In the case of "Boy Scouts of America v. Dale," the Supreme Court came to the conclusion that the Scouts have a right to ban gay leaders. Chief Justice Rehnquist while agreeing with the Scouts, made it clear that homosexuality was not the issue. Chief Justice Rehnquist stated, "We are not, as we must not be, guided by our views of whether the Boy Scouts' teaching with respect to homosexual conduct are right or wrong."
             In the courtroom the Boy Scouts argue that they are a private voluntary organization and their "moral code" forbids membership to homosexuals. The Scouts can choose with whom its member s can associate with. "It is for the Boy Scouts to determine what those policies are rather than having the government dictate what those policies are," George Davidson, the Scouts lawyer said. According to Davison, allowing gays in would be like asking the NAACP to provide services to the Ku Klux Klan. The long-standing policy has been that members be "morally straight" and "clean." If they were required to accept a gay Scout leader, the Boy scouts are afraid that it would send the wrong message and therefore people would assume that homosexuality was moral, a point they don't agree with. (http://www.txtriangle.com/archive/946/coverstory.htm)
             On the other hand, it is hard to determine if the boy scouts are indeed a private organization instead of a business. It can be argued that because the organization sells camping supplies, engages in public relations, pays a full-time staff and charges fees to its members across the country that the Scouts are a business. This would mean that the Scouts are not exempt to the civil rights act. No business can discriminate against a person based solely on sexual orientation.
             In the case of the "Boy Scouts of America v. Dale," James Dale was a wonderful role model. He was an Eagle Scout; the highest honor awarded to only a small ...