4 ms·

I think it is important to distinguish between "freedom to act as you see fit" and "discrimation" per see. If you have a private organization and want to give g

I think it is important to distinguish between "freedom to act as you see fit" and "discrimation" per see. If you have a private organization and want to give good experiences to young men, then I think you should be able to do so. Someone else can make another organization for young women, or even one for both, each of these provides a unique experience for those who want it, and in a pluralistic society this kind of diversity enriches society for everyone. Look at it more as diversity. Atheists can make their own camps which promote their own ideas and ethics, and it will be a haven for good memories among them. It isn't good to homogenize all of society and attack those who just want their own little "safe haven" and "summer camps" for their children and their cultural ideas without bothering anyone else. I fully support your right to put your son wherever you want, just please support my right to do the same.

EvanAnderson 8y ago
The Boy Scouts of America has a congressional charter. They are not a run-of-the-mill private organization. Their discrimination is unacceptable as a publicly-chartered organization.
- zamadatix 8y ago
  Does that mean anything or is it just honorific like most recognition of groups from the government? I think it's quite well established the Boy Scouts of America are a well recognized group regardless of this so I don't see how this is what makes them non run-of-the-mill.
  - EvanAnderson 8y ago
    The Boy Scouts have used the trademark rights granted by their federal charter to bully other organizations to change their names. In a trademark dispute it would be necessary for a claimant to demonstrate that there is a likelihood of confusion between their mark and the allegedly infringing mark. The BSA has claimed that their federal charter allows them to be exempt from that requirement and, in the 2008 Wrenn vs. BSA decision the court affirmed that claim, stating "The Court agrees with the BSA that it need not demonstrate the likelihood of confusion because it has been granted special protection by Congressional charter." That is sufficient demonstration, to me, that they derive value from their federal charter above and beyond it simply being an honorific.
- brobdingnagians 8y ago
  One of the problems with our society is that the government has it's hand and it's funding in almost everything. I don't think public institutions should take sides, which means they should get out of interfering with private institutions. If the government didn't take a large percentage of our money to hand out to organizations we disagree with, then maybe we could support the things we do agree with. I wish they didn't have a congressional charter, maybe then they'd be more independent.
  - EvanAnderson 8y ago
    Your libertarian-leaning sentiments don't change the facts. The Boy Scouts of America have a congressional charter. They've used that charter to bully other programs into changing their names (evidence "Youthscouts"[1] or "Hacker Scouts"[2]). If they're going to use the imprimatur of the United States Congress to their advantage then it follows, to me, that they aren't a run-of-the-mill private organization and should be bound by the Constitution in the same way as other public entities. (Their discrimination against atheists, for example, is directly in conflict with the first amendment and, to my mind, unconscionable.) I'm glad to see the Girl Scouts (also federally chartered) going after them. The Girl Scouts have a much better track record of being a good actor when it comes to discrimination and acting like the public entity that they are. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wrenn_v._Boy_Scouts_of_America https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wrenn_v._Boy_Scouts_of_America [2] - https://web.archive.org/web/20130821172216/http://hacker-scouts.org/blog/hacker-scouts-and-bsa https://web.archive.org/web/20130821172216/http://hacker-sco...
- EvanAnderson 8y ago
  BTW: If you find this kind of thing interesting there's some really engaging analysis here: https://kb.osu.edu/bitstream/handle/1811/64622/OSLJ_V53N5_1385.pdf https://kb.osu.edu/bitstream/handle/1811/64622/OSLJ_V53N5_13...
richmarr 8y ago
> I think it is important to distinguish between "freedom to act as you see fit" and "discrimation" per see By all means try to distinguish between them. You haven't yet done so.
- brobdingnagians 8y ago
  "freedom to act as you see fit" is usually a human right guaranteed legally by the Constitution, but discrimination is a cultural idea which is slowly gaining the power of legal force to prevent people from doing what they would normally choose. To be "discriminating" used to be a compliment, it meant you could intellectualy discern the logical differences between two things, much like how we use "observative". But now it means something more like "making choices someone personally disagrees with or thinks is unfair to a certain preferred group". They are indeed, diametrically opposed in that sense. If it is only a cultural or social opposition to someone's choices, then sure it could be a good thing, but it is becoming more and more a legal construct to oppose a person's freedom to act as they see fit if you think they are being unfair.
  - CydeWeys 8y ago
    > But now it means something more like "making choices someone personally disagrees with or thinks is unfair to a certain preferred group". Your definition of discrimination in the second sense (which is actually listed first in the dictionary) is off. Let's consult that: "The unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people or things, especially on the grounds of race, age, or sex." It goes a lot further than merely making disagreeable choices or being unfair.
xoa 8y ago
>distinguish between "freedom to act as you see fit" and "discrimination" These are not linked, they are independent and orthogonal. The first is a matter of legal ability, the latter is a moral issue (that may under some circumstances also be illegal). There are many, many instances in life where you have the legal right to do something that is nonetheless despicable, and it is social consequences that moderate it (or not). russellbeattie did not say the Boy Scouts were criminals or should be banned, merely that they are discriminatory. And they are. They apparently have the freedom to be discriminatory, but private citizens may still judge them for that choice. Refusing to have one's child be involved which an organization that does that is a completely legitimate social and moral judgement as a parent. Debating and socially pushing back against evil is a critical part of society and reason free speech and association.
- brobdingnagians 8y ago
  Err, sure, I support freedom of choice and opposing evil, but calling someone evil for deciding to send their son to a boy's only summer camp seems a bit extreme to me. Civil society also depends on people being tolerant of those they disagree with and practicing kindness and persuasion when they do disagree. Sure, there are things that we set strict laws against and things we oppose morally whether they are legal or not (e.g. murder, mass murder, oppressive surveillance), but which summer camps you decide to sponsor or go to don't seem to me to be part of that list. Maybe I'm just out of touch with society...
  - CydeWeys 8y ago
    Both of your comments are arguing against strawmen. You're the only one calling them evil. You're also the only one talking about the boys-only aspect of it when it's clear that the problems the other commenters have with it are that it discriminates against atheists and homosexuals. Do better.
PhasmaFelis 8y ago
We're not talking about discriminating against girls, but against atheists and LGBT people.
jmpman 8y ago
Substitute any other minority for Athiest in your sentence to explore your underestimation of the extent of discrimination you’re advocating.

EvanAnderson 8y ago

The Boy Scouts of America has a congressional charter. They are not a run-of-the-mill private organization. Their discrimination is unacceptable as a publicly-chartered organization.

zamadatix 8y ago
Does that mean anything or is it just honorific like most recognition of groups from the government? I think it's quite well established the Boy Scouts of America are a well recognized group regardless of this so I don't see how this is what makes them non run-of-the-mill.
- EvanAnderson 8y ago
  The Boy Scouts have used the trademark rights granted by their federal charter to bully other organizations to change their names. In a trademark dispute it would be necessary for a claimant to demonstrate that there is a likelihood of confusion between their mark and the allegedly infringing mark. The BSA has claimed that their federal charter allows them to be exempt from that requirement and, in the 2008 Wrenn vs. BSA decision the court affirmed that claim, stating "The Court agrees with the BSA that it need not demonstrate the likelihood of confusion because it has been granted special protection by Congressional charter." That is sufficient demonstration, to me, that they derive value from their federal charter above and beyond it simply being an honorific.
brobdingnagians 8y ago
One of the problems with our society is that the government has it's hand and it's funding in almost everything. I don't think public institutions should take sides, which means they should get out of interfering with private institutions. If the government didn't take a large percentage of our money to hand out to organizations we disagree with, then maybe we could support the things we do agree with. I wish they didn't have a congressional charter, maybe then they'd be more independent.
- EvanAnderson 8y ago
  Your libertarian-leaning sentiments don't change the facts. The Boy Scouts of America have a congressional charter. They've used that charter to bully other programs into changing their names (evidence "Youthscouts"[1] or "Hacker Scouts"[2]). If they're going to use the imprimatur of the United States Congress to their advantage then it follows, to me, that they aren't a run-of-the-mill private organization and should be bound by the Constitution in the same way as other public entities. (Their discrimination against atheists, for example, is directly in conflict with the first amendment and, to my mind, unconscionable.) I'm glad to see the Girl Scouts (also federally chartered) going after them. The Girl Scouts have a much better track record of being a good actor when it comes to discrimination and acting like the public entity that they are. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wrenn_v._Boy_Scouts_of_America https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wrenn_v._Boy_Scouts_of_America [2] - https://web.archive.org/web/20130821172216/http://hacker-scouts.org/blog/hacker-scouts-and-bsa https://web.archive.org/web/20130821172216/http://hacker-sco...
EvanAnderson 8y ago
BTW: If you find this kind of thing interesting there's some really engaging analysis here: https://kb.osu.edu/bitstream/handle/1811/64622/OSLJ_V53N5_1385.pdf https://kb.osu.edu/bitstream/handle/1811/64622/OSLJ_V53N5_13...

richmarr 8y ago

> I think it is important to distinguish between "freedom to act as you see fit" and "discrimation" per see By all means try to distinguish between them. You haven't yet done so.

brobdingnagians 8y ago
"freedom to act as you see fit" is usually a human right guaranteed legally by the Constitution, but discrimination is a cultural idea which is slowly gaining the power of legal force to prevent people from doing what they would normally choose. To be "discriminating" used to be a compliment, it meant you could intellectualy discern the logical differences between two things, much like how we use "observative". But now it means something more like "making choices someone personally disagrees with or thinks is unfair to a certain preferred group". They are indeed, diametrically opposed in that sense. If it is only a cultural or social opposition to someone's choices, then sure it could be a good thing, but it is becoming more and more a legal construct to oppose a person's freedom to act as they see fit if you think they are being unfair.
- CydeWeys 8y ago
  > But now it means something more like "making choices someone personally disagrees with or thinks is unfair to a certain preferred group". Your definition of discrimination in the second sense (which is actually listed first in the dictionary) is off. Let's consult that: "The unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people or things, especially on the grounds of race, age, or sex." It goes a lot further than merely making disagreeable choices or being unfair.

xoa 8y ago

>distinguish between "freedom to act as you see fit" and "discrimination" These are not linked, they are independent and orthogonal. The first is a matter of legal ability, the latter is a moral issue (that may under some circumstances also be illegal). There are many, many instances in life where you have the legal right to do something that is nonetheless despicable, and it is social consequences that moderate it (or not). russellbeattie did not say the Boy Scouts were criminals or should be banned, merely that they are discriminatory. And they are. They apparently have the freedom to be discriminatory, but private citizens may still judge them for that choice. Refusing to have one's child be involved which an organization that does that is a completely legitimate social and moral judgement as a parent. Debating and socially pushing back against evil is a critical part of society and reason free speech and association.

brobdingnagians 8y ago
Err, sure, I support freedom of choice and opposing evil, but calling someone evil for deciding to send their son to a boy's only summer camp seems a bit extreme to me. Civil society also depends on people being tolerant of those they disagree with and practicing kindness and persuasion when they do disagree. Sure, there are things that we set strict laws against and things we oppose morally whether they are legal or not (e.g. murder, mass murder, oppressive surveillance), but which summer camps you decide to sponsor or go to don't seem to me to be part of that list. Maybe I'm just out of touch with society...
- CydeWeys 8y ago
  Both of your comments are arguing against strawmen. You're the only one calling them evil. You're also the only one talking about the boys-only aspect of it when it's clear that the problems the other commenters have with it are that it discriminates against atheists and homosexuals. Do better.

PhasmaFelis 8y ago

We're not talking about discriminating against girls, but against atheists and LGBT people.

jmpman 8y ago

Substitute any other minority for Athiest in your sentence to explore your underestimation of the extent of discrimination you’re advocating.