I agree that, legally speaking, I see San Francisco as in the right.
But please tell me about the Boy Scouts of America's persecution of the homosexuals and atheists :2razz: Just ****in around, I see your point.
I was not arguing in favor of discrimination. What I meant to show was that discrimination is not adharently bad, and thus simply pointing out that discrimination's presence does not prove that what the discriminating group is doing is wrong. Thus the argument that the boy scouts is wrong because they discriminate does not carry weight.
Employers discriminate against ex cons and drug users. The constitution discriminates against people under the age of 35 (running for president), 30 (ability to run for senate), 25 (to run for congress), and 18 (ability to vote).
It's the same concept, discrimination due to perception within the group that if those discriminated against are not discriminated against, it will make things worse for the group. Employers think that they'll be more likely to be the victims of crime from their employees if they hire ex cons, the founders thought that giving people under a certain age the rights of those above that age would weaken the strength of the union. And the Boy Scouts thinks that allowing outed homosexuals and atheists in the scouts would undermine the morals that they are trying to teach.
Of course, on the other hand, Hitler wanted to kill the Jews to a purpose also, which is not something I intended to give the impression that I did not realize. But the idea that discrimination, in and of itself, makes a group in the wrong is oversimplistic. So, to prove that the Boy Scouts are morally in the wrong for these standards, you must first identify what seperates Hitler from the constitution (as far as discrimination goes), and then show that the Boy Scouts are on the Hitler side of things.
