Update On Adult Leadership Standards

[walk in the woods]

So much for courts not ruling against religious organizations

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/07/obama-beats-the-nuns-on-contraception/398519/

[packsaddle]

When I hear UUA, I keep thinking all star wrestling.  Sorry.  Just really tired right now.

[Stosh]

Fred - The Supreme court would have to get a change up to lean very heavily with extreme liberal judges for them to ever come up with a verdict that a religion must stop practicing their religious beliefs and comply with any equal and civil rights that go against their beliefs.. The only time I have known that to happen is if the life of a child is endangered as in medical aid or forcing young girls to marry, or killing a child because they sinned and caused the family shame..Those cases are not always decided against the religion..  I don't think you have child endangerment as an argument over a parent of a scout not being able to force troop A to accept his Adult App due to him being gay, especially when they are given the right to move to troop B, or create their own troop.. 

 

Sorry, but that process has already been done.  The Mormons had to give up their belief and practice of polygamy before they would be considered for statehood.  Of course that was after they had been persecuted all the way across the country first.  So, no, it won't be that hard to do.

[qwazse]

Not hard to do at all ... pressure BSA so long as it lets its imprimatur be held by COs with restrictive requirements for its volunteer leadership. Activists could certainly continue to do just that via public or private means to the end that all COs would be permissive. The only question is do they have the will to do so?

[moosetracker]

Such doom and gloom... Me, I look at Hobby Lobby's (which is a recent win, not some case over 100 years old) and say, you guys have nothing to worry about..

 

I think you will find your activist movement will now be smaller. It will have the die-hards, but not the general public who mainly agree that religions can be free to do what they want as long as they only enforce their beliefs to their own followers who have voluntarily chose to follow them and their rules..

[Stosh]

Such doom and gloom... Me, I look at Hobby Lobby's (which is a recent win, not some case over 100 years old) and say, you guys have nothing to worry about..

 

I think you will find your activist movement will now be smaller. It will have the die-hards, but not the general public who mainly agree that religions can be free to do what they want as long as they only enforce their beliefs to their own followers who have voluntarily chose to follow them and their rules..

 

....and yet don't be surprised when those religious groups do not go along with mandates that they have not voluntarily chosen to follow as someone else's rules.  This is one of those cases where one side demands compliance of the other, wins some court case and thinks they have won the war.  Doesn't happen like that in real life.  There are those whose faith will enable them after 20-30 years of scouting to just simply walk away.

 

It'll be interesting what the LDS units do.... 

[NJCubScouter]

It'll be interesting what the LDS units do....

I doubt that this decision would have been made without the approval (or at least the grudging acceptance) of the LDS representatives to the BSA, and probably at least some of the larger religious organizations/CO's as well. Although I do not know who is on the National Executive Board, I have to assume it includes some of these same people, so they are going to get to vote on it.

 

If the Courts were to later override the BSA's new local option policy and tell a religious CO it could not reject someone on the basis of sexual orientation, at that point those CO's might walk away. But based on what the BSA has published about this subject (some of which has been linked-to in this thread), I doubt that's going to happen.

Edited July 15, 2015 by NJCubScouter

[walk in the woods]

Such doom and gloom... Me, I look at Hobby Lobby's (which is a recent win, not some case over 100 years old) and say, you guys have nothing to worry about..

 

I think you will find your activist movement will now be smaller. It will have the die-hards, but not the general public who mainly agree that religions can be free to do what they want as long as they only enforce their beliefs to their own followers who have voluntarily chose to follow them and their rules..

Uh, the link I posted was from yesterday. The Little Sisters refused to sign the paperwork to allow the government to provide abortifacients in their name.  The courts ruled that wasn't allowed under their first amendment rights.  Here's the key word and tricky phrase:

 

While recognizing the sincerity of the sisters’ claim, the Court ruled that the accommodation “does not substantially burden their religious exercise under RFRA or infringe upon their First Amendment rights.â€

 

And who gets to define substantial burden?  Well, the government of course!

Edited July 15, 2015 by walk in the woods

[moosetracker]

And yes I would agree with the courts on the little sisters claim..  Their religion is against contraceptives, they do not have to provide contraceptives..  They do not have a religious belief that they can not sign something stating their religious belief.. They just do not want to, because they want to deny their employees their right to get that which they are entitled to through another means..  So, sorry sign the forms to get your religious based waver, otherwise no one knows you are evoking your religious based waver and you don't get it.. How else are Insurance companies suppose to know who has and who has not demanded this waver if there is nothing submitted ??   It is illogical to think you can get special compensation without applying for it..

 

That is them trying to enforce their religious belief on people who do not share it.. Sorry if that means your employees are free agents to follow their own beliefs and will be given a different option where they can get coverage to which they were entitled by law.

 

A BSA charter unit is the churches youth organization and so must follow not only BSA rules, but their CO's rules, during the time they are volunteering for the BSA.. That does not mean that on their free time, they have to follow those rules, so the Charter Org. can not demand they turn their back on their homosexual friends and not support them in their marriage while on their own time.  The charter org can expect them not to bring the wedding photos to the BSA group and pass them around, if a same-sex wedding is against their religious beliefs.

 

Same with contraceptives.. The religious organization can tell the employee they will not get contraceptives through their company health insurance plan due to religious beliefs. They can not deny the employee the right to get contraceptives through insurance by filling out paperwork for it and apply on their own time, based on their employers refusal to do so..

[Stosh]

It was my reading of the situation that the Little Sisters don't have any employees, but were expected to sign anyway.  Some Bamacare thingy rule.  The signing would state that they approve of a third party providing contraceptives.  What they are saying is they want no part in the contraceptive issue and by signing they are participating and saying it's okay for a third party provider to do so.

 

I'd love to see the government lock up all the Little Sisters in the Federal Prison System for wantonly standing up for their religious beliefs.  Definitely a Max-Security facility like Forence, CO should do the trick. 

 

This whole First Amendment Bill of Rights issue is getting interesting.  I'm thinking it's going to get ugly quickly.

[walk in the woods]

And yes I would agree with the courts on the little sisters claim..  Their religion is against contraceptives, they do not have to provide contraceptives..  They do not have a religious belief that they can not sign something stating their religious belief.. They just do not want to, because they want to deny their employees their right to get that which they are entitled to through another means..  So, sorry sign the forms to get your religious based waver, otherwise no one knows you are evoking your religious based waver and you don't get it.. How else are Insurance companies suppose to know who has and who has not demanded this waver if there is nothing submitted ??   It is illogical to think you can get special compensation without applying for it..

 

That is them trying to enforce their religious belief on people who do not share it.. Sorry if that means your employees are free agents to follow their own beliefs and will be given a different option where they can get coverage to which they were entitled by law.

 

A BSA charter unit is the churches youth organization and so must follow not only BSA rules, but their CO's rules, during the time they are volunteering for the BSA.. That does not mean that on their free time, they have to follow those rules, so the Charter Org. can not demand they turn their back on their homosexual friends and not support them in their marriage while on their own time.  The charter org can expect them not to bring the wedding photos to the BSA group and pass them around, if a same-sex wedding is against their religious beliefs.

 

Same with contraceptives.. The religious organization can tell the employee they will not get contraceptives through their company health insurance plan due to religious beliefs. They can not deny the employee the right to get contraceptives through insurance by filling out paperwork for it and apply on their own time, based on their employers refusal to do so..

Well, if look at it from the Little Sisters perspective the government's argument goes something like this.  "We acknowledge your deeply held concern that murdering children is wrong.  Please sign this waiver stating your concern and we'll do the murdering for you."  It's not about denying anybody anything, it's about standing for their beliefs.  The Little Sisters have said no, the courts have said yes.  Thus, we have a government court forcing a religious body to submit to a government demand that violates their religious beliefs.

Edited July 15, 2015 by walk in the woods

[Peregrinator]

And yes I would agree with the courts on the little sisters claim..  Their religion is against contraceptives, they do not have to provide contraceptives..  They do not have a religious belief that they can not sign something stating their religious belief.. They just do not want to, because they want to deny their employees their right to get that which they are entitled to through another means..  So, sorry sign the forms to get your religious based waver, otherwise no one knows you are evoking your religious based waver and you don't get it.. How else are Insurance companies suppose to know who has and who has not demanded this waver if there is nothing submitted ??   It is illogical to think you can get special compensation without applying for it..

Their insurer is Catholic (Christian Brothers Services and Christian Brothers Employee Benefit Trust) too. Their insurer does not wish to provide contraceptives or sterilization either, so in order to adhere to the HHA mandate the Little Sisters of the Poor would have to find a new insurer, as well as sign a form saying that the insurer should pay for contraceptives, etc. They do not wish to do that and in fact believe in conscience that they can't.

[John-in-KC]

It'll be interesting what the LDS units do.... 

I suspect a number of conservative church bodies will instruct their parishes to drop Scouting, or to encourage them to the same.

[walk in the woods]

For those of you who are worried that national will leave chartering organizations on their own to defend lawsuits:

 

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT:

The Boy Scouts of America will defend and indemnify to the fullest extent allowed by law

any bona fide religious chartered organization against any claim or action contending

that the chartered organization’s good faith refusal to select a unit leader based upon

the religious principles of the chartered organization is in violation of the law.

Of course, if you read the document detailing why the decision now, the excessive cost of litigation is high list of reasons.  So, if it's too expensive to defend the current policy now, why should a chartering organization believe the BSA won't decide it's too expensive to defend the new policy later?  As Mary Poppins once said, it's a pie-crust promise, easily made, easily broken.

Edited July 15, 2015 by walk in the woods

[eagle77]

 Now you know why it takes so long for our government to come out with some of its laws and also why there is so much paperwork too. I side with the sisters here. Courts here are wrong and need to find some way for this to happen without stepping on anyones religious beliefs or convictions. Courts are going to be busy. Just wait till the poop hits the fan in CA with the vaccine law that their governor signed into law mandating that ALL children must be vaccinated no excuse.