The Next Rosa Parks?

[thismeintiel]

SpokenTruth said:

thismeintiel said:

My point is the political climate has changed. What happened in 1991 doesn't change the fact that they were/are under a lot of pressure from PC warriors, more recently, as well as states that side with them. Like I said, in 2015 they were being threatened with state investigations and looming lawsuits from gay rights activists. They changed the policy to avoid that. No doubt, that is what happened here. They saw the writing on the wall and changed policy to not have to face it. 

I just told you that they no longer had those pressures because of the 1998 ruling.  Yeaw vs Boy Scouts of America.  The finding of the court is that they are a membership based organization which means they are not subject to the same anti-discrimination laws that a business or corporation is.  Membership criteria is their sole discretion.  That means they cannot be sued for not allowing gays or girls. Further, anti-discrimination laws are designed to protect employees, not exactly much there to potential members joining a membership based organization.

They made those organizational changes on their own.

A membership based organization can set their own membership criteria.  Otherwise, your own argument could be used against the girl scouts for not including boys.

Your fallacy is thinking that a 1998 ruling means anything nowadays. Rulings get challenged all the time.  Laws are interpreted differently by different lawyers/judges.  It's not set in stone. A new lawsuit would have brought about that challenge, as well as a media circus. Just easier to avoid it.