California supreme court bans judges from BSA due to discrimination

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

I did find that wording interesting until I read more. The change was based on a set of public hearings on the topic. IMHO, this is the result of ugly activism as we see on this board. Yelling. Insults. Slanderous statements. It's not about a scouter not being able to be impartial as a judge.

 

I think the use of the word "invidious" is tied more to the definition: "(of an action or situation) likely to arouse or incur resentment or anger in others."

 

I'm betting judges heard plenty of angry opinions at those hearings, similar to the ugly words we've heard on this board. IMHO, that's one reason the word "invidious" appears.

 

Hey Fred, I know you won't answer, but you might want to look up how some people on this board have responded to me when I point out that the BSA practices religious discrimination and how my government can't support that.

[SR540Beaver]

http://www.sfgate.com/lgbt/article/C...ay-6036874.php

 

The state Supreme Court has voted to prohibit judges in California from belonging to the Boy Scouts because the 2.7 million-member youth organization bars gays and lesbians from becoming troop leaders.

The court announced Friday that its seven justices had voted unanimously to accept a February 2014 recommendation from its ethics advisory committee to ban Boy Scout membership. As of Wednesday, judges affiliated with the Scouts were in violation of the state Code of Judicial Ethics, which the court oversees, and could face removal from office.

...

 

[basically, they removed the exemption for youth groups that was inserted a few years ago just for the BSA]

 

Here's the code with changes in strikeout, the BSA changes start on page 12:

http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/c...ial_ethics.pdf

 

I'm proud to say that here in Oklahoma, my troop includes one of our state supreme court justices as a registered leader. Been on many a campout with him and he has written a number of recommendation letters and provided reference for my son thru college and beyond. In fact, he recently server as our district chair........but then, we're knuckle draggers here in fly over country, so......

 

Oh I almost forgot, our Council President is also a Federal Judge.

[fred johnson]

I'm proud to say that here in Oklahoma' date=' ... [/quote']

 

In Oklahoma, judges don't have time to discriminate as they are busy debating if the watermelon is a fruit or a vegetable.

[SR540Beaver]

 

In Oklahoma, judges don't have time to discriminate as they are busy debating if the watermelon is a fruit or a vegetable.

 

Actually, that's the legislature. If they can't iron out that pressing issue, it could wind up in the state supreme court I suppose.

[Stosh]

I'm waiting for California judges to be barred from certain Christian churches that don't accept homosexuals either.

 

I lived in California for a while, it was good to go back home.

 

Stosh

[RememberSchiff]

Ed Whelan in the National Review writes

http://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/397444/california-supreme-court-versus-boy-scouts-ed-whelan

 

"I wonder how long it will be before the California supreme court prohibits judges from allowing their sons to belong to the Boy Scouts, from taking part as non-members in Boy Scout events, or from providing any material support to the Boy Scouts."

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Hey, I wondered when the BSA would stop chartering units to public schools. Turns out, they wouldn't until they were forced to.

[skeptic]

Hey M'; can you please give us a rest from your excessive pride in causing issues with BSA and public schools. We have heard this over and over for way too long. You certainly are not impressing anyone, only making yourself seem vindictive and spiteful. Of course, I know you could really care less; but it is simply tiresome.

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

Hey M'; can you please give us a rest from your excessive pride in causing issues with BSA and public schools.

 

Oh, *I* didn't cause any issues, that was the BSA's dishonesty and bigotry all the way.

 

We have heard this over and over for way too long. You certainly are not impressing anyone, only making yourself seem vindictive and spiteful. Of course, I know you could really care less; but it is simply tiresome.

 

I assume you're against any sort of legal action in this case? After all, you always, always, always criticize atheists for suing the government when they think their rights are unlawfully infringed, so I'm sure you'd criticize any judge or lawyer that attempts a lawsuit over this, right?

 

[TAHAWK]

Invidious does not equate to unlawful. Invidious discrimination may be either lawful or unlawful.

 

I was trying to distinguish between what are sincerely-help ethical or moral judgments and the law (as it evolves).

 

I was not asserting that the two terms have the same meaning. However, because "invidious discrimination" (AKA "invidious intent") has repeatedly (but not consistently) been said to be an element that must be proved for discrimination to be unlawful, it does not seem to be particularly useful to say that discrimination is "invidious" when that conduct has been held to be lawful, even Constitutionally protected.. Obviously, the authorities in California do not agree, but I am not in California and they are not the last word.

 

(Beyond federal decisions, please note that California's civil rights law was unanimously held by the California Supreme Court in Curran and Randall not to apply to Boy Scouting.)

 

.

Originally posted by TAHAWK

Well, I hope I am capable of logic. Logic tells me that since BSA's discrimination has been found lawful, it is not, as you repeatedly claim, "invidious." It's just discrimination, which is generally lawful.

 

Which means these judges don't know what their own rules mean. But I think they do.

 

The California rules mean what the California Supreme Court say they mean unless reversed by a federal court. ​The Chief Justice of Alabama dismisses the federal court decisions on gay marriage. We shall see.

 

I fail to see the logic of your question. The courts have not found BSA's discrimination to be unlawful' date=' hence it is not [/i'] "invidious." At least that is so for now.

 

No, for now, judges can't be members of the BSA. That's what the judges actually say it means.

 

And, as I posted, that is the law, as changed by the Court, and will remain so unless overturned by the federal courts as violating freedom of association and speech.

 

Tell me more about this club. Is it restricted to Catholics' date=' such as Knights of Columbus?[/i']

No. A Restricted club excluded Jews, only.

 

That may be unlawful if the club is similar to the Rotary. The decisions are fact-specific depending on the impact of exclusion on the plaintiff(s). However, the KKK, as you have observed, legally discriminates against several groups on the groups of "race" or religion, including Jews. So not all discrimination on the basis of religious or sex is unlawful. (A nominee for the USSC Justice belonged to a club of female "movers and shakers" that excludes men. At first she defended her membership, saying that the club had not acted with discriminatory intent because to her knowledge, no men had applied yet. She later resigned. The club still exists)

 

I do wonder about judges in California who belong to the discriminatory Girl Scouts of America. Out I guess.

 

And if the exception for youth organizations falls, why does the exception for "religious organizations" stand? The rationale for the decision about youth organizations amounts to a belief that a judge belonging to BSA could not project the required "appearance" of fairness to Gay litigants. This a decisional rationale that cuts in many directions. Atheist litigant and evangelical judge - or visa-versa? Suit between a Gay and a straight and a gay judge - or a straight judge? Turkish litigant and Armenian judge? (Californians may l understand this last better than others if they are old enough to recall the assassination.)

 

Originally posted by TAHAWK

But, as you yourself pointed out, BSA allows atheists as youth and adult members

 

Not really, no. They go to court to throw out atheists, remember?

 

By the way, you'll notice that the people actually involved in this (California judges) seem pretty clear that BSA membership is now off-limits for California judges. I'll believe they know the law and their own judicial ethics code better than either of us. The BSA is out for their invidious (albeit legal) discrimination.

 

 

Even if we disregard your statement that BSA allows Buddhist members, the objective reality is that BSA does not exclude all acknowledged atheists.

 

I am sure that the unanimous California Supreme Court knows pretty clearly the result that they wanted. You will recall that they changed the law. What they held is California law at present, just as the New Jersey Supreme's Court's decision in Dale that BSA was a public accommodation was the law in New Jersey when issued. So a citizen of California may not hold a certain public office due to his or her lawful exercise of his or her right of freedom of association as arguably guaranteed by the First Amendment. For now.

 

 

Ed: Interestingly, the USSC has very recently heard oral argument in a case over the constitutionality of a Florida judicial conduct canon that prohibits judges from personally soliciting campaign contributions. Such behavior is said to impact the reputation of judges for integrity. It is being challenged on the grounds that a judge has the constitutional right under the First Amendment to ask for donations under the rubric of political free speech. In 2002, the USSC struck down on First Amendment grounds state judicial canons that barred judicial candidates from discussing legal issues that might come before them during campaigning for judicial office.

 

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

I was trying to distinguish between what are sincerely-help ethical or moral judgments and the law (as it evolves).

 

The KKK seems pretty sincere. There are racist religions too, like the Christian Identity movement.

 

I was not asserting that the two terms have the same meaning. However, because "invidious discrimination" (AKA "invidious intent") has repeatedly (but not consistently) been said to be an element that must be proved for discrimination to be unlawful, it does not seem to be particularly useful to say that discrimination is "invidious" when that conduct has been held to be lawful, even Constitutionally protected.. Obviously, the authorities in California do not agree, but I am not in California and they are not the last word.

 

Like I said, the judges in California clearly think the BSA's discrimination is covered by their ethical standards.

 

(Beyond federal decisions, please note that California's civil rights law was unanimously held by the California Supreme Court in Curran and Randall not to apply to Boy Scouting.)

 

Because it wasn't considered a business establishment under the Unruh act. That had nothing to do with the BSA's discrimination.

 

Even if we disregard your statement that BSA allows Buddhist members, the objective reality is that BSA does not exclude all acknowledged atheists.

 

I don't know of a single case of an "acknowledged atheist" Buddhist being allowed in the BSA that National knows about; any particular Buddhist could be an atheist, but none are required to be atheists. Do you have any actual examples of acknowledged atheist Buddhists not being kicked out by the National BSA?

[fred johnson]

ho hum

[TAHAWK]

"(Beyond federal decisions' date=' please note that California's civil rights law was unanimously held by the California Supreme Court in [i']Curran and Randall not to apply to Boy Scouting.)"

[/i]

 

Because it wasn't considered a business establishment under the Unruh act. That had nothing to do with the BSA's discrimination.

 

The ruling was in two cases in which the local BSA councils were being sued for alleged civil rights violations. Pretty famous cases. .Curran v. Mount Diablo Council of the Boy Scouts of America, 17 Cal.4th 670, 952 P.2d 218, 72 Cal.Rptr.2d 410 (1998)(sexual orientation) and Randall v. Orange County Council, 17 Cal.4th 736, 952 P.2d 261, 72 Cal.Rptr.2d 453 (1998)(religious requirement). These wins by BSA were widely publicized, especially within the ACLU. The BSA councils were found not to be subject to the law.

 

 

I don't know of a single case of an "acknowledged atheist" Buddhist being allowed in the BSA that National knows about; any particular Buddhist could be an atheist, but none are required to be atheists. Do you have any actual

examples of acknowledged atheist Buddhists not being kicked out by the National BSA?

 

Buddhists are atheists. If BSA didn;t know that, I pointed it out to them in 2007. For many years, It has been pointed out in the Fundamental Principles of The World Organization of the Scout Movement, of which BSA is a member.

 

Buddhists are welcomed by BSA since 1926, as are atheistic Jains and Hindus. (Labeling them as "non-theistic" changes nothing.)

 

Of course I have no examples of their being kicked out. That's the ;point. They are welcomed since deemed "religious." Your narrative is factually incorrect. Only some atheists are excluded, not the entire class.

 

[AZMike]

Growing old makes you a stranger in your own country.

 

[Merlyn_LeRoy]

 

The ruling was in two cases in which the local BSA councils were being sued for alleged civil rights violations. Pretty famous cases. .Curran v. Mount Diablo Council of the Boy Scouts of America, 17 Cal.4th 670, 952 P.2d 218, 72 Cal.Rptr.2d 410 (1998)(sexual orientation) and Randall v. Orange County Council, 17 Cal.4th 736, 952 P.2d 261, 72 Cal.Rptr.2d 453 (1998)(religious requirement). These wins by BSA were widely publicized, especially within the ACLU. The BSA councils were found not to be subject to the law.

 

That's what I said. The BSA wasn't considered a business establishment under the Unruh act, so their discrimination wasn't even addressed.

 

Did you have a point?

 

Buddhists are atheists. If BSA didn;t know that, I pointed it out to them in 2007.

 

And the BSA probably pays less attention to you as I do here.

 

For many years, It has been pointed out in theFundamental Principles of The World Organization of the Scout Movement, of which BSA is a member.

 

Buddhists are welcomed by BSA since 1926, as are atheistic Jains and Hindus. (Labeling them as "non-theistic" changes nothing.)

 

Of course I have no examples of their being kicked out.

 

(deleted by Packsaddle...fair warning)

 

"Do you have any actual examples of acknowledged atheist Buddhists not being kicked out by the National BSA?"

 

See that --->NOT<--- in there?

 

Your narrative is factually incorrect. Only some atheists are excluded, not the entire class.

 

And since I've clearly stated the same thing, I don't know what "narrative" you're referring to. But since you read my previous question as if I had said the exact opposite, that's hardly surprising.

 

Saying "the BSA kicks out atheists" is like saying they kick out child molesters. It's clear they don't kick out all of either group.