Calif. tax bill seeks to punish Scouts for gay ban
Source: Associated Press
California lawmakers are considering making the Boy Scouts of America and other youth groups that do not accept gay, transgender or atheist members and leaders ineligible for some state tax exemptions.
Some cities have withdrawn free rent and other subsidies from the Boy Scouts over the years, but legislation introduced by state Sen. Ricardo Lara (D-Long Beach) would make California the first state to punish the Scouts for its policy prohibiting gay members and troop leaders.
... The legislation would deny tax-exempt status to nonprofit youth groups that discriminate on the basis of gender identity, race, sexual orientation, nationality, religion, or religious affiliation.
Read more: http://www.sacbee.com/2013/04/09/5328675/calif-tax-bill-seeks-to-punish.html
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)government should not be funding/assisting discrimination by non-profits, that alone brings it to the level of apartheid
William769
(55,146 posts)SCVDem
(5,103 posts)That would be the number one cause of hate and discrimination, Churches!
Tax them also!
Xithras
(16,191 posts)The California scouting organizations have no control over the national policy, and in fact have been on the forefront of the fight to open scouting to everyone. The policy decisions that limit the rights of gays to join scouting come out of the main headquarters in Texas, and not from the California units. The funding that drives the national council doesn't come from California in any significant way.
The funds raised by local California units directly fund the youth activities that those California kids engage in. By taking their money, you're stealing from children and are NOT accomplishing anything.
The sad irony here is that this move would DESTROY secular scouting units like the one my son is in (chartered by a local chapter of a firefighters union). Most of these units already operate on shoestring budgets, and there's no way they could afford to pay taxes...much less an accountant to actually compute and pay them.
And who would benefit? The fundie scouting units chartered by the churches. Since the churches fully subsidize the church-chartered units, everything stays tax deductible for them anyway. The fundies win. The progressives lose. And the clueless idiots get to cheer because they think they accomplished something.
FreeState
(10,572 posts)This is about tax revenue being used to fund a private religious organization that practices discrimination. There is no such thing as "secular scouting" according to the BSA.
Xithras
(16,191 posts)The California decision has no impact on the BSA's national nonprofit status. It ONLY impacts local California scouting units that have applied for nonprofit status within California itself. It also would have zero impact on church-operated units, as those almost universally meet on tax-exempt church property and are funded by tax-exempt religious outreach funds. They will continue to operate without any impact whatsoever.
And there are many "secular" scouting units in California. In fact, if you crack open most of the Cub Scout training books, you'll see that religion is only addressed minimally. My sons religious requirement this year can be summed up as "Talk to your parents about your religious beliefs, and what you can do to live up to them". There is no pushing of any particular religious viewpoint in the Cub Scouting program. They only require that you believe in "something". In the case of my sons unit, and the overwhelming majority of California non-church chartered units, religion isn't addressed AT ALL within the program. Most parents are simply asked to review that requirement with their kids at home.
So is it 100% religion free? No. But that's about as close as you can get.
byeya
(2,842 posts)bill passes.
The majority of scout parents in California are Democrats. I expect that the howls from those parents, and the sound of their purse strings snapping shut, will kill the bill before it goes very far.
byeya
(2,842 posts)Tax dollars are being used to support an LDS after school program.
Also, the Mormans have threatened to pull out of the BSA if the bigotry is not maintained.
Xithras
(16,191 posts)First off, the Mormons control the national organization, and they certainly have unquestioned control over scouting in a number of states, but California isn't one of them. Mormon units in California are a small minority, and the Mormon church exerts little control over California scouting units.
Secondly, this wouldn't even have any impact on the Mormon scouting units that ARE in California. Mormon scouting units are entirely controlled and funded by the tax-exempt Mormon church. The church appoints the leaders, they meet on church property, and they are operated as youth outreach programs by the church itself. Not a dollar of the money the Mormons spend on their scouting units would be taxable under this plan, because churches remain nonprofits. Membership in scouting is mandatory in many Mormon churches, and there are no dues, fees, or costs involved anyway. In short...the religious packs and troops like those operated by the Mormons won't be impacted in the slightest.
Who will? The more secular packs like my sons. They have to raise every dime of their operating budget on their own...an operating budget that is usually less than $5k per year and barely covers the costs of the awards the boys receive and the site rentals and transportation costs of their outings. They don't get a dime from the BSA, and the boys and their parents pick up those costs on their own. They raise the funds for their outings by selling candy bars, or popcorn, or t-shirts. Forcing them to pay taxes will simply put most out of business. I don't know of a single scout unit that even has an accountant capable of figuring them out or reporting them. The non-church funded units are the ones who have fought to change these policies, and who usually refuse to implement them anyway, and they're the only ones who will be hurt by the proposed change.
If people don't like the BSA start your own program. Make a better youth group and the kids will come.
Xithras
(16,191 posts)I've never bought the whole "If you don't like it, start your own" argument. People have a right to want change, and the members have a right to fight for that change. Nobody is under any obligation to simply accept it as it is. My kids have been involved in scouting for eight years, and I've taken every opportunity to protest, argue, and fight against the prohibitions in scouting. I've had plenty of people ask me why I don't simply leave, and my answer is always the same: Good people sometimes do bad things. Good organizations sometimes have bad policies. Scouting is a GOOD organization that has a BAD policy. The solution isn't to kill the organization, it's to CHANGE THE POLICY. I'll keep my involvement with the BSA, but I'll never quit fighting to change it.
My commit about starting a new youth group that is gay friendly was directed to the other poster who wants to kill the BSA, and not you. Every program has it's problems.
Xithras
(16,191 posts)The world is not black and white. People are rarely "good" or "bad". Organizations are rarely "good" or "evil".
Good people can do bad things. Bad people can do good things. Smart people can make dumb choices. Idiots can occasionally come up with a good idea. Good organizations can make bad policies. You can rarely judge a person, or an organization, by one policy, or one action, or one event.
Scouting is not a bad organization. It is a good organization that has some bad policies. That doesn't make the organization "bad", or their policies "right", but it also doesn't mean that we should simply accept the organizations "bad" practices simply because we like the "good" it does. Learning the difference, and learning to stand up and do the right thing, is an important life skill, and I've used the BSA's "don't ask, don't tell" policy as an example when teaching it to my own sons and their friends and scout buddies.
Hekate
(90,677 posts)I applaud you for doing so as well. My sis and her family lived in Massachusetts and were always very involved in Scouting. My BIL was a Scoutmaster, their son eventually became an Eagle scout.
However, as Unitarian Universalists, they found themselves on the outs with the fundies who took over. UUs teach tolerance and acceptance of of LGBT people, and have no problem with the concept of gay scouts or leaders. UUs also found their religion merit badge was being denied.
He made the decision to stay with Scouting until his son was done (the "kid" is now about 22 or 23), but on his own terms. When his troop went to one of the east coast jamborees, they flew a rainbow flag to protest the BSA policy (I think they were made to take it down).
There is a great deal of value in the BSA, but it was taken over by fundamentalist bigots. It won't change back and then move forward until and unless enough people like yourself and my BIL keep up the struggle, hard as it is. Outsiders -- such as legislators -- also need to apply pressure in order to get their attention.
Perhaps you can contact your local state senator and assemblyman to ask about the proposed new California legislation, and give some input on how they can apply pressure in a helpful and not destructive manner.
Best of luck,
Hekate
CRK7376
(2,199 posts)As an Eagle Scout with over 42 years invested in the BSA and father of two Eagle Scouts and brother of an Eagle Scout it is a great organization that I highly respect and support. But as you stated, BSA has a bad policy that is not helping all who want to be involved. BSA has alot to give and offer our communities and young people. Fortunately many Troops and Chartering Organizations turn a blind eye to some of the BSA's policies. It will be very interesting to see what the National Council decides next month. I suspect that BSA will stay their current course and exclude the LGBT community. I would bet that they are receiving more letters supporting exclusion than those that want to change BSA to be more inclusive. I hope I am wrong and that BSA will allow local units and charting organizations to make their own decision; some units will then be much more inclusive of the LGBT community and many will stay their current course. Time will tell, regardless of National BSA policy; this Scouter will continue to support my local troops, be inclusive of all young men and and women who want to join and participate in our great outdoors programs. BSA does tremendous good, but we do have bad policies....
eggplant
(3,911 posts)Why should the BSA be tax exempt if they are going to discriminate like that?
Xithras
(16,191 posts)Name one single youth organization, open to boys age 7-17, that has both the community outreach programs AND the outdoor, environmental, and wilderness programs of the BSA, that is also available to at least 50% of the geographic area of the state (the BSA is available in more than 90% of California communities, but I'll make it easier and only request half).
Name one. Just one.
eggplant
(3,911 posts)"The BPSA offers an alternative and community oriented scouting program for youth and adults, boys and girls in the United States. We are not affiliated with the Boy Scouts of America or the Girl Scouts, USA; but are members of the World Federation of Independent Scouts and as such are not in competition with other American Scouting Associations, we are only their brothers and sisters. Our association is volunteer run and we have no full or part-time paid staff – this allows us to keep costs down for parents and youth interested in the scouting program.
Your move.
Xithras
(16,191 posts)A quick check of their own unit finder shows only two active units in the entire state, both located in the SF Bay Area. Not really a viable option for boys who live in San Diego, or Los Angeles, or Sacramento, or Modesto, or South Lake Tahoe, or Eureka, etc. etc.
I also said that they had to offer comparable programs. I went looking to find out what kind of day camps they offer. Turns out they don't have any. Environmental programs? None of those either. What about organized community service programs? Nope, the parents have to figure that out on their own. Regional offices or programs that provide training opportunities for leaders? Couldn't find any. Wilderness camps? Not one.The BSA charges $15 a year and provides you with access to hundreds of scout camps, thousands of active units, and countless organized activities. I'm at a bit of a loss to figure out exactly what it is you're getting for your $20 a year with the BPSA. Reading their site, it sounds like they provide little more than a set of instructions and access to their online store.
Not even a remotely comparable alternative. I'm still waiting.
eggplant
(3,911 posts)I said that there were non-bigoted scouting organizations, and there are. If your biggest counterargument is that they aren't as big an organization than the BSA, then your argument sucks. It's like saying the the Klan is better than the Abolitionists because there were more of them.
Face it. The BSA refuses to acknowlege a basic human right of equality, and yet you hold them up as a standard by which people should live. You're on the wrong side of history and you know it. Enjoy your bigotry. The rest of us will move forward.
Xithras
(16,191 posts)You said there were non-bigoted scouting organizations available. There aren't. Most Bay Area residents are outside of driving range to reach those units with any practicality. I just did the math, and it would be a 150 mile round trip to take my boys to one of their meetings. Pity the family in San Diego that wants to get its kids involved...those 1000+ mile drives to the weekly meetings and back are going to be a real chore. That's more than just a "quibble". That's simply "unavailable" by any practical persons definition.
The BSA is an organization which, throughout its history, has done an enormous amount of good for the youth of this country. They have helped to introduce generation after generation of American youth to environmental and community service causes, and have long been at the forefront of programs that support the poor and neglected in our communities. I've seen young scouts brighten countless elderly faces by singing holiday songs to our forgotten aged in nursing homes, I've seen them collect tons upon tons of food for the needy in annual door to door canned food drives, and I've seen them plant more trees than I can count during environmental projects to designed to help restore greenfields, or transform debris filled lots into community gardens. I've watched as urban kids, whose ideas of a "forest" were limited to the trees growing alongside their street sidewalks, fell in love with the real forest as they walked out into it for the first time on a BSA scout hike.
I don't disagree that they have policies that need to be reversed, and I've personally been involved in the fight to change the policy for YEARS, but to compare them to the KKK speaks volumes about YOUR OWN biases. Every member of the KKK was involved in their evil practices. You'd be challenged to find a single Cub Scout who could even tell you what the BSA's policies on gays IS. There is very little discussion of religion, and NO discussion of sexuality, in the Scouting programs. These are policies written and enforced by a relative handful of adults in far away office buildings. In eight years, I've never heard bigotry or hate preached in any scout meeting. Ever. The fact that you'd argue othewise simply reveals your ignorance about how scouting actually works, and what they really do.
Logical
(22,457 posts)
Sgent
(5,857 posts)they can break off from BSA and form their own non-discriminatory scouting organization.
Failure to do that means they would rather have the benefits of being part of the national organization, and CA not wanting to support a bigoted non-religious organization is reasonable.
this is more about sending up a signal for the May vote in Dallas than it is about a vote actually happening in Ca.
But that's just my guess.
Le Taz Hot
(22,271 posts)
Yo_Mama
(8,303 posts)As far as I know, state governments have pretty wide leeway in their taxing decisions, but not in a way that would punish speech.
I do not think, for example, a state that passed a law saying that Lutheran churches would lose their tax exemption but Catholic churches would not would survive a constitutional challenge.
It will be interesting. Also, of course neither the Girl Scouts nor the Boy Scouts would ever be tax exempt, because of course they segregate by sex. Nor, for that matter, could a local youth all-male Little League association.
Response to Newsjock (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed
Le Taz Hot
(22,271 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Comrade_McKenzie
(2,526 posts)kestrel91316
(51,666 posts)Hekate
(90,677 posts)... doing pretty much the same thing at our local county level, here in California.
BSA have enjoyed a very special relationship with the US Congress and all other levels of government ever since their inception. When it comes to usage of park space, school meeting rooms, and so on, they were always able to jump to the head of the line and/or use for free what other groups had to pay for.
Our recommendation (headed by me) was that given their at-that-time newly minted policy of discrimination, they simply be told to get in line like everybody else and pay usage fees like everybody else. Because we don't give a free pass to discrimination.
That is not "punishment," imo. That is simply being treated like any other group that wants to use public space.
Hekate
