Judges should not be BSA members? What nonsense.

[fred johnson 936]

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.

Thank you Sentinel947... I was frustrated and got suckered in. My apologies.

[vol_scouter 365]

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.

[skeptic 993]

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.

Hear, Hear!!!!

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

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.

"Canon 2C prohibits a judge from holding membership in an organization that practices invidious discrimination on the basis of race, sex, gender, religion, national origin, ethnicity, or sexual orientation, but contains exceptions for religious, military, and nonprofit youth organizations. The committee proposes retaining the exception for religious organizations"

 

Equivocating on the word "discriminate" doesn't work. Judges can be members of the ABA because the ABA doesn't practice invidious discrimination on the basis of race, sex, gender, religion, national origin, ethnicity, or sexual orientation.

 

Anyone can be a member: http://www.americanbar.org/membership/faq.html#who_can_join

 

The government of California is determining what kinds of discrimination is acceptable and which is not.

 

Yeah. So?

[Horizon 97]

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.

[qwazse 4344]

Does this mean a judge in CA can't council a Citizenship merit badge?

 

Sounds like the statute is counter-productive.

[vol_scouter 365]

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.

When you go to the website, only lawyers can be full members, It is discriminatory. The categories have been gradually added to lists. So why not discrimination based upon education or training? If religious organizations are included then judges should not belong to religious groups either including atheist groups. This becomes absurd.

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

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.

When you go to the website, only lawyers can be full members, It is discriminatory.

 

Yeah. So?

 

If religious organizations are included then judges should not belong to religious groups either including atheist groups.

 

Well, if you had bothered to read, the recommendation is to keep the exemption for religious groups.

[fred johnson 936]

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.

Then BSA would be exempt.

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

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.

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 936]

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.

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 72]

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.

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.

[teginder81 10]

California should have its statehood revoked and put up for sale to the highest bidder--assuming there are any. If not, then we cede it to Mexico using force if necessary. And if that is the case, we militarize (including mine fields) our southern border from Texas, through New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada, and Oregon.