The Mayor of Philadelphia is giving the regional  Boy Scout council two choices.: Either they stop discriminating against gays or they begin paying fair market rent on their city owned headquarters. 

The City of Liberty Council is the third largest in the nation, serving 87,000 boys in Philadelphia, Montgomery and Delaware counties.  They have been using a city owned building since 1928, paying only for building upkeep.

The City is playing hard ball because the Scouts refuse to comply with the fair-practices ordinance which forbids discrimination based on sexual orientation among other protected classes. 

Cradle of Liberty Council spokesman Jeff Jubelirer had more pointed views.

"With an epidemic of gun violence taking the lives of Philadelphia's children every day," Jubelirer said, "it is ironic the administration chose this time to destroy programming that services 40,000 children in the city."

That's an interesting perspective which completely ignores the fact that the City has tries to negotiate with the Boy Scouts for the past three years.  There's no room for negotiation.  The Boy Scout organization wants to be free to discriminate against homosexuals while receiving all the governmental funding it can swallow.  Never mind the thousands of young men whose lives are impacted by their homo-bigot stance -- the young gay men, the boys with gay parents or siblings or grandparents or other loved ones, the heterosexual scouts who are taught by example to discriminate.  Never mind those kids.  Or their families.  Or their dreams. 

There's no room for negotiation.  The Boy Scouts won't revise their creed of hate and the City isn't making an exception.  Are political nuances at play?  Sure.  They always are, but that doesn't take away from the larger issue.

Our good friends at the American Family Association of Pennsylvania have chimed right in with their Christian-flavored bigotry:

?The boys involved in the Scouts are caught in a tug-of-war with those who seek to change society through homosexual activism and choose to be blind to the facts of the dangers of this lifestyle,?  [AFA Chair Diane] Gramley concluded

Ah, yes, the homosexual activist card.  Wouldn't be a hatefest if no one played it!

I find the Boy Scout's stance offensive, moronic and divisive.  I don't buy their little snacks or donate to their causes because I think they really hurt boys and young men.  I get some grief from my friends about my actions only hurting the boys.  I'm sorry but that's an utterly spineless position.  The Boy Scouts are *hurting* children, gay and straight.  They should lose their funding sources because reason, common decency or genuine concern for all children doesn't seem to play a part in their decision making process. 

I just knew it would come to this.  The insistence of state (and federal) government on restricting free speech and assembly has inevitably led to the ACLU hooking up with the Phelpsians. (h/t PageOneQ)

Missouri, like other states and the federal government, has passed a law restricting protests and pickets at funerals in response to community outrage over the Phelpsians presence at military funerals.  Fred and co. believe that God is killing soldiers because America has embraced homosexuality.  So he totes his "God Hates Fags" signs to military funerals.  Shock and awe ensue.  Never mind that he's been doing this for years to at the funerals of homosexuals and those who have died from AIDS.  No one was upset enough to pass a law curtailing civil rights then.  I guess faggots brought it on themselves.

The ACLU argues that the law restricts speech on content and is seeking an injunction so the protests can resume while the court considers the constitutionality issue.

Here's Phelpsian whackjob and daughter Shirley ...

"I told the nation, as each state went after these laws, that if the day came that they got in our way, that we would sue them," said Phelps's daughter Shirley L. Phelps-Roper, a spokeswoman for the church in Topeka, Kan. "At this hour, the wrath of God is pouring out on this country."

You aren't suing them, Shirley honey.  The ACLU is suing them on your behalf.  Because the ACLU respects your civil liberties.  The wrath of God sure does pick some interesting vehicles ....

I, too, think the law is unconstitutional.  Don't get me wrong -- its abhorrent that anyone would intrude on the grief of a family at the funeral of their loved one.  But as the Correspondents have said before, these laws are unconstitutional and passed in a grandstanding furor by legislators responsible for the deaths of these soldiers.  Rather than make the funeral a civil liberty free zone, how about reducing the number of funerals?  You know, ending the war.  Or improving health care access.  Investing in AIDS research. Mitigating poverty.  That sort of thing.

Why, oh why, do I hate freedom?

I missed this last week, but its worth a look. 

Last week, a jury found Leon Abramovitz guilty of several charges involving luring two male Pitt students to his apartment, forcing them to stay for weeks, coercing one to steal power tools and the other to perform sexual acts.  Abramovitz, 59, has previously worked for City Council and (AND) the constituent affairs department of the Reagan White House. 

It gets better.

Abramovitz is currently serving probation for two earlier charges of the same thing. 

Huh. Here's the better part.  The lawyer of this perv is trying to make this out to be gay persecution!  This from the guy who worked for Reagan!

"Homosexual acts are not crimes," said Mr. Houck. "They are only anathemas in many people's minds, but not everybody's."

Mr. Houck is right.  Homosexual "acts" are not crimes.  However, the actual crimes this perv committed - holding people against their will, forcing them to perform sexual acts and steal, and threatening them with mafia retaliation - are not homosexual acts.

I do have to pick a bone with the PG on this story.  In the article, writer Moustafa Ayad paints a comparison of the somewhat hulky young men and the frail pervert inviting the question of how he held them captive.  Other than the reference to mafia threats, there is no context for the captivity.  Obviously the jury was convinced so there has to be more content to the story.

I think Ayad's coverage was a little soft in this regard.  Women are held hostage all the time as any domestic violence worker will tell you and frequently it has nothing to do with size differentials.  Power does not translate into size.  It is hard to believe that a 59 year old man with a walker could legitimately threaten someone with a mob hit.  But obviously he DID on at least four separate occasions.  At least.

Kudos to the students for testifying.  Get this perv off the streets, walker or not. 

Family values indeed.