Should gays be allowed into camps?

Hello everyone,

I've just received word from a gay friend of mine that there is a big debate going on as to wither boys should be allowed into boy scouts. Let's take this debate further. Should gays (male/female) be allowed to go to camps? Because not allowing such things, in my mind, would be a major discrimination. Though I do see that the religious camps have all the right in the world to say 'no, that's not accepted in our religion'.

So my question is do camps (religious or not) have the right exclude gays? Or do gays have the right to go to te camp of their choosing because of descrimination laws?

Which one really overpowers the other in the end?

 

As long as camps owned privately by religious organizations are not funded with public money, they have the right to exclude whoever they want.

 

Who ever they want? Including race?

 

Yes. This is not uncommon now. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Country_club

 

Yes. Yep.

 

Why is that?

 

Hmmm, this is interesting. Thank you for the link. And your right, general camps, it looks like, do get to make that decision. But lets talk about religious camps, such as the Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts, Oakcrest, etc. Here is one that I find gets the point as to what I'm trying to say.

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs...oy-scouts-of-america-should-allow-gay-members

If churches stand for what they say shouldn't they allow such memebers in? Isn't it descrimination not to? Doesn't it do injustice to the gay person who wants to be let in? But on the flip side, religion has the right to say thats not what we believe, they can't come here. So which law overpowers the other?

 

Did anyone else initially take the title of this thread to be about something incredibly more sinister? If it's not funded by public money people can do whatever they want within the law.

 

Would you rather have secretly gay campers or openly gay campers? Either way you will have gay campers.

 

Exactly- that's the bottom line.

 

agreed... you cant force people to accept people they dont want in their own organization.

 

I just want to know how it is possible to keep homosexual people out of camps.

Are we going to run tests or just pick people who look homosexual?

 

if these camps get any kind of tax payer money they have been payed for by society and have no right to exclude any part of it. if it's private, then can set their own requirements for their own aribtary reasons.

 

This is true, you can't force people to accept people they don't want in their own organization RightToLife, but, where/when does discrimination come into that factor? How long can church related camps say we don't want these people around, before it is legally discrimination against another individual?

And if you say religion trumps discrimination, where does it end? Do churches have the right to say blacks can't join them? Or other races? Because I see a horrible flashback of KKK coming if that is so.

- - - Updated - - -

Agreed. And that is another factor. How would camps, "keep homosexual people out" ? Any suggestions?

 

That is a good point but I still have to point out the one factor many forget. When do the rights of the "private" camps cross over to discrimination?

 

they never do

 

They don't.

 

Do you have proof of that?

 

If it's private, they have the right to discriminate against anyone for whatever reason. Public, suck it up, they're going fishing.

 

In Constitutional Law, the grant by statute of particular privileges to a class arbitrarily designated from a sizable number of persons, where no reasonable distinction exists between the favored and disfavored classes. Federal laws, supplemented by court decisions, prohibit discrimination in such areas as employment, housing, voting rights, education, and access to public facilities. They also proscribe discrimination on the basis of race, age, sex, nationality, disability, or religion. In addition, state and local laws can prohibit discrimination in these areas and in others not covered by federal laws.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/discrimination

This seems to be saying differently.

 

"Acess to public facilities" is the key phrase here. It's all about what the government can provide. They can't discriminate, but private businesses can theortically. They shouldn't but they still can.

 

why is it I wasn't allowed in the girls locker room back in highschool?

for the same reason it's socially unacceptable for the gay to share a lockerroom with a male.



I wasn't going to just start raping girls no more than I think the gay is going boy is going to rape another camper, but I damn sure would have had some great mental photos for later use had I been allowed in the girls locker room.


so why is that allowed to 'creep girls out' (the thought of a boy watching them undress and dress) but if I get creeped out by the though of a gay guy mentally photographing boys for later use) I'm a homophobe.


either support universal lockerrooms, camping cabins, etc for EVERYONE, regardless of gender, or shut the frack up about how victimized that gay, jr. can't watch my boy shower

 

lol.... you new hear debatewithme? Johnny-C doesn't grasp the concept of debate. If he thinks it, and you don't, no explanation is needed, you're wrong.

Yes
no
because


with no other expansions are his M.O.

 

I am also amazed how it's only discrimination or wrong when straight white males do it.


If I were to suggest opening up a clothing store called "Arians" that catered to whites only.... only hired white people as managers (over minorities with higher qualifications) I would be called a racist and people would be protesting, and slandering/libeling me whenever possible. And they would say it would never be successful because racism is frowned upon and people would not shop there.


Yet, in my town, there is a store called "Brotha's fashions" that does exactly what I described above. Blacks only, black employees, despite more qualified whites applying.....



if you want to narrow your clientel down to a specific group like Brotha's fashions, or my hypothetical "arians fashions" go for it. It works for Brotha's fashions and I'm not "victimized" by it's existence anymore than a black man should feel "victimized" by Arian's fashions.


Same with private camps...... If I want to open a store called Homophobia, that only caters to straights.... that's my right. It may or may not be successful but that's the same with any business out there.


There are PLENTY of businesses out there that cater to just the gay crowd. Gay employees, gay managers...... it's their business, if they want to leave straight money on the table out there, that's their perogative.

 

if these "camps in questions" are for youths then they are probably not sexually active so wondering about gay or straight is moot. They are nothing at that point.