Judges should not be BSA members? What nonsense.

[skeptic]

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-boy-scouts-judges-20140206,0,4158712.story#axzz2sgdUO049

 

If there actually was a conflict, why cannot they simply recuse themselves, or be asked to do so by others that see it as a problem? Not likely to be many cases in which this is a issue anyway.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

The issue is belonging to a discriminatory organization, NOT recusing themselves only from cases involving the Boy Scouts. California judges are likewise prohibited from joining the KKK, because that would reflect badly on all judges.

[RememberSchiff]

From what I have read of California legal actions and its system perhaps this is a "good start".

[Twocubdad]

So "reflecting badly" is now the standard? You mean worse than being a member of the bar association?

[Stosh]

It never surprises me what comes out of California anymore. And the operative word here is "MAY" in the title. Nothing like making more press than what gets printed.

 

Stosh

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Reflecting badly has been the standard for a long time; it's only special exemptions carved out for "youth groups" (read: Boy Scouts) that has been holding this off.

[Sentinel947]

The panel noted that 22 states, including California, prohibit judges from belonging to organizations that discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, but only California exempts "nonprofit youth organizations" from that prohibition. The state's high court, which sets judicial ethics standards, adopted that exemption in 1996 to accommodate judges affiliated with the Boy Scouts. I'd say California has precedent to do this.

[Sentinel947]

The issue is belonging to a discriminatory organization, NOT recusing themselves only from cases involving the Boy Scouts. California judges are likewise prohibited from joining the KKK, because that would reflect badly on all judges.

Let's jump off the cliff and compare the BSA to the KKK and California to Nazi Germany! Everybody ready? 1......2......3... Jump!

 

All joking aside, California has been gunning for the BSA for a while, but I'm not sure that this move would stand up in court.

 

Edit: looks like they thought about it before. http://able2know.org/topic/2294-1

[Sentinel947]

Reflecting badly has been the standard for a long time; it's only special exemptions carved out for "youth groups" (read: Boy Scouts) that has been holding this off.

"Reflecting badly" is very subjective based.

 

In a southern state, being a member of GLADD or Something might "reflect badly".

 

California's standard is "The panel noted that 22 states, including California, prohibit judges from belonging to organizations that discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, but only California exempts "nonprofit youth organizations" from that prohibition. The state's high court, which sets judicial ethics standards, adopted that exemption in 1996 to accommodate judges affiliated with the Boy Scouts."

 

Not "reflecting badly" but belonging to a discriminatory organization.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

The issue is belonging to a discriminatory organization, NOT recusing themselves only from cases involving the Boy Scouts. California judges are likewise prohibited from joining the KKK, because that would reflect badly on all judges.

Of course it would stand up in court -- right now the only thing keeping BSA membership is a special rule exempting youth groups, so removing that exemption is all it would take.

[Sentinel947]

For legal scholars here, this applies just to judges correct? Can a state set those standards for any government worker? What about a business? Where does the 1st Amendment play in here?

[Sentinel947]

The issue is belonging to a discriminatory organization, NOT recusing themselves only from cases involving the Boy Scouts. California judges are likewise prohibited from joining the KKK, because that would reflect badly on all judges.

Yea I did a bit of research on it. It'll definetly stand up. Unless the original law wasn't challenged before. I'd imagine it was.

[Scouter99]

Hopefully the leader in that photo was removed.

[nextgenscouter1]

These issue won't stop until BSA allows gay scout masters, make no mistake they don't care about gay rights it's just a way to destroy the BSA. So what must we do? It's simple they must lift the gay ban, then the issue is over. However, I have heard a good deal of grumbling from people who dislike the new policy, and this has even allowed new organizations to form.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

These issue won't stop until BSA allows gay scout masters, make no mistake they don't care about gay rights it's just a way to destroy the BSA. So what must we do? It's simple they must lift the gay ban, then the issue is over. However, I have heard a good deal of grumbling from people who dislike the new policy, and this has even allowed new organizations to form.

First, the BSA's religious discrimination would still conflict with the California Code of Judicial Ethics, so simply removing the gay ban won't be sufficient.

 

Second, the suggestion to remove youth groups (and military organizations) from the list exceptions was done internally by the state supreme court's own advisory committee. I doubt they want to "destroy" the BSA.