Jump to content

Judges should not be BSA members? What nonsense.


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 42
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

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 fi

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

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, do

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.
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

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.
"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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.
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.
Link to post
Share on other sites
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.
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.
Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...