Boy Scouts of America V. Dale
I would write my opinion to majority because in the Boy scouts V. Dale case, i disagree to the majority about violating the law of Boy Scout's. There are many opponents of gay people as it is, and they all have their reasons to dislike the idea of letting them get elected . One of the main reasons is that the primary purpose of leadership is the right way to lead other people. The Boy Scouts seek to give values to young people by doing activities like: camping, fishing, and during this whole time the Scoutmasters conduct them with Boy Scouts values, so this is also one positive argument, because if a scoutmaster is homosexual that doesn't mean that he will teach the youth about his personal beliefs. The leader will always teach about what Boy Scouts is best in or what it is about. The Boy Scouts' First Amendment freedom of expressive association prevented the government from forcing the Boy Scouts to accept Dale as an adult leader. New Jersey's public accommodations law applied to the Boy Scouts , and that the Boy Scouts violated it by revoking Dale's membership based on his homosexuality. According to an article from the Human Rights Campaign, there is nothing wrong with allowing homosexuals to have the same rights as those who are heterosexual. Every individual person should be granted equal rights, regardless of sexuality.
I agree with the dissenting opinion about how if the Scouts bringing questions the the scoutmasters about homosexuality or sexual problems this would be not discussed in Boy Scout's because this is a personal matter of a Scout and it would also be the violation of the Boy Scout's law because i believe that Boy Scout's delivers someone about good manner, character, trains them in responsibilities and develops a good personal fitness. The...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document