California supreme court bans judges from BSA due to discrimination

[NJCubScouter]

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."

 

Sounds reasonable to me.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Unless BSA's discrimination against gay adults is unlawful' date=' it is not "invidious" under the law. [/quote']

 

The KKK excludes non-whites legally. I don't think your analysis is correct.

 

[NJCubScouter]

I am always amused by legal arguments in this forum. I usually choose to abstain. For all of you who think the actions of the California Supreme Court are unconstitutional, it's all very interesting, but meaningless. If and when some state court judge in California chooses to bring a lawsuit saying his/her federal constitutional rights are being violated by being made to choose between between being a Scouter and being a judge, and a final decision is made on that lawsuit in the federal courts, then we'll know whether the California Supreme Court is permitted to do this.

[CalicoPenn]

Fred,

 

By it's Federal Charter, the BSA is a Patriotic / National organization. It's purpose, to quote the charter, is as follows: The purposes of the corporation are to promote, through organization, and cooperation with other agencies, the ability of boys to do things for themselves and others, to train them in scoutcraft, and to teach them patriotism, courage, self-reliance, and kindred virtues, using the methods that were in common use by boy scouts on June 15, 1916.

 

No where does the federal charter state that the BSA is a Religious Organization. Some folks like to think the term "kindred virtues" means "religious values" but they are wrong. What it means by kindred virtues are virtues related to patriotism, courage and self-reliance - none of which need a religious component to be successful at.

 

Regardless of what a BSA spokesperson once claimed, the BSA is not a religious organization - and I stand by my statement - when the BSA decides to ask Congress to change it's charter to become The First Church of the Boy Scouts of America, then we can talk about religious freedoms.

 

This rule, which is in place in 48 states, 21 of which include sexual orientation in it's definition, is not about denying first amendment rights - it's about ensuring that the members of the judiciary are not acting in a way detrimental to their offices. 48 states have determined that being a member of a group that discriminates is detrimental to the judiciary. 21 states include sexual orientation. None of them except California carved out an exception for youth groups. These rules have been aound for years and won't be going away any time soon. As long as the BSA continues, in the eyes of the courts that administer the rules, to discriminate, the rules will apply to the BSA. But - and this is the bigger point - it is disingenuous to claim a religious exemption just because the BSA recognizes faith - that does not make them a religious organization any more than the recognition by the CEO's of Chic-fil-a or Hobby Lobby of religious precepts makes those companies religious organizations.

[TAHAWK]

 

The KKK excludes non-whites legally. I don't think your analysis is correct.

 

Since the United States Supreme Court has not been crystal clear, I certainly can be incorrect - if not now, later.

 

 

Invidious discrimination generally refers to treating one group of people less well than another on such grounds as their race (racism), gender (sexism), religion (religious discrimination), caste, ethnic background, nationality, disability, sexual orientation, sexual preference or behavior, results of IQ testing, age (ageism) or political views. "

 

William and Mary Civil rights Journal:

Although the Court [in Washington v. Davis]did not define the term precisely, it was clear from the cases it cited as supportive precedents that invidious intent in Davis meant that the decisionmaker had to have a subjective motivation to disadvantage or inflict harm on racial minorities.[=/quote]

 

As used in the law, "invidious discrimination" seems to usually means intentional illegal discrimination - intentional discrimination against one of the growing number of "protected groups." Action taken in order to discriminate against a protected class.

 

[fred johnson]

... you still bad mouthing atheists? ...

 

Atheists, no. I know many very noble and heart felt atheists. And I would never insult the collective group.

 

Actually, I was being rude. I was making a personal comment toward you. That was wrong. My apologies.

 

 

... you aren't using the term "trolling" correctly.

 

No, I'm using it 100% right. "... person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people ... ". You show up only to sow discord and start the same old arguments over and over again. You don't participate or add value on any other topic. Your value is sowing discord on the topic to achieve your objective. That is trolling.

 

 

... 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?

 

Because you were not posting that action on this board. You sow a single path of discord and only reappear when it's convenient to your agenda.

 

 

... After I helped ax those ...

 

That is sad and to brag of it is sick. Many people spend lives building up something good. You are spending a life knocking down a very very good organization to achieve an objective. It's the choice between constructive working for change or destroying to achieve an objective.

 

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

 

I will stop replying to you as it won't help.

[fred johnson]

Fred,

 

By it's Federal Charter, the BSA is a Patriotic / National organization. It's purpose, to quote the charter, is as follows: The purposes of the corporation are to promote, through organization, and cooperation with other agencies, the ability of boys to do things for themselves and others, to train them in scoutcraft, and to teach them patriotism, courage, self-reliance, and kindred virtues, using the methods that were in common use by boy scouts on June 15, 1916.

 

No where does the federal charter state that the BSA is a Religious Organization. Some folks like to think the term "kindred virtues" means "religious values" but they are wrong. What it means by kindred virtues are virtues related to patriotism, courage and self-reliance - none of which need a religious component to be successful at.

 

Regardless of what a BSA spokesperson once claimed, the BSA is not a religious organization - and I stand by my statement - when the BSA decides to ask Congress to change it's charter to become The First Church of the Boy Scouts of America, then we can talk about religious freedoms.

 

This rule, which is in place in 48 states, 21 of which include sexual orientation in it's definition, is not about denying first amendment rights - it's about ensuring that the members of the judiciary are not acting in a way detrimental to their offices. 48 states have determined that being a member of a group that discriminates is detrimental to the judiciary. 21 states include sexual orientation. None of them except California carved out an exception for youth groups. These rules have been around for years and won't be going away any time soon. As long as the BSA continues, in the eyes of the courts that administer the rules, to discriminate, the rules will apply to the BSA. But - and this is the bigger point - it is disingenuous to claim a religious exemption just because the BSA recognizes faith - that does not make them a religious organization any more than the recognition by the CEO's of Chic-fil-a or Hobby Lobby of religious precepts makes those companies religious organizations.

 

 

Calico ... Your point is well made. From what I know, BSA's charter is mostly honorary and BSA has always had a faith component since inception. The scout law is the same as it was in 1911 and includes reverent. Even then, the charter does not give government authority to direct the message BSA communicate. ... but as others state ... we're not lawyers ... It just seems that you don't have to be a "religious organization" to be able to exercise the first amendment rights to religious expression or freedom to assemble and associate.

 

Calico ... I do ultimately agree with you. BSA needs to change. It's not because BSA is wrong. It's because BSA is fighting a losing battle. BSA should and does have a right to manage the message they express.

 

BSA needs to evolve their message as society is way more legalistic than it was a hundred years ago. BSA needs to stop defining right and wrong, clean and unclean. Instead, BSA should leave that to the charter organizations. BSA provides the structure and the program. The charter organizations provide the resources and the membership.

 

If BSA wants to continue to exist as a major youth organization, it needs to evolve.

[Stosh]

Everyone discriminates, get over it and go find people that you feel more comfortable with. It's a personal choice, not some ineffective law.

 

If one doesn't believe me, just ask yourself, "If a convicted pedophile, having served their full sentence, just moved in next door, would you take them a hotdish and housewarming gift?"

 

It's just a matter of prejudice du jour. We all participate in it on a regular basis.

 

BSA doesn't need to evolve into anything. It's been serving youth for 100+ years and doing just fine. It's the moral compass of others that has gone off on a holier-than-thou rant that is more a reflection on them than on BSA. Hmmm, let me remember back a minute. Yep, 1968-74 our US military were considered baby killers and our law enforcement officers were pigs. This was also the same time that BSA changed course so as to no appear to be so militaristic. And we all know what that got the BSA in terms of youth membership. So what changed? Same US military personnel, same law enforcement officers, but people seemed to have gotten their moral compasses readjusted.

 

Judging people only causes divisions amongst people and I'm totally convinced that the person who notices the differences first is most often the bigger bigot than those that go through life not worrying about such things.

 

Stosh

 

[JoeBob]

If the country keeps heading in the direction it's going, eventually a person will have to be short minority gay female of undetermined religion in order to qualify as any government official.

[qwazse]

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

...

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.

 

 

I should have wrote "bias in favor of" ... but BSA is perfectly fine with virgins running their program. However, this is an example of of where there is no bias "constitutionally" (lower case "c" as in the organization's constitution has no problem with it), but we have had scouters wonder about volunteers who were never married or in any social relationship, which would be "institutional" discrimination. In a similar way, the GSUSA (to whom I was referring) has nothing on the books against male leaders, but some male volunters have felt alienated when they felt they could best serve as direct contact leaders. That's what I meant by "institutional" discrimination.

 

BSA constitutionally does not serve 6-12 year old females, and has made it clear that there is no path for 14-18 year old females to join order of the arrow. Also, in its no fraternization policy, it discriminates against leaders who take a shining to 18 to 20 year old venturers or any venturer who would reciprocate the overture from a 21-or-over leader.

 

None of this seems to be an issue in the CA codes of judicial conduct.

 

Also, it seems like as long as we allow godly gays the justices would back off. Or, Merlyn, did I skim too quickly, and is the court also up in arms about the antipathy towards athiests?

[packsaddle]

If the country keeps heading in the direction it's going' date=' eventually a person will have to be short minority gay female of undetermined religion in order to qualify as any government official.[/quote']

 

Well, as for me, I don't care what they are as long as they can produce their long form birth certificate and have it certified as genuine by Sheriff Arpaio. THAT is the only way to qualify as a candidate as far as I'm concerned.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

No' date=' I'm using it 100% right. "... person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people ... ". You show up only to sow discord and start the same old arguments over and over again.[/quote']

 

Wrong.

I actually argue. Trolls just start arguments and stand back and watch.

 

And this isn't a same old argument, it's something new. The BSA's discrimination continues to have adverse consequences.

 

You don't participate or add value on any other topic. Your value is sowing discord on the topic to achieve your objective. That is trolling.

 

Nope, I actually argue. I also pointed out how it was illegal to have public schools charter units, way back when I first started posting here. Not many people believed me back then.

 

Because you were not posting that action on this board. You sow a single path of discord and only reappear when it's convenient to your agenda.

 

Because all I'm interested in is the BSA's discrimination, particularly when that illegally infringes on other people.

 

I suggest you whine harder.

 

That is sad and to brag of it is sick.

 

See, this is exactly why I fight bigots like yourself. It's "sad" to stop institutionalize discrimination against atheists by public schools, because all the good, god-believing kids lose out.

 

Cry me a river.

 

You are spending a life knocking down a very very good organization to achieve an objective.

 

The only times the BSA has moved to treat atheists as anything other than despised second-class citizens is after they lose legal cases, such as when they lost the Chicago case that forced the city to stop chartering Explorer posts. A few months later, Exploring was moved into Learning for Life so government entities could use it again. And the program didn't need to change one whit, because excluding gays and atheists had nothing to do with the program -- the only reason for the BSA to exclude them was bigotry at the highest levels.

 

I will stop replying to you as it won't help.

 

Intellectual coward.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

As used in the law' date=' "invidious discrimination" seems to usually means intentional illegal discrimination[/quote']

 

Nothing in your quotes specifies "illegal discrimination", just "discrimination".

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Also' date=' it seems like as long as we allow godly gays the justices would back off. Or, Merlyn, did I skim too quickly, and is the court also up in arms about the antipathy towards athiests?[/quote']

 

Judges often don't address further issues if earlier issues decide the issue, so the BSA's religious discrimination wasn't even considered once their anti-gay discrimination settled the issue. I and other atheists would be certain to bring it up if the BSA admits adult gays but still excludes atheists.

 

[Sentinel947]

Everybody needs to cool their emotional jets or they will be cooled for you. I don't need to name names, yall know who you are. If one cannot participate in a civil discussion without using insults, then they shouldnt participate. Sentinel947