Announcement

Announcement Module
Collapse
No announcement yet.

Judges should not be BSA members? What nonsense.

Page Title Module
Move Remove Collapse
X
Conversation Detail Module
Collapse
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Judges should not be BSA members? What nonsense.

    http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/l...#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.

  • #2
    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.

    Comment


    • Sentinel947
      Sentinel947 commented
      Editing a comment
      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
      Last edited by Sentinel947; 02-08-2014, 02:54 PM.

    • Merlyn_LeRoy
      Merlyn_LeRoy commented
      Editing a comment
      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
      Sentinel947 commented
      Editing a comment
      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.

  • #3
    From what I have read of California legal actions and its system perhaps this is a "good start".

    Comment


    • #4
      So "reflecting badly" is now the standard? You mean worse than being a member of the bar association?

      Comment


      • #5
        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

        Comment


        • #6
          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.

          Comment


          • Sentinel947
            Sentinel947 commented
            Editing a comment
            "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.
            Last edited by Sentinel947; 02-08-2014, 03:01 PM.

        • #7
          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.
          Last edited by Sentinel947; 02-08-2014, 03:01 PM.

          Comment


          • #8
            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?

            Comment


            • #9
              Hopefully the leader in that photo was removed.

              Comment


              • #10
                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.
                Last edited by nextgenscouter1; 02-08-2014, 10:53 PM.

                Comment


                • Merlyn_LeRoy
                  Merlyn_LeRoy commented
                  Editing a comment
                  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.

                • Sentinel947
                  Sentinel947 commented
                  Editing a comment
                  How do military organizations discriminate? A California judge can't be part of which military organizations?

              • #11
                This is just another version of hate and it's the same ugly destructive hate that Merlyn LeRoy shows all the time in these forums. He's not a scouter and only is here to be a thorn in the side of others who disagree.

                I agree. Allow gay members to join. Then we don't discriminate. That is what most churches do too. Sure you can be a member but realize that we believe that the way you lead your life is wrong. It's not hypocritical. It's just being open to letting anyone be a member. Again it only becomes an issue when the purpose of one organization is used to advocate for another purpose ... like Merlyn keeps doing.

                Comment


                • Merlyn_LeRoy
                  Merlyn_LeRoy commented
                  Editing a comment
                  When we can't discuss tough issues civilly without tossing around loaded terms, grouping large swaths of people together based on stereotypes and incorrect perceptions then progress isn't going to be made.

                  Hey, call me when the BSA stops "grouping large swaths of people together based on stereotypes and incorrect perceptions".

                • Sentinel947
                  Sentinel947 commented
                  Editing a comment
                  Merlyn. I'm not going to argue with you. But your spat with Fred is done. Cease and desist please.

                • fred johnson
                  fred johnson commented
                  Editing a comment
                  Thank you Sentinel947... I was frustrated and got suckered in. My apologies.

              • #12
                Hmmmmm, we have a state supreme court justice in our troop. He's also served as our district chair. Of course, here in Oklahoma, we tend to appreciate the value the BSA brings to youth instead of finding a politically correct cause to attack it with.

                Comment


                • #13
                  SR, I concur. I'm in OK too. I was previously stationed in CA. When we got orders for OK, I was never so happy to cross that state border, leaving CA behind. There are great scouters in CA, doing their best for the BSA, but they have their work cut out for them.

                  Comment


                  • #14
                    So does California prevent judges from being members of the ABA? It discriminates against those who do not meet its membership requirements. All clubs and organizations have some sort of membership requirements to join. Those vary from common professions, common hobbies, common beliefs, etc. The membership of those clubs and organizations have the right of free association which is what the Dale case explored. The government of California is determining what kinds of discrimination is acceptable and which is not. To me, either tell judges that they cannot belong to any organization, including religious organizations because they extract some sort of allegiance to a set of beliefs that not everyone entering their court will agree, or allow them the freedom to choose for themselves. I vote to let the judges choose for themselves and not allow states to dictate which discrimination is acceptable and which is not.

                    Comment


                    • Merlyn_LeRoy
                      Merlyn_LeRoy commented
                      Editing a comment
                      It doesn't look like the California judicial system considers the BSA to fall under their religious organization exemption, as they added the nonprofit youth organization exemption to cover the BSA in 1996, even though the religious organization exemption already existed.

                    • fred johnson
                      fred johnson commented
                      Editing a comment
                      It would be interesting to see how that resolves itself. It is hard to see how an organization that has a statement of faith is not a faith based organization. It's hard to see an organization that has 70+ percent of the units under faith based organizations not having a faith component.

                      Of the civic charter orgs, it's a mix. Many are "a group" of generic people that could be using scouting partially because of the faith component. The largest real civic organization is the American Legion which in it's own preamble recognizes the influence of "Almighty God" and declares allegiance to God and nation.

                      Interesting how BSA can not be viewed as a faith based or at least faith supporting organization.

                    • Merlyn_LeRoy
                      Merlyn_LeRoy commented
                      Editing a comment
                      It's hard to see an organization that has 70+ percent of the units under faith based organizations not having a faith component.

                      That isn't the criterion; it's whether an organization is considered a "religious organization" by the California judicial system.

                      Also, back when the exemption for the BSA was written, the BSA chartered units to public schools, which would preclude the BSA from being considered a religious organization, at least back then.

                      Interesting how BSA can not be viewed as a faith based or at least faith supporting organization.

                      Nobody's been saying that.

                  • #15
                    The way to fight something like this is to start looking into other organizations that discriminate. During the 80s, many campuses passed hate speech rules, then they saw those rules applied towards the various minority groups (e.g. Mecha) instead of towards the evil white boys.

                    If this is the California rule, then I would check to see if MECHA still has in their rules that they are for their own race. Then have every judge who is a member resign. Hunt down every single group, and then see how long it takes to change the rules to allow for free association.

                    Of course, it could be interesting if a judge complains about discrimination based on religion.

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X