."

    ...and filter every human act through a political lens, you are officially a miserable, frustrated libertarian?

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Sorry, I don't subscribe to the 'let your children run around like bat-shit insane psychopaths who have never heard the word "no" spoken to them' school of parenting that is popular in some circles of libertarianism.

    And, if as a Buddhist, I don't allow my daughter to join our local branch of the Catholic Youth Organization, are you seriously telling me that you think I'm making a "political" statement?

  • ||

    I don't have any children nor was I raised by parents of that philosophy. That's got nothing to do with making decisions about where your children can pursue their interests based on a political position. Telling your kids they can't join the Boy Scouts because NOH8 isn't any different than telling your kids they can't eat at McDonald's because you're a PETA dickbag or telling them they can't play at the park because tragedy of the commons. At some point you wind up being the type of whiny cunt who won't leave the house because you can't engage in a single interaction that doesn't somehow compromise your principles. That's your prerogative of course, but the Reason staff and commentariat are usually the first ones to castigate the kind of people who do that.

  • Dances-with-Trolls||

    I don't have any children

    Shocking revelation there.

  • ||

    Totally relevant to a discussion of making marketplace choices based on politics too...

  • ||

    Also, just out of curiosity, what would my opinion gain in your eyes if I did have children?

    Probably nothing.

    Shocking as it may be, sometimes people disagree about things even if they've shared the magical miracle of bestowing a new generation the gift of their genes.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    they can't eat at McDonald's because you're a PETA dickbag you keep Kosher.

    How about that? Because that seems closer to me to what Gillespie is doing.

  • ||

    Gillespie isn't religious, so, no, not really. Even at that, what's the difference? A PETA dickbag may take his ethics every bit as seriously as a Jew takes his religious directives. I didn't say Gillespie isn't entitled to raise (or brainwash or whatever you want to call it) his kids into whatever moral/ethical system he likes, just that the people who do that are usually roundly excoriated by the commentariat here. The only thing that differentiates Nick from the kind of parent you'd roast is that you agree with him.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    The difference is that Orthodox Jews aren't trying to ban un-Kosher food but PETA is trying to criminalize meat. PETA is political because they're trying to get everyone to do the same as them. Orthodox Jews are making a personal choice. I don't see where Nick is trying to get us to make the same choice as him.

  • ||

    Okay, so swap out PETA dickbag for unaffiliated vegan/animal rights dickbag. I can (and do, vehemently) support vegan dickbag's right to raise his kid as a vegan while still thinking he's a dickbag for depriving his kid of the occasional happy meal with his friends because of his own hangups.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    That's a fair cop, PM.

  • wareagle||

    in the end, does Nick's decision benefit his kids or just give him a smug sense of self-satisfaction? If he was railing about his own experience, it would make more sense but that's just me.

  • Marshall Gill||

    I don't see where Nick is trying to get us to make the same choice as him.

    I never said he was. I never said it was unlibertarian, either. I did not mean to even imply that Nick was attempting to coerce anyone but his child. I never said he didn't have a right to do it, either.

    Only that he was an asshole for doing it.

  • Stormy Dragon||

    The only thing that differentiates Nick from the kind of parent you'd roast is that you agree with him.

    Yeah, and? We're not moral relativists who have to pretend all ethical systems are equally valid.

  • Stimpy's Invention||

    "The Reason staff and commentariat are usually the first ones to castigate the kind of people who do that."

    #libertarianhypocrisy

  • Marshall Gill||

    Nick admits that he was an Eagle Scout. So he enjoyed scouting enough to advance as far as possible, I think.

    "Son, I enjoyed the fuck out of scouting so much that I advanced to Eagle. YOU will not be enjoying scouting so that I can make a political statement about homosexuality!"

    He definitely has this right. I definitely have the right to call him an asshole for it.

  • Marshall Gill||

    And since Nick clearly believes in Principles, he doesn't send his children to public schools, right?

  • Vincent Milburn||

    Why would he? I assume he can afford not to.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    So he enjoyed scouting enough to advance as far as possible, I think.

    On the other hand, his parents could have forced him to advance that far.

    Just a thought.

  • ||

    To be honest, HM, I would say that you are making a political statement, at least insofar as folks around here frequently do talk about how the "personal" shouldn't be "political." That in itself is something I find difficult to really comprehend as it seems to frequently revolve not around partisan politics, but ethics manifested as politics, or something. That is to say, I'm 100% on board with you and Apatheist, but it's true that people here do sometimes complain about seemingly equivalent shit on the other side of the fence.

  • Stimpy's Invention||

    "let your children run around like bat-shit insane psychopaths"

    I've never heard membership in the Boy Scouts described in quite those terms.

  • Dances-with-Trolls||

    he's not doing the same shit that every free-range-organic-helicopter-progressive or homeschool-southern-baptist is doing.

    Did I miss the part where the Jacket is insisting that his preferences be made the law of the land?

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    I wouldn't say it's a political statement. And wouldn't you agree that a parent has a right to raise his or her children within the value system they subscribe to?

  • ||

    If choosing who you and your children associate with outside the realm of government is a political situation then we are truly fucked.

    I wonder how Marshall feels about people who say that parents who force their children to go to church are brainwashing them?

  • R C Dean||

    If choosing who you and your children associate with outside the realm of government is a political situation then we are truly fucked.

    Then we are fucked. See, also, freedom of association (RIP).

  • Marshall Gill||

    I wonder how Marshall feels about people who say that parents who force their children to go to church are brainwashing them?

    Church is a perfect example, thanks for bringing it up.

    I am an atheist. My children attend church regularly with their mother. I can't imagine not allowing them to attend church because I don't believe.

    I tell them why I believe the way I do but wouldn't think of not allowing it. Attending church or a youth organization that doesn't line up with my political beliefs is not the same as not allowing them to participate in dangerous behavior.

  • SugarFree||

    What if you were both atheists, MG? Or if your young children wanted to be in a madrassa because the other kids wanted them to?

    If everything you don't let or want your kids to do is a political act, we are all nutball haters.

  • Marshall Gill||

    If everything you don't let or want your kids to do is a political act, we are all nutball haters.

    Everything? Associating with organizations that do not explicitly endorse homosexuality or do explicitly endorse Socialism is the same as not allowing your children to play with matches?

    Scouts isn't a dangerous activity. Church isn't either. While I certainly support the right of parents to give or deny anything they like to their children, this is an shit-head move. Convince your child that they don't want to associate with the "haters" but disallow?

    Honestly, if my children wanted to attend a Mosque, I would allow it. I would certainly explain any ideological differences I had but denying them the right to play "red rover" with the other kids because of positions the adults there hold is simply assholish.

    Does Nick also burn books?

    And, yes, I am a nutball and a hater.

  • Tonio||

    Scouts isn't a dangerous activity.

    Uh...as an avid outdoorsman and having seen the things I've seen, I beg to differ.

    Scout: How do we cross the stream, Mr. Smith?
    Smith: [long pause] Watch those backpackers [me and my bf] and do what they do.

    We later had to help Mr. Smith find the trail. I enjoyed lecturing him (away from the lads, of course) about how he was incompetent and endangering the lives of the children in his charge.

  • Calidissident||

    "Associating with organizations that do not explicitly endorse homosexuality"

    This is a bit disingenuous

  • wareagle||

    What if you were both atheists, MG?

    you could just let the kids make their own decision about religion.

  • Calidissident||

    "I am an atheist. My children attend church regularly with their mother. I can't imagine not allowing them to attend church because I don't believe."

    That's not what he said though. He asked your opinion of parents who do take their kids to church, even though the kids might not want to go.

  • Tonio||

    forces his children to make political statements

    Uh, no. That would be forcing them to participate in gay rights marches. Big difference.

    Hey, how's that faux outrage workin' out for you, Marsh?

  • waffles||

    I think Disney is responsible for much of the slutification of America (NTTAWWT). Watching ABC or even seeing what happens to Disney childstars from a foreign country and I would think all Americans are pansexual twerkers who randomly break into song.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    I would think all Americans are pansexual twerkers who randomly break into song.

    Sounds about right.

  • Loki||

    I think Disney is responsible for much of the slutification of America (NTTAWWT).

    Once again, South Park has it right.

  • sarcasmic||

  • wareagle||

    pansexual twerkers

    if only the band had a name...

  • Tony||

    I was a Boy Scout, and let me tell you, there is nothing more heterosexual than a bunch of pubescent boys going into the woods together.

  • OldMexican||

    Re: Tony,

    there is nothing more heterosexual than a bunch of pubescent boys going into the woods together.


    Indeed. What's not heterosexual (as in acting like a man about it) is asking everybody else to accept you.

    "Waa! Waa! Nobody loves me!"

  • Tony||

    You're right, heterosexual men have always taken their systematic exclusion from society with a steely acceptance.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    So now Tony's the one conflating marriage with society?

  • Tony||

    Aren't we talking about an important American institution that excluded gays (officially at least) until very recently, and still excludes them in leadership positions?

    Exclusion from marriage isn't an accidental quirk of law, it's a reflection of exclusion from society. Something OM tells me nobody should bother fighting against, because be a man, or something.

  • OldMexican||

    Re: Tony,

    it's [the BSA] a reflection of exclusion from society.


    You're exaggerating. Worse yet, you're exaggerating in a stupid way. The BSA is NOT a reflection of "exclusion" in America, it is a private organization that follows its own policies, nothing more. There are millions more organizations with different policies.

    I am however mocking your predilection for involving the government in everything like - dare I say it? - a pussy, instead of founding your own competing organization to fight it out in the market like - dare I say it? - a man.

    Something OM tells me nobody should bother fighting against,


    That's entirely different from what I said. I said you're nothing but a pussy.

  • Tony||

    I did my part, but my break with BSA was over my atheism more than my sexuality. Also, I could never get a handle on the knots.

  • OldMexican||

    Re: Tony,

    You're right, heterosexual men have always taken their systematic exclusion from society with a steely acceptance.


    Mmm, no. Sorry, Tony, playing dumb just isn't your thing. You're not that clever.

    "Waa! Waa! We need government to force everybody to be tolerant! Waa!"

    See? That has been your gist from the get-go.

  • Tony||

    Just eliminating such government force that enshrines intolerance in law.

  • OldMexican||

    Re: Tony,

    Just eliminating such government force that enshrines intolerance in law.


    Because there would be a different, less libertarian government? I am trying to figure out your point without giving up and concluding you just issued a very, very clumsy non sequitur. I want to give you the benefit of the doubt - this time.

  • Tony||

    I'm a free thought absolutist. You can be as dumb and bigoted as you like, and the only government involvement I support is a quality education that might serve as a life raft out of the embarrassing stupidity you'd otherwise be stuck with.

    But bans on gay marriage and gay participation in society in general are government enforcement of segregation and tacit and not-so-tacit endorsement of bigotry. We can all agree that those should be gotten rid of, I presume.

  • sarcasmic||

    Not recognizing same sex marriage is not the same thing as banning it. Oh, wait. That's a distinction, isn't it? And you don't do well with distinctions. Never mind.

  • Tony||

    But there are many laws outright banning it (being struck down by courts on a regular basis).

  • sarcasmic||

    But there are many laws outright banning it (being struck down by courts on a regular basis).

    Um, no. There are referendums and amendments. Not the same thing. Oh, wait. More distinctions. Sorry. I keep forgetting you can't wrap your little brain around distinctions.

  • Tony||

    I don't even know what you're trying to say. Laws enacted via referenda aren't laws? Constitutional amendments aren't law?

  • OldMexican||

    Re: Tony,

    I'm a free thought absolutist.


    The two terms are contradictory, but let's move on - I'm already accustomed to your perversion of logic.

    You can be as dumb and bigoted as you like, and the only government involvement I support is a quality education that might serve as a life raft out of the embarrassing stupidity you'd otherwise be stuck with.


    So much for free thought. A government education, by definition, cannot be conducive to free thinking.

    But bans on gay marriage and gay participation in society in general are government enforcement of segregation


    Listen, you idiot: NOBODY here disagrees with the notion that gays have every right to marry. I do and so does everybody else. Nor does anybody here support government-imposed segregation.

    What you don't seem to understand is that the solution to the prohibition of gay marriage or government-imposed segregation is NOT state-sanctioned marriage or anti-discrimination laws. Let the bigoted and the intolerant waddle in their own mud until they get tired of it and embrace other people. What imposed "tolerance" does is breed INtolerance as it creates animosity towards the groups the government purports to help. As we say in Mexico "Ya no me ayudes, compadre!"

  • wareagle||

    What imposed "tolerance" does is breed INtolerance as it creates animosity towards the groups the government purports to help.

    and a huge example of that was the lawsuit over the bakery incident. While the commentariat is largely good with SSM, it tends to frown on folks suing in order to force everyone else to agree with them.

  • Tony||

    I would prefer it that way, but history very clearly suggests that sometimes people need to be dragged kicking and screaming into modernity, because otherwise systematic second-class citizenship for minority groups persists in an intolerably unjust way. I think it's reasonable to say that the onus is on the bigots, but their nature tends not to be open to change does it?

  • wareagle||

    I think it's reasonable to say that the onus is on the bigots, but their nature tends not to be open to change does it?

    and yet, society changes despite them: gay marriage wasn't even a term 20 years ago, segregation used to be institutional, and it wasn't that long ago that women were not allowed to vote.

  • Tony||

    And it all happened organically without any government intervention. Oh wait, no it didn't.

  • wareagle||

    And it all happened organically without any government intervention

    govt intervention is what caused the issues in the first place.

  • OldMexican||

    Re: Tony,

    I would prefer it that way, but history very clearly suggests that sometimes people need to be dragged kicking and screaming into modernity,


    The Weather Underground calculated something like 25 million being dragged screaming and kicking to "readjustment camps" if they ever got the chance to run things in America. The total people being dragged kicking and screaming into "modernity" was something like 120 million including the 6 million who were dragged screaming and kicking into the "modern-looking" showers...

    Boy, are you a creepy person, Tony.

  • ||

    and gay participation in society in general

    Society != government, and vice versa. That's the shortcut you always wind up taking to fascism: not being accepted by your peer group is not exclusion from participation in society. It's a part of life that most people learn to cope with some time around the age of 5.

  • Kevin47||

    But also using government force to compel tolerance.

  • Tony||

    I'd prefer not to. Why not try being a civilized, decent person all on your own, then there won't be a problem?

    Why do I get the impression that you guys would be among the most distressed at the outcomes of the free-wheeling society you advocate?

  • sarcasmic||

    Why do I get the impression that you guys would be among the most distressed at the outcomes of the free-wheeling society you advocate?

    Because you're an idiot.

  • Tony||

    Because you're a homogeneous group who subconsciously assumes that your laissez-faire society would consist only of people like you?

  • sarcasmic||

    Precisely because we're not a homogeneous group, laissez-faire is better than a system of rules imposed by force that treat society as a homogeneous group. You are seriously stupid.

  • OldMexican||

    Re: sarcasmic,

    You [Tony] are seriously stupid.


    No, just seriously dishonest and shifty.

  • sarcasmic||

    No, just seriously dishonest and shifty.

    And stupid.

  • ||

    Or because we aren't neurotic shit heels and our worlds wouldn't fall to pieces if everybody on the planet didn't give us full-throated affirmation of ourselves. IOW, we can tolerate people not liking us and treating us like shit as long as they don't rob us or put guns to our heads.

  • ||

    (here again, coping skills most human beings pick up in early childhood)

  • playa manhattan||

    That might have been your motivation, but not necessarily every else's.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    Yeah, if you think hanging out with other guys is gay, it's probably your own gayness biasing you.

  • waffles||

    You're crazy if you think going camping with my friends from school was in any way sexual.

  • Certified Public Asskicker||

    I sometimes have poker nights with a bunch of my guy friends in a garage. No women. We're all secretly gay.

  • From the Tundra||

    Yep, I never realized how totally gay our shop nights are. Good to know - I'll let the others in on the big news.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    Or he's giving the Boy Scouts something legitimate to point to about why they don't want gays going camping with boys.

  • OldMexican||

    So the pressure hasn’t eased up on the Scouts to finish what it has started and just let gay people participate in all capacities.


    If there's one thing that is true about extortion, is that you can stop it from affecting you if you just come clean and tell the extortionist "Fuck you."

    Disney has the right to withdraw its donation money for whatever reason, but a donation it is, which means it should not come with strings attached. I don't give money to a charity or an organization to change the organization itself. If I stop believing in the work that they do, then I simply stop giving but I don't start telling them what they should do because I look like a hypocrite - why now, if nothing changed from yesterday?

  • ||

    If I stop believing in the work that they do, then I simply stop giving but I don't start telling them what they should do because I look like a hypocrite - why now, if nothing changed from yesterday?

    What changed was Disney not believing the work they were doing. Or more accurately they felt the negative publicity of supporting them began to outweigh the positive. What's the problem? How could it possibly be extortion to stop donating money?

  • ||

    What changed was Disney not believing the work they were doing.

    But nothing about the organization or the work it is doing changed. So you end up looking like an opportunistic douche flapping in the political wind. Which wouldn't be a bad working definition of corporate charity.

  • ||

    I didn't say the boyscouts changed, I said Disney did. Why do you expect a business like Disney to never change?

  • OldMexican||

    Re: Apatheist,

    What changed was Disney not believing the work they were doing.


    Which means ipso facto nothing else changed. It is still the same Boy Scouts of America.

    How could it possibly be extortion to stop donating money?


    The sudden and undue quid pro quo is extortion, A. Of course, it is not forced extortion, but it is still asking a trading partner to change an big aspect of their organization that was never requested before. Of course Disney has that right, and the Boy Scouts have every right to tell them "Fuck you, we won't do it" and lose the donation.

    The action by Disney, however, seems disingenuous and unethical when one looks at how they publicize their decision as a way to shame the BSA into acquiescence, as if Disney wasn't aware of BSA policies. It is not only the fact that Disney is withdrawing its support, it is also the way it is portraying the BSA publicly.

  • Tony||

    There oughta be a law.

  • OldMexican||

    Re: Tony,

    There oughta be a law.


    Really? Ok, make up one and let's see if you can get a few sponsors, if it makes sense!

    G'won! Get writin'! Let's see what you got, sweetheart!

    Why is it always "get the government involved" with you people(*)?

    (*) Statist douche bags.

  • Tony||

    You seem off your game today, and it's not a very good game to begin with. Can I get you a bloody Mary, perhaps?

  • OldMexican||

    Don't obfuscate - pussy.

  • Tony||

    I'm mocking and insulting you, not obfuscating.

  • OldMexican||

    Re: Tony,

    I'm mocking and insulting you


    Is that what you think you're doing? Better have more coffee, dear, because you mind is not up to par this day.

  • Tonio||

    Don't mention the double standard, Apatheist, just don't.

  • ||

    A lot of donations come with strings attached. And I don't see anything wrong, if I were to stop donating some huge amount of money to something, in telling them why I had stopped. They might want me to start back up again. And in many ways it makes sense to think of donors as the real "customers" of charitable organizations.

  • OldMexican||

    Re: Fräulein Nikki,

    A lot of donations come with strings attached.


    Maybe the first time and the charity/organization has every right to reject the conditions. But after years and years of donating, knowing the exact and unchanging policies of the organization and then suddenly feigning surprise? C'mon.

    And I don't see anything wrong


    I don't see it as a violation of the NAP. I do see it as a display of hypocrisy, of disingenuity.

  • Tonio||

    Displays which you are well familiar. Just saying.

  • Tonio||

    familiar with...

  • Calidissident||

    People can never change their opinions or policies on something? What?

    Why is it that a self-proclaimed anarchist has an issue with voluntary interaction and free expression?

  • PACW||

    I don't know if I would call it "suddenly feigning surprise". Sometimes something you think you can live with starts to eat away at you. Or you just tighten your focus (Susan G. Komen) and eliminate groups that don't use your money as well as you had hoped they would.

  • Typical Reason Editor||

    Gay, gay, gay, gay
    Open borders
    Hookers and blow
    Gay, gay, gay, gay

  • SugarFree||

    Feel free to take your eyeballs somewhere else. Maybe they can join your mind in the warm confines of your ass.

  • Typical Reason Editor||

    Gay.

  • CampingInYourPark||

    News Roundup - Gay open borders
    Update - Gay

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Ha-yuk! You done showed up those faggity-ass city-slicker cosmotarians, or isn't it homotarians, fo' sure! YEEE-HAWWW!

    *Jumps up in the air while shooting two revolvers all Yosemite Sam like before jumping into the General Lee and honking its "Dixie" air horn*

  • Tonio||

    homotarians, ftw.

  • GILMORE||

    Wait, I like it. Is that the verse or the chorus?

    Also, I think it only needs three gays at the end. For rhythm.

    a la =

    Gun guns guns guns
    Asset forfeiture!
    NSA spying
    weed weed weed

    help me out here people?

  • GILMORE||


    Organ transplants
    paid by bitcoins
    Private space travel
    GAY GAY GAY!

  • ||

    I think you might have peaked with this one.

    Declaration of Independents
    Lou Reed dead
    a libertarian moment
    Gay Gay Gay!

    I'm awful with line length.

  • GILMORE||

    4,4,5,3, roughly. 'beat count', not syllables. Like a I,IV,V progression. ROCK AND ROLL, BABY.

    Don't worry, I never believed that stereotype about gays all being natural poets and great dancers.

  • ||

    Don't worry, I never believed that stereotype about gays all being natural poets and great dancers.

    That's a relief. There's so much pressure. It's like being an Asian student and not being good at math.

  • GILMORE||


    Weasel Farming
    non-intervention
    Gold-backed Dollar
    He-She-He!*

    (3 parent child?)

  • GILMORE||

    Offshore farming
    Own a bazooka
    Dress like Matt Welch
    Gay Gay Gay!

  • GILMORE||

    I think that should have been "sea homesteading"? Look, I'm no Neil Diamond, people.

  • Vincent Milburn||

    Sung to the tune of "Here We Come A-Caroling."

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Wait a minute. Wait just a fucking minute.

    Liberace was gay?

  • ||

    Wait a minute. Wait just a fucking minute.

    Who's Liberace?

  • From the Tundra||

    Whoa. I never saw that coming...

  • ||

    That's what he said!

  • creech||

    Do the Girl Scouts allow openly lesbian leaders? Do they allow straight male leaders? Are there some activities in life that may not actually be better if led by people who may have no sexual interest in their followers?

  • Tony||

    People who have sexual interest in children shouldn't be leading children's orgs in general, I would think.

    As for the Girl Scouts, I could be wrong, but I think lesbianism is required.

  • Tonio||

    Not required, but strongly encouraged.

  • SugarFree||

    Being a lesbian or a straight man automatically means you are sexually attracted to little girls?

    What the fuck is wrong with you?

  • Tonio||

    It's called homophobia, Sug. That term is vastly overused, but this is a clear case of irrational fear and loathing.

  • Certified Public Asskicker||

    I like to think of lesbians as attractive 20 year olds that like to have sex in groups. Oh, I prefer them to be bi too.

  • Tonio||

    I won't disillusion you.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Do the Girl Scouts allow openly lesbian leaders?

    Yes.

    Do they allow straight male leaders?

    Yes.

    Note that while the BSA leans social conservative, the national leadership of the GSA is 100 percent bat-shit insane Prog.

  • Tonio||

    But it should be noted that those straight male leaders are always supervised by two (?) or more female leaders, etc, etc.

  • ||

    phallophobia, obvs.

  • R C Dean||

    Speaking as someone who does risk management, I think the BSA's decision not to allow gay scoutmasters is easily justified on purely economic grounds, no bigotry required.

    The damages that would be inflicted on the BSA in a lawsuit brought by an allegedly molested Scout could well be terminal for the organization, especially if it set of a copy-cat feeding frenzy. Now, the ban on gay adults is definitely a long way from a guarantee that (a) there aren't any and (b) that nobody will get molested, but as a pure risk management play, banning the people who could get you sued into the grave is pretty unexceptional.

  • Tonio||

    And you were taking me to task for pointing out the practical differences between polygamy and two-person marriage?

    So when you advance a claim it's just common sense, but when I advance the same claim it's nonsense? Got it.

  • sloopyinca||

    The gayest picture you'll see today.

    Yeah not quite, Shackford.

  • ||

    That's Epi abuse!

    Well done.

  • sloopyinca||

    I had to make up for my bears comment from yesterday.

  • Tonio||

    Wait, what?

  • ||

    For reference.

    What were you making up for? You set 'em up, I knock 'em down. It works.

  • Tonio||

    LOL. Thanks.

  • SugarFree||

    You can slice of parts of their penis, you can beat them for their own good, you can force them to go to church to learn nonsense and be molested, but the second you keep your kids from joining an openly discriminatory private organization, that's when the yokeltarians think you are a bad parent.

  • ||

    I think you've pretty much got it down.

  • Tonio||

    Nailed it, Sug.

  • GILMORE||

    "You can slice of parts of their penis, you can beat them for their own good, you can force them to go to church to learn nonsense and be molested,...

    AND you can use them as slave labor until they get old enough to strike out on their own and survive without you! Aren't kids the best?

  • Certified Public Asskicker||

    May I add, the spanking thread from last night. JFC.

    We bitch about how bad public schools are all the time, and then it turns out it is because teachers are not allowed to beat asses.

  • ||

    It's almost like people have different parenting styles or something.

    STOP NOT LIKING THE THINGS I LIKE!

  • Calidissident||

    Says the guy who started the criticism of someone else's parenting style.

  • Tonio||

    It's funny how some commenters offered lengthy defenses of the freedom of association for religious employers to discriminate against gays, but puff up in screechy outrage when a private organization chooses to slowly disassociate itself with another private organization.

    Aitch Why Pee Owe See Are Eye Ess Why

  • OldMexican||

    Re: Tonio,

    but puff up in screechy outrage when a private organization chooses to slowly disassociate itself with another private organization.


    I'm just finding Disney's pose - "Look how tolerant we are and how intolerant these guys are!" - pedantic and petulant. I would advise the BSA to let everybody know that they made the changes they believe were pertinent and that companies are free to donate to them anytime. I would tell them to take the high road.

    By the way, I stopped watching Disney movies and purchasing Disney products a long time ago. Fortunately, my son grew out of them and is now more interested in Ninjago and Super Mario Brothers.

  • ||

    By the way, I stopped watching Disney movies and purchasing Disney products a long time ago.

    I'd wonder if the failure of the AFA boycott that went on for years affected the boldness of Disney's position on social issues. I think the boycott ended in the mid-2000s.

    That sucked; I live in Southern California and there was a good chunk of time where we weren't allowed to go to Disneyland because teh gehz (and Miramax Films)

  • Invisible Finger||

    Boy Scouts = bad.

    Saudi Arabia = our allies!

  • Tonio||

    No, we are their ally. They are not ours.

  • Invisible Finger||

    We are their bitch. (and Israel's.)

  • GILMORE||

    I still personally believe "traditional parenting" is preferred.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HSvBr4Qa-Fs

  • OldMexican||

    Re: Tony,

    I would prefer it that way [bigots being free to waddle in their own mud], but history very clearly suggests that sometimes people need to be dragged kicking and screaming into modernity, because otherwise systematic second-class citizenship for minority groups persists in an intolerably unjust way.


    One needs to be constantly reminded of the level of scary creepiness coming from the "tolerant" left, for instance Tony here, to understand why the fight for liberty is so important. To sum up what he's saying: it is better to force people into a specific view of the world than it is to let them find that path by themselves, because (it would seem) impatience is annoying. What that entails is nothing more than pure tyranny, as you will always find people who are openly hostile to other people, one; and two, you will find even more people that, in the eyes of the "social reformer" are just not moving there fast enough.

    I think it's reasonable to say that the onus is on the bigots,


    No, it is not reasonable. You can try to convince a person through argumentation and discourse, but you cannot force a person to change his ways if these are not harming someone else (and I don't mean hurt feelings.)

    You continue to show your predilection for perverting logic and reason.

  • Jayburd||

    Yeah, I wouldn't let my kids join either, Nick. http://documents.latimes.com/b.....documents/

  • Donl||

    Time to ban Disney AGAIN for the same thing AGAIN. When will they ever learn. Disney is suppose to support the traditional family, and traditional values. I hope the constant pressure hasn't brainwashed America that far gone yet. America just ban them for supporting gay rights a short time ago. Wakey wakey. I am banning Disney if they jump on the gay wagon is normal BS.

  • Donl||

    Interesting, just Googled to see who is in charge of the Scouts, and their religious affiliation. We need to keep track of this kind of thing today. Please do the same. For such a small group of people, it's amazing how they run the show on every score. Our media outlets, our schools, universities, and now the Scouts? Are we this dumb to keep placing trust in these folks? I am trying to not see any connection, but every time I research into something twisted and progressive liberal, it's the same religious group of people behind it. After a while, it can't be a coincidence that many times! I'm getting scared.

  • Pothead Fred||

    Why are they called GAY when they seem so miserable with themselves?

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