Merlyn_LeRoy

What makes this, and the Disney case, more interesting is that it's people refusing to allow equal stewardship of a corporate charitable trust. As far as I've seen, the recent corporate cut-offs are due to corporations finally following their own published policies on qualified charities, instead of ignoring their own existing nondiscrimination requirements on sexual orientation and religion. I am so frustrated with these groups, if it isnt the Gay LBGT then its the Atheist Groups Yeah, well, that's what the BSA gets for everything they've done against gays and atheists.

I wasn't referring to your rights as an individual; I was referring to how you apparently consider people and corporations, when they stop giving money to the BSA to be somehow threatening the protection of someone's rights. It isn't. It's people refusing to give the BSA money.

Sure. But don't claim that someone's constitutional rights aren't being protected.

Eagledad, I quoted the lie you wrote: "Qwazse, athiest have NO doubt because they believe there is NO god." Atheists are people who lack a belief in god; this does not imply any particular degree of certainty, nor does it require them to believe there is no god (a person totally unfamiliar with the concept of gods would necessarily lack a belief, but they likewise could not hold the opinion that "there is no god" for the same reason).

I know it's useless to ask, but what atheists have I been trying to separate myself from? Your straw atheists? Which is why you need to ask actual atheists and humanist chaplains, and not the opinions of people like yourself who obviously hate them.

Possibly. Since there isn't a right to be a judge, they might.

Why shouldn't they be? Should an atheist be allowed to be a judge?

The carved out exemption in favor of the BSA wasn't very specific, either, it was for "youth organizations". An exception for the reverse could easily be the same. The only reason the BSA got the exemption in the first place was due to public support, but they're losing that.

Just like they carved out an exception in favor of the BSA, they can carve out an exception and exclude youth organizations from the religious exemption.

Bar scout members for "invidious discrimination". You may have noticed discrimination getting less popular.

A lot of Jews disagree with you. The important point is that there ARE religions that have atheists as members. Just like geocentrism has gone. Notice this wasn't done by killing off people who were geocentrics.

Like all religion, in your view, which discriminates against the atheist by requiring belief for membership. That's not true of all religions. You can be e.g. Jewish or a UU and be an atheist. A few obscure religions have atheism as a tenet. Also, you may have missed that the regulations would still exempt religions. The BSA and the KKK. Must have felt so good to type that. The BSA compared itself to the KKK in the Dale case. Well, at least priests wear robes too. And the Sikhs all wear turbans. So easy to identify for the great cleansing of the irrational. At leas

You'd have to ask the California court system what they mean.

As to religious discrimination and by parity of reasoning, any judge should be prohibited from belonging to any organization that discriminates on the basis of religious belief or sexual orientation. The phrase used is "invidious discrimination". Should we allow atheist or agnostic judges to preside in cases involving the religious? There are still states whose constitutions prohibit atheists from being jurors; they're dead letters, but they're a good example of how mindless prejudice against atheists can turn into denial of human rights like right to a jury of one's peers.

Well skeptic, what if a judge belonged to a whites-only organization, and only recused himself on issues having to do with that organization, but saw no reason to recuse himself in cases having to do with non-whites, or discrimination against non-whites? Mightn't his membership in a whites-only organization bring into question his objectivity in dealing with non-whites in general? The BSA is the same, except it's gays and atheists. Why do you need this explained to you, anyway? Are you completely oblivious to the BSA's discrimination?

The BSA has never argued that in court. Whenever they are forced to make a statement in a court of law, they always say it's due to not wanting them as role models.

Because the California Code of Judicial Ethics contains exceptions; there's an exception for religion, and one that was carved out for the Boy Scouts a few years ago. http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/ca_code_judicial_ethics.pdf

Ah, back when the minority only had as many rights as the majority decided to grant them, that day. That's why atheists have to keep suing. Rights are not granted by the majority to the minority.

Like I said, your ignorance of the past is no excuse. Skeptic is still butthurt about BSA units losing public school charters, so he posted the joining requirements of the SSA, as if the situations were comparable. But like I also said, he still can't understand the difference between school-run groups vs. student-run groups.

Your ignorance is no excuse. Public schools used to charter about 10% of all BSA units until I contacted the ACLU and they threatened to sue. This was in 2005. The BSA had to recharter (or drop) all those units that were unlawfully chartered by schools and other government entities.