Boy Scouts Could Lose Tax-Exempt Status in California Because of Gay Ban

Feb 20, 2013 | Posted by: Rick in Kansas | Full story: www.towleroad.com

A new bill proposed by openly gay California state senator Ricardo Lara would strip the Boy Scouts' tax exempt status for discriminating against members and leaders on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity, LGBT POV reports

Comments
1 - 20 of 100 Comments Last updated Feb 23, 2013
First Prev
of 5
Next Last

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#2 Feb 20, 2013
Sweetie, simply because the BSA has the right to discriminate doesn't give them the right to discriminate at the taxpayers expense. Sorry.

“Adam and Steve”

Since: Aug 08

Earth

#3 Feb 20, 2013
And if the bill passes, BSA will still be able to have "exclusive membership," (i.e. discriminating in favor of non-gay men and boys) but they'll have to pay more in taxes.
Rainbow Kid

Alpharetta, GA

#4 Feb 20, 2013
Tax breakthrough!!!
.
This will open the door to taxing homophobic churches that sponsor homophobic Scout troops
.
The public's tax burden will be reduced significantly when homophobic churches start paying their fair share of taxes

“equality for ALL means ALL”

Since: Jan 07

Fort Lauderdale FL

#5 Feb 20, 2013
What Rick and Edio said.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#6 Feb 20, 2013
JrEsq wrote:
SCOTUS has ruled that the BSA have a Constitutional right to exclusive membership, so there is no discrimination.
Do the queers in California not understand how the Constitution works? They sure cry Constitution when it comes to homosexual marriage.
They may have a right to discriminate in membership, but they have ZERO right to a tax-exempt status.

Bigotry doesn't pay, and in this case it will cost them!

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#15 Feb 20, 2013
JrEsq wrote:
<quoted text>
As usual, the queers mince words. There is no discrimination, since SCOTUS affirmed to right to exclusive membership. So in fact, the homosexual assaut on the BSA is actually reverse discrimination.
Also, queer Ricky, the tax exempt status of the BSA is not a "taxpayers expense". An exemption is not an expenditure.
Wrong again. The SCOTUS merely upheld their right to discriminate; they said nothing about a right to a tax-exempt status.
JrEsq

El Segundo, CA

#19 Feb 20, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Wrong again. The SCOTUS merely upheld their right to discriminate; they said nothing about a right to a tax-exempt status.
You keep using the word "discriminate", even when SCOTUS has ruled that exclusive membership is NOT discrimination, which illustrates the intractability of the homosexual mind, which in turn illustrates how dangerous you people are.

“Alley Cat Blues”

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#20 Feb 20, 2013
alfred wrote:
You queers are worthless. It's a shame you're not extinct.
Blame the straight couples; they keep on producing them. OH THE IRONY!!

“Alley Cat Blues”

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#21 Feb 20, 2013
JrEsq wrote:
<quoted text>
As usual, the queers mince words. There is no discrimination, since SCOTUS affirmed to right to exclusive membership. So in fact, the homosexual assaut on the BSA is actually reverse discrimination.
Also, queer Ricky, the tax exempt status of the BSA is not a "taxpayers expense". An exemption is not an expenditure.
But other taxpayers have to make up for it.
JrEsq

El Segundo, CA

#23 Feb 20, 2013
Jupiter wrote:
<quoted text>
Blame the straight couples; they keep on producing them. OH THE IRONY!!
The real irony is that no straight couple actually desires to give birth to a homosexual.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#26 Feb 20, 2013
JrEsq wrote:
<quoted text>
You keep using the word "discriminate", even when SCOTUS has ruled that exclusive membership is NOT discrimination, which illustrates the intractability of the homosexual mind, which in turn illustrates how dangerous you people are.
Banning ANY group of people is discrimination. Banning those under age 50 from joining AARP is discrimination. Preventing non-catholics from getting married in a catholic church is discrimination. Barring fat people or too tall or too short people from the military is discrimination.

Just because it's constitutional or even justifiable in that case of the military doesn't make it any less discriminatory.

Millions of people discriminate against millions of other people every day, and it's completely legal.

Just as it's completely legal for California to yank the tax-exempt status for the BSA or their sponsors if they so choose.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#27 Feb 20, 2013
JrEsq wrote:
<quoted text>
The real irony is that no straight couple actually desires to give birth to a homosexual.
How would you know? Have you asked every hetero couple?

No, didn't think so.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#28 Feb 20, 2013
alfred wrote:
<quoted text>
Hopefully when it's able to be detected before birth whether or not the child would be gay, we will eliminate the problem.
But I thought all you anti-gays were anti-abortion as well?

Typical hypocrisy, nothing new.
JrEsq

El Segundo, CA

#29 Feb 20, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Banning ANY group of people is discrimination. Banning those under age 50 from joining AARP is discrimination. Preventing non-catholics from getting married in a catholic church is discrimination. Barring fat people or too tall or too short people from the military is discrimination.
Just because it's constitutional or even justifiable in that case of the military doesn't make it any less discriminatory.
Millions of people discriminate against millions of other people every day, and it's completely legal.
Just as it's completely legal for California to yank the tax-exempt status for the BSA or their sponsors if they so choose.
I see what you are saying: anyone should be able to do anything they want at any time. Think of the money that would save, you could eliminate government altogether.
Are all homosexuals so simplistic and naive?

Uve

Since: Nov 12

Location hidden

#31 Feb 20, 2013
JrEsq wrote:
<quoted text>
You keep using the word "discriminate", even when SCOTUS has ruled that exclusive membership is NOT discrimination, which illustrates the intractability of the homosexual mind, which in turn illustrates how dangerous you people are.
Oh look, This bigoted POS thinks he knows something...What a laugh.

“equality for ALL means ALL”

Since: Jan 07

Fort Lauderdale FL

#32 Feb 20, 2013
Happy Anniversary 1913 wrote:
$4 dollar gas is near.
WOO HOO
I'm sure there's a thread for that. This isn't it.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#33 Feb 20, 2013
JrEsq wrote:
<quoted text>
I see what you are saying: anyone should be able to do anything they want at any time. Think of the money that would save, you could eliminate government altogether.
Are all homosexuals so simplistic and naive?
Are all anti-gays incable of comprehending basic English?

I'm saying the BSA has the right to discriminate, just as the state of California has the right to remove their tax-exempt status because of it.

Being a bigot has a price; time for them to start paying up!
JrEsq

El Segundo, CA

#34 Feb 20, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Are all anti-gays incable of comprehending basic English?
I'm saying the BSA has the right to discriminate, just as the state of California has the right to remove their tax-exempt status because of it.
Being a bigot has a price; time for them to start paying up!
Are all queers incable of comprehending basic English? For the umpteenth time, SCOTUS has ruled that exclusive membership is NOT discrimination. So why do you insist on using the D word. Oh, I forgot, the homosexual mind is intractable, incapable of changing thought patterns. That is one of the dangers that you present to society, among others.

Judged:

10

10

10

Reply »
Report Abuse Judge it!

“Luke laughs at hypocrites!”

Since: Sep 10

Palm Springs, California

#36 Feb 20, 2013
alfred wrote:
You queers are worthless. It's a shame you're not extinct.
Your constant stream of false names are worthless. It's a shame Topix does NOT insist on registration to keep lying cowards like you at bay.

“Luke laughs at hypocrites!”

Since: Sep 10

Palm Springs, California

#37 Feb 20, 2013
alfred wrote:
<quoted text>
Hopefully when it's able to be detected before birth whether or not the child would be gay, we will eliminate the problem.
You mean like the botched abortion your mother tried on you? Sorry about that coat hanger stuck in your head when you were born. I think you might be able to take it out by now, but where would we hang our jackets when at your trailer home?

BTW, REGISTER, you cowardly liar.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

First Prev
of 5
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

California Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
California Proposition 19: the Marijuana Legali... (Oct '10) 6 min Little Ricky 15,966
BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 16 min Jacques from Ottawa 177,480
Californians fight over migrants 20 min dragonX 132
Lawmakers pass first California groundwater rules 1 hr WeTheSheeple 1
Michael Jackson Hit With New Abuse ClaimBy Dian... 1 hr gannlepoon 347
Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 2 hr LessHypeMoreFact 46,359
California Takes a Stand Against Gay and Trans ... 2 hr eJohn 72
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••

California People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••