Spring Break
Boy Scouts' Contract Should Not Be Breached
Our Opinion
Issue date: 12/6/07 Section: Commentary
The Philadelphia Boy Scouts are in trouble. The Scouts and the city of Philadelphia signed a contract in the late 1920's agreeing to allow the Scouts to rent their headquarters building from the city at a rate of $1 a year for the next 100 years. Now, the city of Philadelphia, specifically City Solicitor Romulo Diaz Jr., is attempting to renege on the deal well before its expiration date and unjustly punish the Philadelphia Boy Scouts. The Cradle of Liberty Council, which encompasses the Philadelphia chapter of the organization and is located in the building in question, is being told to establish a chapter policy denouncing the national Boy Scout policy against openly homosexual members. If not, they will be forced to pay "fair market value" of $200,000 annually for the building or face eviction. This is outrageous on a number of levels.
The ultimatum that Diaz has proposed is an obvious violation of the law and should not be honored. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled back in 2000 that the Boy Scouts of America, a private group, has a first amendment right to refuse membership to gays.
According to the Associated Press, the Cradle of Liberty Council "adopted a non-discrimination policy in 2003 but was ordered to revoke it by the National Council, which said local chapters cannot deviate from the national rules."
As a non-profit organization that provides great services to millions of young men, among others, the Boy Scouts of America cannot possibly afford $200,000 annually in rent. Although the scouts should indeed allow members of any sexual orientation to participate, punishing individual members and chapters for policy decisions that come from the national office is blatently petty and uncalled for. The Philadelphia scouts have demonstrated an effort to comply with Diaz's request, but their national chapter rejected it though no fault of their own.
Diaz, who has come out as openly gay, has been accused of having a personal vendetta against the scouts and their policy that doesn't permit openly gay members. As a public official and civil servant, Diaz has a moral and ethical obligation to uphold a higher standard than this. Even though Diaz is correct in his quest to seek equality and non-discrimination in Boy Scout policies, he is barking up the wrong tree. It has been demonstrated that the Philadelphia chapter has no role whatsoever in shaping any national Boy Scout policies, and as such, they shouldn't be punished. The Supreme Court has ruled that the boy scouts are within their bounds legally. Therefore, the Philadelphia chapter of the Boy Scouts should be allowed to finish out their legally-binding contract with the city, despite the personal desires of one public official.
The ultimatum that Diaz has proposed is an obvious violation of the law and should not be honored. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled back in 2000 that the Boy Scouts of America, a private group, has a first amendment right to refuse membership to gays.
According to the Associated Press, the Cradle of Liberty Council "adopted a non-discrimination policy in 2003 but was ordered to revoke it by the National Council, which said local chapters cannot deviate from the national rules."
As a non-profit organization that provides great services to millions of young men, among others, the Boy Scouts of America cannot possibly afford $200,000 annually in rent. Although the scouts should indeed allow members of any sexual orientation to participate, punishing individual members and chapters for policy decisions that come from the national office is blatently petty and uncalled for. The Philadelphia scouts have demonstrated an effort to comply with Diaz's request, but their national chapter rejected it though no fault of their own.
Diaz, who has come out as openly gay, has been accused of having a personal vendetta against the scouts and their policy that doesn't permit openly gay members. As a public official and civil servant, Diaz has a moral and ethical obligation to uphold a higher standard than this. Even though Diaz is correct in his quest to seek equality and non-discrimination in Boy Scout policies, he is barking up the wrong tree. It has been demonstrated that the Philadelphia chapter has no role whatsoever in shaping any national Boy Scout policies, and as such, they shouldn't be punished. The Supreme Court has ruled that the boy scouts are within their bounds legally. Therefore, the Philadelphia chapter of the Boy Scouts should be allowed to finish out their legally-binding contract with the city, despite the personal desires of one public official.
Viewing Comments 1 - 3 of 3
JB
posted 12/06/07 @ 12:21 PM EST
The original agreement was made in 1928 where the city of Philadelphia allowed the then Philadelphia Council of the BSA to construct at their own expense a building on city owned land. (Continued…)
Adrian
posted 12/06/07 @ 2:21 PM EST
Are you kidding me? I support Diaz fully in his decision. As you said it yourself, the have the right to discriminate against anybody because they are a private group. (Continued…)
Brian Westley
posted 12/06/07 @ 4:53 PM EST
The Philadelphia city council is not breaching the contract, as the misleading headline suggests. The lease has always had a cancellation clause that permits the lease to be ended after one year's notice. (Continued…)
Post a Comment