California supreme court bans judges from BSA due to discrimination

[Hedgehog]

Interesting. As I read the rules, California judges also cannot be part of Girl Scouts either since they invidiously discriminate on the basis of gender by not allowing boys to be members. So that tells me that even if the ban on homosexual leaders is removed, membership in the Boys Scouts is still prohibited because we don't allow girls to be members. However, it is likely that Trail Life USA would not be effected by the ban because it is a religious organization.

 

I guess when you try to make rules designed not to provide impartiality but to make a political statement you get unintended consequences.

 

Maybe the BSA can make "members" only the youth and the adults become approved "volunteers" thereby circumventing the ban on members in the organization.

[RememberSchiff]

I looked at the Canons of Ethics for US Judges, in particular,Canon 4

http://www.uscourts.gov/RulesAndPoli...tesJudges.aspx

 

"Complete separation of a judge from extrajudicial activities is neither possible nor wise; a judge should not become isolated from the society in which the judge lives. As a judicial officer and a person specially learned in the law, a judge is in a unique position to contribute to the law, the legal system, and the administration of justice, including revising substantive and procedural law and improving criminal and juvenile justice. "

 

Food for thought? Maybe judges should have a mixed social association, a little less PC isolation and more community involvement.

 

Another $0.02

[qwazse]

... Maybe the BSA can make "members" only the youth and the adults become approved "volunteers" thereby circumventing the ban on members in the organization.

 

The court is not so naive as to make itself blind to such distinctions, so that really wont get around BSA's bias towards heterosexual/celibate theists (in the broadest interpretation thereof) as the exclusive role models for nation's youth.

 

I certainly hope nobody turns this gun on judges who belong to the GSUSA; however, were they to do so, it would be a more nebulous swipe, because their form of discrimination against male leaders is more institutional than constitutional. That they exclusively serve female youth is not an argument against it, anymore than the NAACP chooses to exclusively serve blacks.

[RememberSchiff]

Some California judges are not happy about this.

http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-0125-boy-scouts-judges-20150125-story.html#page=1

 

San Joaquin County Superior Court Barbara Kronlund, said the policy would violate her religious rights under the First Amendment. Riverside County Superior Court Judge John Vineyard stated that being an Eagle Scout and Scoutmaster was in no way incompatible with serving on the bench.

[T2Eagle]

The article says 21 other jurisdictions have similar policies. It looks like Ohio is among them. But it gives a broad exception for "purely private organization whose membership limitations could not constitutionally be prohibited..."

 

RULE 3.6 Affiliation with Discriminatory Organizations

(A) A judge shall not hold membership in any organization that practices

invidious discrimination on the basis of race, sex, gender, religion, national origin,

ethnicity, or sexual orientation.

 

COMMENT

 

[2] ...Whether an organization practices invidious discrimination is a complex question to which judges should be

attentive. The answer cannot be determined from a mere examination of an organization’s

current membership rolls, but rather, depends upon how the organization selects members, as

well as other relevant factors, such as whether the organization is dedicated to the preservation of

religious, ethnic, or cultural values of legitimate common interest to its members, or whether it is

an intimate, purely private organization whose membership limitations could not constitutionally

be prohibited.

 

[fred johnson]

California's actions scream of judicial activism and a twisted interpretation of the law. BSA has always had a major faith component and to ignore the religious freedom of the organization is an amazing interpretation. The rule also seems to fly directly in the face of the BSA v. Dale where a private organization can choose to associations or reject associations that affect their expressed message.

 

Now, the CA says to be a judge you can't freely associate.

 

Also, it seems the new rule directly does what it wants judges to avoid. The rule exercises personal beliefs to manipulate others and demotes part of society to a 2nd class status. So, you can't be a scout and be a judge. What is next? You can't be a muslim or Catholic or other? Or, you have to be an atheist to be a judge?

 

This is less about good interpretation of the law and more about government supporting some beliefs over others.

 

The new rule is insulting, small minded and petty. Shame.

 

 

 

===========================

 

 

On the flip side ... BSA does need to change the policy and remove the limitations.

 

Then, let the charter organizations filter based on their beliefs. If a person does not meet the membership criteria of the charter org, the charter does not need to accept them as a member of their scouting unit.

 

The simple fact is the US is a multi-cultural society. The law says organizations need to not discriminate and that is good. But, the law also recognizes religious freedom and religious organizations teach values and do teach right and wrong.

 

The problem is right and wrong are defined differently by different parts of society and different faiths. And BSA exists across faiths and across religious organizations. As such, it needs to stop applying membership filters based on faith and orientation.

 

Unit membership should be left to charter organizations to choose. Parents can then choose a charter that matches their faith.

 

===========================================

 

BSA can still have God in the Oath and Law and BSA can teach that God, faith and spirituality is important.

[CalicoPenn]

Violation of religious freedoms? I know the BSA floated that boat back in the Dale case but they never used it in the case, or if they did, the Supreme Court ignored it in their ruling.

 

When the BSA becomes the First Church of Boy Scouts of America then talk to me about religious freedoms.

[fred johnson]

CalicoPenn - It's wrong to think someone's expression is not projected to the first amendment just because it's not associated with a specific label. Concepts of faith and spirituality and expression of those can exist outside a specific box and should still be protected and those expressing those opinions should be protected.

 

Targeting BSA without targeting specific faiths is ridiculous. It's like saying a divorce case can not be heard fairly by a Catholic. Or a gender discrimination case can't be heard by a Muslim judge.

 

​It's a political action. Nothing more. Nothing less.

 

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Now' date=' the CA says to be a judge you can't freely associate.[/quote']

 

They said that decades ago when they first created rules against belonging to clubs that practiced invidious discrimination, like the KKK. An exception was carved out for the BSA nearly 20 years ago; removing that exception brings it in line with the rest of it.

 

Targeting BSA without targeting specific faiths is ridiculous.

 

There's still a blanket exception for religions.

 

​It's a political action. Nothing more. Nothing less.

 

That's what it was when the exception for the BSA was added. I didn't hear you complaining about that.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Some California judges are not happy about this.

http://www.latimes.com/local/california/la-me-0125-boy-scouts-judges-20150125-story.html#page=1

 

Looks like the BSA's defense in barring gays has come home to roost:

...

Yet in a five-page letter to the court, Angela Bradstreet, president of the Bar Assn. of San Francisco, cited a January 2001 report by the Judicial Council that said that "significant numbers of gay men and lesbians have experienced discriminatory comments or actions in the court system."

 

"We believe that, in light of the statements made by the BSA national leadership in recent litigation that gay men and lesbians are 'unclean,' 'immoral,' and subject to exclusion solely by reason of their sexual orientation, it is important to the Bench, to its members, and to the public it serves that its commitment to fairness, impartiality and respect be reaffirmed."

...

 

[fred johnson]

Merlyn ... You still trolling around here? Wow. I can't give you credit for much, but I will give you credit for endurance.

 

There's still a blanket exception for religions.

 

Fine line you are walking. Blanket exception for religion, but then you decide what religious expression is? Many people believe that sexual orientation is a value decision. First amendment is about "freedom". Freedom of not just "religion" but also "religious expression."

 

​The fact is you don't like BSA's expression. That is exactly the issue in BSA v Dale. The majority addressed the freedom for a group to decide what it wants to express and to assemble to support it. The minority focused on a specific position, non-discrimination.

 

BSA has a major faith component. It's not a church, but it does have a faith component. Always has. Always will. Even if BSA eventually admits atheists.

[Scouter99]

Merlyn is the last person I'd expect to fault the CA Supreme Court for discrimination.

[TAHAWK]

 

The court is not so naive as to make itself blind to such distinctions, so that really wont get around BSA's bias towards heterosexual/celibate theists (in the broadest interpretation thereof) as the exclusive role models for nation's youth.

 

I certainly hope nobody turns this gun on judges who belong to the GSUSA; however, were they to do so, it would be a more nebulous swipe, because their form of discrimination against male leaders is more institutional than constitutional. That they exclusively serve female youth is not an argument against it, anymore than the NAACP chooses to exclusively serve blacks.

 

 

I know that BSA bans gay adults. I had no idea they had a "bias towards" celibate adults as role models as well. 0___0

 

There are logical inconsistencies in "civil rights" laws. As a result, several such laws have been found unconstitutional. The best I can figure, some racial and sexual discrimination is OK and some is not, and we will be told after the fact. Further, the "dispositive" ruling may change over time. What this has to do with "right and wrong" is unclear to me, but many will chip in to give their $ .02.

 

I am not aware of a legally meaningful distinction between "institutional" discrimination and "constitutional" discrimination. Never tried that argument in court. Help?

 

Who BSA "serves" is no longer an issue, except for those who dissent from BSA's decision to serve gay youth.

 

 

[TAHAWK]

The article says 21 other jurisdictions have similar policies. It looks like Ohio is among them. But it gives a broad exception for "purely private organization whose membership limitations could not constitutionally be prohibited..."

 

RULE 3.6 Affiliation with Discriminatory Organizations

(A) A judge shall not hold membership in any organization that practices

invidious discrimination on the basis of race, sex, gender, religion, national origin,

ethnicity, or sexual orientation.

 

COMMENT

 

[2] ...Whether an organization practices invidious discrimination is a complex question to which judges should be

attentive. The answer cannot be determined from a mere examination of an organization’s

current membership rolls, but rather, depends upon how the organization selects members, as

well as other relevant factors, such as whether the organization is dedicated to the preservation of

religious, ethnic, or cultural values of legitimate common interest to its members, or whether it is

an intimate, purely private organization whose membership limitations could not constitutionally

be prohibited.

 

 

Unless BSA's discrimination against gay adults is unlawful, it is not "invidious" under the law. So far as I know, BSA's discrimination is lawful. Until it's unlawful, "invidious" is just someone(s) saying they don't like it.

 

 

 

Violation of religious freedoms? I know the BSA floated that boat back in the Dale case but they never used it in the case, or if they did, the Supreme Court ignored it in their ruling.

 

When the BSA becomes the First Church of Boy Scouts of America then talk to me about religious freedoms.

 

 

 

As far as I know, as noted above, the right guaranteed by the Constitution does not apply solely to churches Not sure if that matters to your argument.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Merlyn ... You still trolling around here?

 

Hey fred, you still badmouthing atheists? By the way, I posted the original link, so my appearance shouldn't be a surprise. Also, you aren't using the term "trolling" correctly.

 

Fine line you are walking. Blanket exception for religion, but then you decide what religious expression is?

 

I don't, but the court does. Deciding exactly what does and does not apply in a particular situation is what they do for a living, after all.

 

Many people believe that sexual orientation is a value decision. First amendment is about "freedom". Freedom of not just "religion" but also "religious expression."

There are people who sincerely believe that their god made blacks as inferior humans, or meant to keep the races separate. Why didn't you complain about the CA court barring KKK membership a year ago when you were discussing this when the courts were asking for public comments on this change?

 

​

The fact is you don't like BSA's expression. That is exactly the issue in BSA v Dale.

 

Oh, I don't like their expression, but what I really didn't like is the fact that the BSA dishonestly got government entitites like public schools to unlawfully charter their private, discriminatory groups. After I helped ax those, I haven't commented as much, because now the BSA is mostly just another bigoted group, instead of one actively inducing my own government to discriminate against atheists.