Disney to pull Boy Scouts from VoluntEARS program by 2015

[TinkerbellT421]

I was happy to see this article.
I'm glad to see a company as large as Disney show a stance. I understand that the Boy Scouts have now allowed gay boys to continue/join boy scouts, but it is not far to ban gay Scout leaders. That is the highest form of discrimination I can think of.

EDIT: I wasn't sure where to put this, admins please move where it would go, sorry.

Courtesy of CNN:


(CNN) -- The Walt Disney Company has given notice to the Boy Scouts of America that it will pull all funding to the group starting in 2015 because of a BSA membership policy that bans gay leaders, the entertainment company said Friday.
Disney does not give money directly to the national organization or local BSA councils. However, through its VoluntEARS program, Disney allows employees to do volunteer work in exchange for cash donations to the charities of their choice.
Employees taking part in the VoluntEARS program will no longer be able to submit the funds to the Boy Scouts, the organization said. The new policy will not affect Walt Disney employees who volunteer with the Scouts, the company said.
"We believe every child deserves the opportunity to be a part of the Scouting experience, and we are disappointed in this decision because it will impact our ability to serve kids," BSA spokesman Deron Smith said in a statement. "America's youth need Scouting, and by continuing to focus on the goals that unite us, we continue to accomplish incredible things for young people and the communities we serve."
Though the Boy Scouts voted last year to allow gay youths to join its ranks, the group maintains a ban on gay Scout leaders.
Obese kids banned from Boy Scout outing Pastors differ on Boy Scouts' decision Scouts defy leaders at gay pride parade Alabama church asks Boy Scouts to leave
According to Disney's charitable giving guidelines, groups become ineligible to receive Disney funding if they "discriminate in the provision of services unlawfully or in a manner inconsistent with Disney's policies on the basis of race, religion, color, sex, national origin, age, marital status, mental or physical ability, or sexual orientation."
Disney would not divulge its formula for converting volunteer hours to dollars, but a chart on Disney's corporate website shows that in 2010, employees raised $4.8 million via 548,000 volunteer hours, which works out to $8.79 an hour.
Among the events for which employees volunteered were a triathlon for Children's Hospital Los Angeles, the Revlon Run-Walk for cancer, Children's Hospital of Orange County Walk at Disneyland Resort and the Champion 5K at ESPN for the V Foundation, according to Disney.
Deena Fidas, the director of workplace equality for the Human Rights Campaign, said Disney's decision "carries a unique weight. When you think about brands that exemplify childhood, you think of Disney, and with them dissociating with BSA, it speaks volumes of where we are with the views we want to send to young people."
In a recent report, HRC cited numerous victories in its quest to ensure workplace equality and applauded the majority of Fortune 500 companies that now offer sexual-orientation and gender-identity protections to their employees.
Despite that, "we know that over 50% of (lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender) employees remain closeted on the job," the report said.
On Thursday, Scouts for Equality, which says it works to end discrimination within the BSA, praised Walt Disney World for ending local support for the BSA's Central Florida Council.
"We're never happy to see Scouting suffer as a result of the BSA's anti-gay policy, but Disney made the right decision to withhold support until Scouting is fully inclusive," Eagle Scout and Scouts for Equality co-founder Zach Wahls said in a statement.
Scouts for Equality says Disney joins Lockheed Martin, Caterpillar, Major League Soccer, Merck, Intel and UPS as companies who have ended partnerships with the Scouts because of its policy. Fidas said Alcoa and AT&T are also on that list.

[1DisneyNut]

You know, I was involved in a coversation the other day about all this gay nonsense. We were discussing about how sick we are of it being in our face all the time.

I personally don't care if you are gay. I really don't want to hear about your sexual preferences. I don't care which celebrities are gay, what pro athletes are gay and I am sick of ABC news constantly finding a way to bring it up every single day. It is something that should be kept private. Guess what, if it was kept private, no one would know about it, care or discriminate against someone for it.

[SBETigg]

Yeah, I never talk about being straight married. I try to keep it private.

Good for Disney.

[d_m_n_n]

My mother taught me "if you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all." (Insert long, long pause) :secret:

[joonyer]

In general, private organizations have the right to decide for themselves the rules which their members should adhere to. That is not discrimination, it is simply the exercise of the right to freedom of association, as held by the Supreme Court to be an essential part of our liberty as part of our rights to freedom of speech, assembly and petition. For instance, a church cannot be required to enroll members who don't ascribe to that church's particular dogma or belief.

That being said, if an organization decides to limit its membership to those who ascribe to certain moral/religious beliefs, they likewise do not have a right to public support of their particular practices.

And of course, Disney, like any other private company or individual, has the right to choose to support or not support any particular organizations.

[TheVBs]

I have to laugh (as a straight person) when straight people say they keep their lives private. This isn't about talking about what's happening in the bedroom. This is about not having to hide who you are and who you're in a relationship with. My DH and I can walk down any street, in any town, holding hands, or kiss in public, without fear. That is what this is about.

Bravo Disney! :mickey:

[TinkerbellT421]

You know, I was involved in a coversation the other day about all this gay nonsense. We were discussing about how sick we are of it being in our face all the time.

I personally don't care if you are gay. I really don't want to hear about your sexual preferences. I don't care which celebrities are gay, what pro athletes are gay and I am sick of ABC news constantly finding a way to bring it up every single day. It is something that should be kept private. Guess what, if it was kept private, no one would know about it, care or discriminate against someone for it.


The ONLY reason why "gay" issues are out there is to bring an AWARENESS to it. Yes, gay people were and are discriminated against, EVERYDAY. It was an issue that NEEDED to be brought up, they were never able to have aspects of life that are privileges to "straight" people. That is the highest form of discrimination. As a "straight" person with MANY gay friends, I can sit here and argue this all day for equal rights. But I won't, I wasn't looking for debates, I was just informing the Disney fan community that I think good for Disney to show support for a major issue.


I have to laugh (as a straight person) when straight people say they keep their lives private. This isn't about talking about what's happening in the bedroom. This is about not having to hide who you are and who you're in a relationship with. My DH and I can walk down any street, in any town, holding hands, or kiss in public, without fear. That is what this is about.

Bravo Disney! :mickey:

:mickey::number1::thumbsup:

[joonyer]

Edit to my earlier post:

I should have said that a private organization's right to decide for themselves the rules which their members should adhere to is not "unlawful" discrimination. We all practice all kinds of lawful discrimination, both individually and culturally, every day that some people may consider "unfair". That alone doesn't make it unlawful.

For instance, Disney doesn't let people without park passes enter into and enjoy their theme parks. That is a perfectly acceptable and legal form of treating one group of people differently from another group. Those without the money to purchase passes may feel it is "unfair", but this kind of discrimination is not controversial and is widely accepted in our culture.

Other methods of excluding certain groups form certain activities, especially when involving racial, sexual, or moral/religious beliefs, are much more controversial and draw lots of attention and protest. A good example was the Augusta National Golf Club's refusal to admit women as members a few years ago. (which they have since changed). When done by private organizations, such practices may be highly controversial, but that doesn't make the discrimination unlawful. These issues become even more clouded when organizations like the Boy Scouts had a wide-open membership policy for any boy, regardless of religion, race, etc, but excluded all girls from membership (thus the existence of the Girl Scouts). Now even that is changing, as Girls can now join some Boy Scout programs. I'm not sure if any boys have been allowed to join the Girl Scouts yet.

Personally, I agree with the Boy Scouts' policies, but I also recognize Disney's right, and have no problem with their choice, to discontinue their financial support of the Scouts.

[clausjo]

I have to laugh (as a straight person) when straight people say they keep their lives private. This isn't about talking about what's happening in the bedroom. This is about not having to hide who you are and who you're in a relationship with. My DH and I can walk down any street, in any town, holding hands, or kiss in public, without fear. That is what this is about.

Bravo Disney!

Well said! :thumbsup::thumbsup:

[SBETigg]

I hope you all realize that I was being sarcastic with the "private" remark in response to previous commentary. I fully support Disney's stance on this.

[Terra]

I do agree that BSA as a private organization does have the right to have their own criteria.

But I agree that Disney has a right not to support them!
BTW, I agree with Disney! It's not even an issue about agreeing [based on beliefs], it is about the hypocrisy IMHO, of the BSA.

To me, they need to not let divorced/remarried people in based on "their beliefs" if they are going to be that legalistic about "morals".

And I'm a believer in that faith.

And that's as far as I'll share LOL.

It does irritate to me to now end on that point that. Several very close friends of mine just happen to be gay. They are also married with children.

What a shame that people are known as "You know, that gay [friend,star,etc].

Nope, they are just my friends. Who happen to be....It doesn't define them just like being straight doesn't define me. WE are all human beings. The kindness and love coming from them are what defines my friends to me.

Okay, okay!! I'll stop!:blush:

[stephicakes]

I have to laugh (as a straight person) when straight people say they keep their lives private. This isn't about talking about what's happening in the bedroom. This is about not having to hide who you are and who you're in a relationship with. My DH and I can walk down any street, in any town, holding hands, or kiss in public, without fear. That is what this is about.

Bravo Disney! :mickey:

:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

It's about equal rights. Equal rights are not a topic that "should be kept private". My sister, who is a US veteran and a police officer (serves & protects), is gay and does not have the same rights as the rest of us do (she can not me legally wed in her state of TX, etc). That is unjust. People are people, not labels...

Another "Bravo" to Disney!

steph

[frakers]

Disney took a stance that takes away monetary support from an organization that supports both young men and women, period. The BSA gives opportunities to all without discrimination against any child. That financial support helps youth that may not have the means to enjoy the vast number of programs afforded by the BSA. That includes uniforms, skills training, leadership opportunities, camping, friendships and fun that they will remember the rest of their lives.

I am a Scout volunteer and I get absolutely nothing from the funds donated by individuals or corporations. No adult leader does. Disney cutting funds doesn't hurt me or any adult volunteer in the least but it does affect countless youth that Disney is too short sighted to see. This also tells disney employees that the organization in which they believe and give of their own time to support children isn't that important.

I can also tell you that, as a leader I have never once asked someone's orientation. I have also never flaunted mine as there is no place for that in the BSA.

disney doing this only hurts children. The policies and prices and pretty much everything they do now days is the reason I have gone from visiting 3 times a year to every other year and now will be an even longer time frame.

I am positive I'll see several replies to this calling me names, closed minded or whatever but the fact is, you have no idea what you are talking about. I care about people and have always held everyone to the same standard. I am a Scout and am proud of that and will continue helping children and young adults without the help of places like disney. A Scout is Thrifty. Just a little bit more thrifty, now.

[SBETigg]

Frakers, we can disagree without name calling. In fact, I rarely, if ever, see things go that way around here. The way I see it, it's not Disney hurting the children here. It's BSA's own policies. It would only take a simple change for them to become an organization that corporations like Disney would be happy to continue to support. I would blame the ones unable to embrace a positive change.

[TheVBs]

I agree. And, I have to say Bravo Intercot! I'm impressed with all of the responses here and that the thread hasn't been shut down.

Frakers, I appreciate what you're trying to say, but you're forgetting one very important component - the damage it does to children and teens to be sent the message that they'll be included only if they hide who they are and that as soon as they're adults they're not wanted there. Sorry, but that hurts too and leads to many teen suicides.

And, I have to take note of your use of the word "flaunt". When I wear my wedding ring, show people pictures of my husband and kids, talk about family vacations.. do you think when I walk away people say, "Ugh! That woman! Always flaunting her lifestyle!" No. They don't. It's not flaunting, it's just living life.

[Terra]

Frakers, we can disagree without name calling. In fact, I rarely, if ever, see things go that way around here. The way I see it, it's not Disney hurting the children here. It's BSA's own policies. It would only take a simple change for them to become an organization that corporations like Disney would be happy to continue to support. I would blame the ones unable to embrace a positive change.


I agree. And, I have to say Bravo Intercot! I'm impressed with all of the responses here and that the thread hasn't been shut down.

Frakers, I appreciate what you're trying to say, but you're forgetting one very important component - the damage it does to children and teens to be sent the message that they'll be included only if they hide who they are and that as soon as they're adults they're not wanted there. Sorry, but that hurts too and leads to many teen suicides.

And, I have to take note of your use of the word "flaunt". When I wear my wedding ring, show people pictures of my husband and kids, talk about family vacations.. do you think when I walk away people say, "Ugh! That woman! Always flaunting her lifestyle!" No. They don't. It's not flaunting, it's just living life.

Agree. I like having civilized discussions over highly charged topics! :)

I agree with both of you.
To be honest I find it ironic that BSA would get upset with Disney for pulling funds. If the BSA truly held to their convictions on the matter [their right!], then why take money from an organization who promotes the tolerance and employement of the gay community? Seems hypocritical to some degree. That is just my opinion though.

Certainly BSA of America has the fundamental right as a private organization to stand for/believe in what they feel is right.
But certainly a corporate company like Disney also has the fundamental right to support them or not.
If the BSA is concerned that much over not reaching children because of the pulling of funds it may be time to look elsewhere or re-evaluate their stance.

And again it brings me to wondering how many leaders are divorced, remarried, living with some one out of wedlock [all of which are not "biblical" from which the BSA derive their basic moral code].

[joonyer]

This topic (and others like it) is almost so politically charged that it is difficult to discuss without inflaming emotions that can get out of control. Kudos to everyone here for keeping the discussion civil.

Suffice it to say that the BSA has done nothing unlawful or illegal (maybe unpopular) by establishing their practices regarding who can be troop leaders or volunteers. And neither has Disney done anything wrong by choosing to withdraw voluntary donations to an organization they do not support.

So why the big stink? Why does anybody care?
Probably because so many people want the Boy Scouts to change their policies. Why do we not get so upset about a church for instance, which commonly engage in exclusionary practices? I'm actually surprised that more groups aren't trying to force churches to change their beliefs/policies/practices (although there is some of this going on). But generally, people don't seem to get as offended by the exclusionary practices of churches as they do with other organizations. Although they are not a church, from a legal perspective the Boy Scouts (and other organizations) are no different than a church, when it comes to their right to establish certain beliefs/practices for membership. So why do we see and hear so much more protest opposition to these type of practices in groups like the scouts than we do for churches? That's an interesting question.

[joonyer]

And again it brings me to wondering how many leaders are divorced, remarried, living with some one out of wedlock [all of which are not "biblical" from which the BSA derive their basic moral code].

Although Christianity generally promotes monogamous marriage as a model for the family, it is not exactly accurate to say that divorce, remarriage, fornication and adultery are not "biblical". The bible is actually chock full of those concepts, and although fornication and adultery are condemned, divorce and remarriage are not.
But I get your point, which is to say that the Scouts are being hypocritical to exclude avowed homosexuals from being leaders, while allowing others who may have violated some moral principles which the scouts promote to remain involved in the organization.

But we should be careful to condemn any group's decision to promote their beliefs and principles just because we can find hypocritical behavior among their members. Do we have some kind of right or expectation to expect that they will expel any member of their group that we believe has violated one of their principles? I guess we could, but that is a very slippery slope to start traversing, for we all all guilty of hypocritical behavior at times. Every group or organization has such members. I certainly don't feel comfortable with casting such stones.

[Terra]

Although Christianity generally promotes monogamous marriage as a model for the family, it is not exactly accurate to say that divorce, remarriage, fornication and adultery are not "biblical". The bible is actually chock full of those concepts, and although fornication and adultery are condemned, divorce and remarriage are not.
But I get your point, which is to say that the Scouts are being hypocritical to exclude avowed homosexuals from being leaders, while allowing others who may have violated some moral principles which the scouts promote to remain involved in the organization.

But we should be careful to condemn any group's decision to promote their beliefs and principles just because we can find hypocritical behavior among their members. Do we have some kind of right or expectation to expect that they will expel any member of their group that we believe has violated one of their principles? I guess we could, but that is a very slippery slope to start traversing, for we all all guilty of hypocritical behavior at times. Every group or organization has such members. I certainly don't feel comfortable with casting such stones.

I understand and agree. My undergrad degree is actually in Ministry and Theology.

I was using it as an example. Mainly because so many "Faith" based organizations seem [not always] to polarize to one, maybe two specific "moral violations" while seemingly ignoring many others.
I guess I should have said, do they allow those that have divorced [for any reason other than adultery for which the Bible says is the only recourse for divorce], and then remarried or those living together serve. If they are going to hold people to one standard of the faith then all standards need to be upheld. If you live with someone before marriage then they shouldn't be a leader. If someone has divorced for any reason other than adultery then they shouldn't be a leader. Etc.
That is what my point was more so.

I do find some practices within the church to be exclusionary and I don't like it and there fore I don't participate.
That said, I DO again agree that BSA has the right to do/believe what they want.
But others have the right not to support.

I for one am not about forcing a private company to do anything for which they feel against.
Personally, I am glad Disney pulled because that is not their belief. And in some sense I do respect the BSA for not baking down.

But I do think churches do the same thing. They seem to pick on one or two "main sins" and forget the rest. I mean how many brimstone sermons do you hear on gossip? On living in drunkenness [not having a social drink]? Divorce "just because we can't get along", etc, etc? There *are* some.

But sadly IMO the church has intertwined itself too much in politics and are more politically motivated and use the 2 big "sins" as their platform.

With that, I do not agree and it is why I left organized religion. I absolutely believe in Christ. But not the dogma.

[joonyer]

I get what you are saying about churches. They are many that engage in openly hypocritical, and for that matter, un-biblical practices.
I just try to remember that all churches are consist of a groups of human beings, and that we are all imperfect. Especially me.

[John]

Ok folks - I think this has run it's course and it's time to move on. Thanks for keeping things reasonably civil.