Bank of America vs. the Boy Scouts

Yesterday, I talked about a legislation that I felt was important because it fights discrimination. Some said that a law that prevents it (more specifically, a law that requires inclusion) wasn’t necessary. Well, the following example of that very same discrimination tells me that it certainly is.

When my buddy Josh sent me an email about how Bank of America withdrew it’s funding from a local Boy Scouts troop, and the response to that withdrawal, I just sit here and wonder why people care so much about being bigots. I just wonder what is so threatening about being inclusive, understanding, and compassionate to diversity. I just wonder why those concepts are so threatening, and damning, that they must be treated as they are. Basically, here’s the deal, Bank of America sent this local Valdosta Boy Scout troop a letter saying:

Under the non-discrimination policy, the Bank of America Charitable Foundation cannot provide funding to any organization that practices discrimination on the basis of race, religion, color, sex, sexual orientation, age, national origin, ancestry, citizenship, or veteran or disability status. The Boy Scouts’ current employment and membership practices do not comply with this policy.

Basically, Bank of America told them, since you have a discrimination policy on the books (in this case, against homosexuality) then you gets no money. Nada. None. Not from us, anyway, because we don’t believe in discrimination. Way to go Bank of America! Way to stand up for what you believe in, and show that discrimination of any sort has no place in this country! Way to stand up and send a message to an organization that regularly and continually teaches values of imposed morality and discrimination that you refuse to fund such shit as that. Thank you Bank of America for having my (and every other minority’s… did you see that long list..) back. (more after the jump)

The troop issued a response, which, quite frankly reinforces their beliefs that bigotry is a-okay; at least, as long as it isn’t directed towards them. In fact, this is my favorite quote from the response:

I think this policy and what this policy represents is an attempt to cause a serious erosion of personal freedoms, personal rights to associate, the right of parents to know that the Boy Scouts of America does everything it possibly can to be as inclusive as it can be and still carry forward the traditional and applaudable character building programs of Scouting and to see to the safety of every child whose safety is entrusted to the Boy Scouts of America. I understand that the Bank also has the right to make these same choices for itself. I too have that choice and I now choose to close all of my accounts at the Bank to move them to another Bank
which does not discriminate against the Boy Scouts of America.

HA! Don’t discriminate against us? Does anyone else smell hypocrite? I think that someone stepped on some hypocrite outside and brought it in on their shoe, because I definitely smell hypocrite in here. Seriously, check your shoes!

Anyway… who cares what this troop thinks, because they are a private sector of a private organization; Bank of America doesn’t owe them anything. We all knew before today that the Boy Scouts promote bigotry, so who gives a fuck what they think. Now that they have shown that they are hypocrites too, it doesn’t mean that we forget the bigotry part. Unfortunately, the troop’s response, isn’t where it ends; here’s a higher up, and possibly farther reaching reaction:

In a joint statement, House Rules Committee Chairman Earl Ehrhart, R-Powder
Springs, and Sen. John Wiles, R-Marietta, said, “Georgians’ and Scouting’s
values are not for sale and should not be subject to extortion by any
entity.”
They added, “When a large, out-of-state corporation tries to use its
resources to stifle those rights and obligate certain behavior, we have an
obligation to act.”

Now, I know that these silly little senators are not going to have much of an effect on the powerhouse Bank of America’s business, but just the fact that these radical conservatives are proposing “an obligation to act”, is insane. Completely and utterly insane. Additionally, when they say things like this:

Wiles said, “Bank of America, like any company, has the right to support
whatever causes it chooses. However, the state of Georgia also has rights –
the right to stop doing business with corporations who refuse to support
organizations who exercise their right to freedom of association.”

I just have to question where their heads are. You are telling me, that a business, that’s right a business, such as Bank of America, cannot choose which organizations it wants to fund with its own money??? And, you are telling me that because an organization VIOLATES Bank of America’s policies against discrimination, that they are still obligated to keep giving them free money?And if they do, we, as a state, are going to threaten them by saying we won’t do business with them? Basically, that tells me that these senators, and the state of Georgia, are more concerned with enforcing discrimination, than thinking clearly. Basically, these senators are more focused on spreading discrimination, and punishing those that don’t jump on board the killin’ wagon. THAT is bullshit, and they know it. I know it, you know it, we all know it.

All I have to say, is that if the fucking Boy Scouts want the money from businesses like Bank of America, they need to STOP being bigots. Fuck off for thinking that you are above judgement from other people. You are not so high and mighty that we are not going to question your motives and ideals, especially because those ideals are so utterly judgemental and discriminatory. I applaud Bank of America for taking the high road, and sticking to standards that promote inclusion and diversity. Businesses like Bank of America make me believe that there is still hope in this country, and that we may all be able to coexist; rather than have everyone try to continually push us down and judge us. I hope that these senators will just get laughed at for their stupid suggestions, but if it goes further, I hope Bank of America will stand strong; that is the true example of “love thy neighbor” and “judge not, lest ye be judged”. Oh yeah, those are “Christian” principles… isn’t that what the Boy Scouts are supposed to be teaching? Well, maybe they should take a lesson and practice what they preach.

37 Responses to “Bank of America vs. the Boy Scouts”


  1. Gravatar Icon 1 PJS May 17th, 2006 at 12:52 pm

    So I guess freedom wins…

    The scouts are free to have a policy you and I don’t agree with; BofA is free to implement a policy that it hopes more customers will agree with than disagree with, the State of Georgia is free to re-elect or reject from office senators who agree with the scouts’ policy…

    This is why I believe changing minds is a higher priority than changing laws. Forgive my cynicism, but I don’t believe corporations (by definition) make principled stands for the sake of being good; they make stands that they believe the majority of their customer base will support.

    BofA wouldn’t have dared to act publicly on such a policy until the culture had shifted to a point when they could be sure it would receive support.

  2. Gravatar Icon 2 Nikky May 17th, 2006 at 1:24 pm

    Awesome! It is nice to see that someone is finally seeing something wrong with discrimination!

  3. Gravatar Icon 3 mingaling May 17th, 2006 at 1:58 pm

    I am seriously wondering why in the fuck I live in Georgia. Everything that comes out of our representatives’ mouths disgust me.

  4. Gravatar Icon 4 duane May 17th, 2006 at 2:02 pm

    BofA wouldn’t have dared to act publicly on such a policy until the culture had shifted to a point when they could be sure it would receive support.

    Sadly, this is true; but at least they did act. Sometimes, it doesn’t matter where the kindness comes from, or how it gets there, it is the fact that it is there that matters.

  5. Gravatar Icon 5 Crystal May 17th, 2006 at 2:34 pm

    I’m not sure exactly what BoA’s policies were prior to their buyout of Fleet, but I can say that the 3 years working for Fleet were completely wonderful when it came to them being supportive of everyone. They embraced my ever-changing kaleidescope of wacky haircolors, had a GLBT group, did regular meetings about different ways we could follow their company policy of “celebrate diversity”.

  6. Gravatar Icon 6 dpb May 17th, 2006 at 3:30 pm

    duane, I’m sorry to say that I have to disagree with you… just kidding. This helps prove my point from yesterday. Let’s let society shape us rather than having the government do it for us. It’s also proof that society as a whole has evolved to the point where BofA makes a stance like this because they feel a majority of their customers would want them to do so.

    As for those douchebag senators… stuff like that does make me embarassed to live in the South. Which is unfortunate, because it has always been my home. I would so vote against those Senators if I lived in their districts. Thank God I do not.

  7. Gravatar Icon 7 Amber May 17th, 2006 at 3:31 pm

    Thank you Bank of America for having my (and every other minority’s… did you see that long list..) back.

    Almost every minority. I didn’t see gender identity on there. That’s the one that’s most commonly overlooked - because most people don’t even think about it unless they personally know a trans person.

  8. Gravatar Icon 8 duane May 17th, 2006 at 3:35 pm

    Amber, you are so 100% right. Even though you may be a minority, and feel the need for all minorities to be recognized, it can be easy to forget about certain minorities; especially if you don’t have ties with them personally. Thanks for pointing that out, and I have say a big time “my bad”, and well, BofA’s bad too. Perhaps they do what happens most of the time… lump transgenders in with gay and lesbians, which in my opinion can have positive and negative effects on their specific vital rights and civil liberties.

  9. Gravatar Icon 9 Steve May 17th, 2006 at 4:38 pm

    Unbelievable. I actually moved from BOA some years ago only because I didn’t like the customer service at the branch we did business with, but that was only because of a personality conflict. Good post, Duane, and good for Bank of America.

  10. Gravatar Icon 10 the other byron May 17th, 2006 at 5:09 pm

    YAY B of A!

  11. Gravatar Icon 11 Jake May 17th, 2006 at 11:34 pm

    Free markets at work once again. You should watch the Penn & Teller episode of “Bullsh*t” about the Boy Scouts.

    http://www.tv.com/penn-and-teller-bullshit!/boy-scouts/episode/632228/summary.html

    The Boy Scouts that I participated in never had a religious tone to them — even if the pack was sponsored by the local Methodist church. It wasn’t until the LDS takeover of scouting did the right-wing bent move to the forefront.

  12. Gravatar Icon 12 Amber May 18th, 2006 at 10:45 am

    Here’s another cool thing Bank of America is doing.

    If I didn’t already have an ING account (fabulous interest rate as savings accounts go) I’d seriously consider moving everything to BofA. Hell, actually I am considering it anyway.

  13. Gravatar Icon 13 dpb May 18th, 2006 at 1:25 pm

    Amber, isn’t that more like ‘pay the change’ rather than keeping it? I mean, a $2.25 item would now cost you $3 (before the matching). Of course ‘keep the change’ sounds better from a marketing perspective.

  14. Gravatar Icon 14 purpletwinkie May 18th, 2006 at 4:56 pm

    I’ve seen a slow shift in policy (regarding my everyday life), such as the allowance of domestic partner insurance (at my ex’s employer). It’s such a great sign.

    I really like reading about BofA’s stance on this issue too.

  15. Gravatar Icon 15 cjg May 18th, 2006 at 5:22 pm

    are you so really so wrapped up in allowing your gender preference to dictate your perception… i can’t believe that you only picked up on the orientation as a disqualification point for boa charitable funds…

    orentation seems to define you.. it’s just part of who i am & i don’t feel that i should be entitled to any preferential treatment or exemption from requirements because of it…

    why does sexual oreintation overshadow the other 2 disqualification points — the fact that boy scouts only allow boys… and that they have an age limit for joining… oddly enough both of those were on each of “sexual orientation” in the boa denial of request letter…

    i think you’re just jealous of the uniforms…

  16. Gravatar Icon 16 Defining David May 19th, 2006 at 10:00 am

    Just found your site. It’s fantastic. I must say GOOD FOR BOA. I can’t believe the Boy Scouts are still around. Isn’t that so 1950s?

  17. Gravatar Icon 17 Amber May 19th, 2006 at 11:32 am

    Dave,
    Don’t ask me, I didn’t come up with the name.

    cjg,
    Ah, another troll who can’t spell/capitalize/punctuate, and doesn’t leave his/her real name or a link. What is it with you people? If you’re going to be assholes, at least don’t be such goddamn cowards. I’d write more, but it’s too easy - I generally don’t like to kick babies or electrocute the mentally ill.

  18. Gravatar Icon 18 cjg May 19th, 2006 at 12:03 pm

    amber, glad to know you can’t handle the truth… did you even read the letter dm provided or just get reved up because he only focused on one of 3 points of discrimiation

    then you rail me for grammar…. talk about majoring in the minors…

    even sadder is that you have to make unfounded, speculative personal attacks to feel better about yourself…

    ‘glad i know i can now ignore all your biggoted remarks going forward…

    btw - no link = no blog

  19. Gravatar Icon 19 Amber May 19th, 2006 at 1:11 pm

    even sadder is that you have to make unfounded, speculative personal attacks to feel better about yourself…

    Aw, damn, ya got me pegged, sho nuff!

    If I go a day without making “unfounded, speculative personal attacks,” I start to lose my life-force and begin to search desperately for a 1-up. And today that lucky 1-up was YOU, my acronymed friend!

  20. Gravatar Icon 20 China Doll May 19th, 2006 at 1:32 pm

    Amber, Sweetie, let’s not get wrapped up in name calling. Why would you be on a blog if you don’t want to hear others’ opinions? And hmmm. “troll”, “asshole”, “goddamn cowards” did your degree in Linguistics get you those descriptive words? Surely your liberalism didn’t teach you that name calling. Come on, Amber. Let’s all be open-minded to different views. Aren’t we all preaching diversity anyway?

  21. Gravatar Icon 21 China Doll May 19th, 2006 at 1:39 pm

    And btw, I don’t have a website or a blog but feel free to write…llwilsongal@yahoo.com

  22. Gravatar Icon 22 right winger May 23rd, 2006 at 10:56 am

    The people who are involved with Boyscouts believe in the morals and ethics by which the Boyscouts abide by. They have the right to “discriminate” against anything they think is wrong, like homosexuality. I think it is wrong and I wouldn’t want my son involved in anything that supported it. And as for not allowing girls in; it is called the Boyscouts! Boys aren’t allowed in the girlscouts.

  23. Gravatar Icon 23 duane May 23rd, 2006 at 11:37 am

    right winger, that’s fine that you are a bigot, and are close-minded (homosexuality is “wrong”; um, no), but keep in mind, that when you are a bigot and are close-minded, and “discriminate”, then other people don’t have to support you. Bank of America is an organization that is refusing to support discrimination and bigotry. If you don’t like that, then stop discriminating; either that, or accept it that the Boy Scouts won’t be getting any more funds from them.

    I think it is wrong and I wouldn’t want my son involved in anything that supported it.

    That’s your choice, and while it is sad, I hope that your son grows up to be a more caring and compassionate person than you are. Hopefully, he can see that there are different kind of people out there, and just because they are different, they certainly aren’t wrong or bad.

  24. Gravatar Icon 24 cjg May 23rd, 2006 at 1:51 pm

    why can’t you or any of your activist-liberal croonies acknowledge that orientation is NOT the only reason boa chose not to support the boy scouts… why aren’t you mad they don’t let in females or folks older than adolescence…

    is it because age or sex discrimination doesn’t directly align with your “homosexualize” agenda?

    talk about narrow minded… i didn’t think liberals could be that way….

  25. Gravatar Icon 25 duane May 23rd, 2006 at 2:02 pm

    CJG: Because I chose to focus on not only a personal issue, but one that it is quite easy to determine as one of the MAIN reasons they denied the troop funding, does NOT make me narrow minded. To say that, implies that I don’t think of anything other than gay rights or issues, and to say that is saying something about me that isn’t true. What I DO focus on, is what personally effects me, and when it is anti-gay, I tend to listen up a little more intently. Doing that isn’t wrong; everyone has a hot button issue. Saying that their hot button issue being their main focus is narrow minded is, well, narrow minded. Just because I didn’t think of every single reason why they would deny the troop funding (saying they were denied because sex or age in this case is irrelevant, it IS the BOY scouts, after all… and adults can participate… as long as they aren’t gay), doesn’t mean that I don’t consider other possible reasons and examples of discrimination. Jeez, you stand up for one group, and you get called a leftist or unsympathetic to another. Why does it have to be that way? And for the record, I never said it was the ONLY reason they denied them funding; but it was a major one. How many other discrimination policies do the boy scouts stand strictly behind?

    I guess no one can be as liberal as you suggest, that is, unless I have the superhuman ability to focus on and fight for every single cause. I thought that is why they had the ACLU.

  26. Gravatar Icon 26 duane May 23rd, 2006 at 2:03 pm

    one more thing, it does align with my “homosexualize” agenda. My “agenda” wants EVERYONE to be treated equally, that is, everyone. Not just gay people, and I don’t appreciate being pigeon holed that way.

  27. Gravatar Icon 27 rightwinger May 24th, 2006 at 2:29 pm

    I never said I thought homosexuality is bad, just wrong. That is part of my beliefs. I also never condemned BofA for pulling their support for the Boyscouts; they have every right to not support any organization with moral standards that they don’t agree with. But I still can’t believe people are upset that girls aren’t allowed in the BOYscouts. There is a girl’s organization (very similar to the boyscouts) called the GIRLscouts! There is a place where boys and girls can learn and socialize together though; its called SCHOOL!

  28. Gravatar Icon 28 duane May 24th, 2006 at 2:37 pm

    I never said I thought homosexuality is bad, just wrong. That is part of my beliefs.

    Well, that sounds like judgement from you, not belief you hold. You cannot tell me something is wrong if I don’t believe it to be wrong (especially when it isn’t). You may not believe it is “right”, but that does not make it wrong by default. Also, it may be wrong FOR YOU (as in, not your cup of tea, or not something that YOU want to do), but that doesn’t make it wrong in whole. This sort of thinking is bigotry, and is based in ignorance and hatred.

  29. Gravatar Icon 29 rightwinger May 26th, 2006 at 11:32 am

    No, like I said before, I don’t think any individual is bad for being homosexual (I am not judging people). I think, DUE TO MY BELIEFS, that homosexuality is wrong (and not by default). And calling me a bigot for my beliefs is just as ignorant as what I have stated. I have no hatred or disdain for anyone who chooses that lifestyle; I just don’t agree with that choice.

  30. Gravatar Icon 30 rightwinger May 26th, 2006 at 11:34 am

    and another thing, if you want to call me something, call me close minded. That doesn’t bother me, because on this subject I am.

  31. Gravatar Icon 31 duane May 26th, 2006 at 1:57 pm

    I think, DUE TO MY BELIEFS, that homosexuality is wrong (and not by default).

    By defining something as right or wrong, whether you want to admit it or not, you are placing judgement on it. But, Christians have done that for years, I don’t think that identifying it as judgement is going to change anything. You are still judging me, and that is what I am calling out here.

    And calling me a bigot for my beliefs is just as ignorant as what I have stated. I have no hatred or disdain for anyone who chooses that lifestyle; I just don’t agree with that choice.

    Actually calling you a bigot is pretty accurate, considering that a bigot is someone that is intolerant of another group or person, because of who they are. By placing judgement (as established above), you are stating that intolerance, which, incidentally, doesn’t require hatred. Also, it seems you are the ignorant one in this case; being gay is NOT A CHOICE. NOT now, NOT ever. To even suggest that it is, tells me that you don’t understand it, and don’t know enough about it to truly know the truth, which IS actually the definition of ignorance. It doesn’t matter if you don’t agree with something, but when you say it is wrong and call it “a choice”, well, that is bigoted and ignorant.

  32. Gravatar Icon 32 rightwinger May 30th, 2006 at 9:42 am

    If I never heard any arguments as to whether or not homosexuality is a choice or not, and I just called it a choice without any knowledge of the subject, then I would be ignorant. However, I have heard hundreds of opinions for both sides, and my opinion is that being gay is a choice. People are born with an inclination for alcoholism, but they make the choice to one. For obvious reasons, I am not an expert on the subject, but I am entitled to my opinion. And I want to reiterate that my “judgement”/opinion is about homosexuality, not homosexuals. I also think people shouldn’t smoke, but I don’t consider people who smoke bad people.

  33. Gravatar Icon 33 duane May 30th, 2006 at 11:52 am

    That is a fine argument, right winger, and by your “opinion” and “judgement”, then heterosexuality and bisexuality are also choices. Since you are so against homosexuality, it is a good thing that you chose to be heterosexual. I certainly hope that you don’t give in to your temptation some day though, because, after all, it is like alcoholism, a few drinks and you are hooked. After a few cocks, you will be as gay as a box of birds!

  34. Gravatar Icon 34 Rusty May 30th, 2006 at 12:09 pm

    After a few cocks, you will be as gay as a box of birds!

    LOLZ!!!1!

  35. Gravatar Icon 35 rightwinger Jun 2nd, 2006 at 3:43 pm

    I don’t deny that being heterosexual or bisexual is a choice. Most people don’t ever think about that, but I absolutely think it is a choice. But just like being homosexual, the choice is influenced by many factors. When I say that being gay is a choice I do not mean that you literally said one day, “i think i’ll be gay now.” What I meant, is that after all the factors of influence (environment, upbringing, genetics, etc.), you conciously and/or subconciously give in to what you feel like you are supposed to do. I am not going to pretend to know alot about this subject, this is all just my opinion, which I still stand by. As far as the struggle homosexuals go through everyday in our society, I apologize for the stupid people who ridicule and torment you. I may not agree with your lifestyle, but I do not hate you for it, and I never have and never will express contempt for anyone who chooses that lifestyle. This has been fun and educational, but I am afraid this will be my last post. Oh and I’m sorry but the temptation you referred to has no appeal to me so I will not be giving in to it any time soon. Hasta la vista.

  36. Gravatar Icon 36 duane Jun 6th, 2006 at 10:28 am

    When I say that being gay is a choice I do not mean that you literally said one day, “i think i’ll be gay now.” What I meant, is that after all the factors of influence (environment, upbringing, genetics, etc.), you conciously and/or subconciously give in to what you feel like you are supposed to do.

    That doesn’t sound like much of a “choice” to me. A “choice” is like choosing whether you want chocolate or vanilla, whether you want to vote or not, whether to wear this shirt or that one… You have described a situation of choosing to be yourself (come out and be gay, because you just are), or deny that, and live in the closet. There is no choice as to whether you are actually gay or not, even you indicated that. And also, if you think that it is a valid argument that someone could choose whether or not to express their homosexuality (which isn’t something they chose, it is just part of who they are), then, well, I say walk a mile in those shoes and see how far you get. It’s a pretty tough road; I know, I have been there. Until you have… then I don’t think you have much reference or say, honestly. People can’t choose to be homosexual, and it is pretty fucking hard to “choose” to deny it, just look at the suicide rates amongst gay teens, is that something that you like?

  37. Gravatar Icon 37 Nad Aug 9th, 2006 at 1:15 am

    Bank of America is a real organization that focuses on conservative values so this is not surprising. THey are called Bank of America but they are really based in the South so you should not be surprised. You can find about all their policies at Bank of America and the information on their will tell you what it is all about.

Leave a Reply




    categoricalness

    achivalness