Gay father not allowed to be Scout leader

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

He can't even wear a stupid Boy Scout shirt?

A University Park father learned this week that he will not be able to serve as a leader in his 9-year-old's Cub Scout pack because he's gay.

For the last two years Jon Langbert has organized a popcorn fundraiser for Pack 70 at University Park Elementary. Then at a September Scout meeting, someone complained about his homosexuality, Langbert said.

He said he was told this week that he can't wear the Scout leader shirt he was given last year and that he cannot serve in a leadership position because of his sexual orientation.

"What message does that send to my son? It says I'm a second-class citizen," Langbert said.

(snip)

The Boys Scouts of America has had a long-standing policy that rejects leaders who are gay or atheist. In 2000, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the organization's rules in a 5-4 decision.

(snip)

Langbert has agreed to continue raising money through the popcorn fundraiser, which ends in late November. But he said he's not going to let the Boy Scouts "brush this under the carpet."

He said he is angry the Highland Park school district allows the Boy Scouts to use its facilities in spite of their discrimination. He said he has contacted attorneys.

"My tax dollars are paying for their discrimination. And the next gay dad who wants to come along can't. I'm not going to let them," Langbert said. "My position is that the school cannot allow the use of their facilities to an organization that discriminates."

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare
  • Gindy52

    News flash for Langbert,the organization you let your child join and that you supported has been telling him you are second class since he joined it. But now that you can't wear your special shirt or be a leader you is going to complain? Sorry dude, you should have never let your kid join this organization and never donated a dollar to it.

  • Bill

    This is not new, the organization has been doing this for more than twenty years. As the article points out, the law has upheld it for an equally long time. Is there hope that this SCOTUS will rule differently? Ha.