Bank of America pulls Boy Scout funding

A reader sent me the following link earlier this week:

Boy Scout is trustworthy, loyal, helpful, friendly, courteous, kind and – according to the Bank of America – discriminatory.

If you have heard of Valdosta, chances are it was because of the local high school football team’s prowess at winning national championships. But today, the overbearing effects of overactive liberalism reached far into South Georgia and slapped the Boy Scouts right across the face.

At a recent Valdosta Kiwanis Club meeting, the local Boy Scouts leader, Matt Hart, was present to accept a donation from the Club. Matt gladly accepted the contribution to help the local Boy Scouts spruce up their summer camp and then he told the Kiwanis Club the Scouts were grateful for the donation because the regular donation received each year from Bank of America had been denied this year because Bank of America believes the Boy Scouts national organization discriminates against gays.

In fact, Matt, the Executive Leader of the Alapaha Area Council for the Boy Scouts, shared with the group a recent letter he received from Bank of America Charitable Foundation explaining the denial:

The letter, in part, stated:

“…Under the non-discrimination policy, the Bank of America Charibale Foundation cannot provide funding to any organization that practices discrimination on the basis of race, religion, color, sex, secual 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.”


“If the Alapaha Area Council, Boy Scouts of America has the autonomy to depart from the current discriminatory practices of the national organization, and will verify that fact in writing, the Bank of America Charitable Foundation may consider reviewing this request again.”

How much do you want to bet that the militant wing of the ‘gay movement’ had something to do with this?

54 thoughts on “Bank of America pulls Boy Scout funding

  1. “What gives. – Lorica”

    The problem with the church sex abuse isn’t homosexuality. Its sex abuse.

  2. Ahh yes andrew, the gay community struggles mightily to distance itself from the pedophile label, and I can readily understand why, but trying to say Priest on boy is not homosexual, is the usual word dance you always get from the Left. Unfortunately for your “argument” the Priests themselves have come out in many cases and openly proclaimed themselves gay. The Church hierarchy even has an official board now that votes on such admissions to the clergy. Its a little late in the day to try to evade on an issue that the Church itself has been steadily opening up for the past 15 years. So yes, Priest on boy is abuse AND gay.

    – Contrary to Pam’s natterings I had not looked at the statistics until her false comments triggered me into it. Not surprising in study after study, percentages of anywhere from 68 to 79%, pretty much squares with my professional experience.

    – I can certainly understand why decent gays are distressed, and feel it’s unfair for everyone to be lumped in the same bag, and I aggree and wouldn’t condone that, but with those kinds of percentages you can hardly call that any sort of safe environment for a child.

    – So you don’t get off the hook for having a double standard andrew. What it comes done to is because the Church is a Conservative organization, the left feels its fair game for derision and bashing, while defending gays at the same time. The question always is when you say these things who do you think will believe it?

    – Bang **==

Comments are closed.