Scouts-L Mail Archive for August of 1999: Re: New Jersey Decision
Re: New Jersey Decision
Thu, 5 Aug 1999 14:57:22 -0400
On Thu, 5 Aug 1999, nathan alan beauheim wrote:
> On Thu, 5 Aug 1999, Joseph Macone wrote:
> > I'm not a lawyer, so this may be a dumb question, but, if a sponsor denies
> > an adult a leadership position because he's gay, what legal action does that
> > open the sponsor up to, if any?
> I don't see why it would open the sponsor to any legal action at all.
> Right now, a unit can deny ANYONE for ANY reason, or even not have a
> reason at all. This is one of the reasons that you can have an all-LDS,
> all-Jewish, all-Martian troop if you want to. To the best of my
Well it isn't *quite* that clear. Due to the history of the separate Negro
districts within BSA councils in the south up to the '60s, BSA is very
sensitive about small towns ending up with separate white and black
troops. Unfortunately this can often be caused by the two churches in the
town (say Baptist and AME-Zion) doing their own troops.
OTOH, just about any other membership rule you'd like BSA would probably
let you get away with. If those two churches decided to make two
integrated troops and to make sure they didn't go back to split by race by
having one take those with last names a-K and the other L-Z, BSA would
probably allow it. :)
Leadership, Friendship and Service - Alpha Phi Omega