> however I do think it is important to coherently discuss the things you have a problem with.
Oh, I agree.
>The line between the two issues was muddy to me. You can tie the two together but they are not the same issue.
In this case, the OP isn't artificially tying the two together. they are tied together by events.
Lets explore:
Concept 1) Government support of non-profits. Concept 2) Discriminatory membership or hiring practices.
Now, you can be for, or against Concept 1. That's a matter of opinion and preference and political ideology. However, Concept 1 connects very directly to Concept 2, in that there are specific laws on the books that say when you DO #2, you're not allowed to GET #1.
That's the OP's point. Why is there still government preferential treatment of the boy scouts, when such treatment violates current statutes?
Credits & Style Info
Talk Politics. A place to discuss politics without egomaniacal mods
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 6/8/12 20:20 (UTC)Oh, I agree.
>The line between the two issues was muddy to me. You can tie the two together but they are not the same issue.
In this case, the OP isn't artificially tying the two together. they are tied together by events.
Lets explore:
Concept 1) Government support of non-profits.
Concept 2) Discriminatory membership or hiring practices.
Now, you can be for, or against Concept 1. That's a matter of opinion and preference and political ideology. However, Concept 1 connects very directly to Concept 2, in that there are specific laws on the books that say when you DO #2, you're not allowed to GET #1.
That's the OP's point. Why is there still government preferential treatment of the boy scouts, when such treatment violates current statutes?