Front Page  »  

California courts move to ban Boy Scouts

April 22, 2014

boy scoutsThe California court system is considering a proposal to ban members of the Boy Scouts of America from serving as judges because the Boy Scouts discriminate against gays. [WNDWeekly]

The California Supreme Court Advisory Committee on The Code of Judicial Ethics proposed to classify the Boy Scouts as practicing “invidious discrimination” against gays, which would prohibit judges from being affiliated with the group. Even though the Boy Scouts began admitting gay members on Jan. 1, the organization continues to prohibit gays from holding leadership positions.

In opposition to the proposal, the Life Legal Defense Foundation said the committee is ignoring the fact “that the change also encompasses other youth organizations whose membership is limited on the basis of gender, e.g., the Girl Scouts, as well as the military, which continues to practice ‘discrimination’ on the basis of gender.” It is urging the courts to reject the proposal.

“Perhaps this is not an unintended consequence and the committee indeed means to prohibit membership by judges in organizations like the Girl Scouts and military reserve, though there is no indication of such result in the invitation,” said the letter, signed by LLDF legal director Catherine Short. “Or perhaps the committee believes that such discrimination by the Girl Scouts and the military is not ‘invidious,’ as opposed to the ‘invidious discrimination’ practice by the BSA in excluding those of openly homosexual orientation from adult leadership positions.”

In 2000, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the right of the Boy Scouts to exclude homosexuals, because the behavior violated the core values of the private organization.


Loading...
Subjects:         
Related:


58 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

There is a different read of the proposed ban, here is link to an article by the LA Times; interesting that of the 47 states that ban judges from joining discriminatory groups, 22 states, including California, include a bar on groups that show bias on the basis of sexual orientation. California is the only one of these that makes exceptions for youth groups.


I’m not so sure of the direction that Cal Coast News is headed in; why did this story link to World Net Daily instead of a more rational, neutral reporting site? WND is in the business of raising questions with a definite slant towards anything that endangers (apparently) anyone of a purported Christian faith as being discriminated against or any sort of changes from the way things have been, and if that is a move that addresses discrimination towards items of sexual orientation (gay rights), then WND is all for leaving things the way they are (no need to change things, everything is a-okay, so what if the homosexuals get their feelings hurt or their civil liberties stomped on).


To all the conservatives reading this article and/or reading the linked article at WND; get outside your comfort zone and do a little research; just because an assertion is made here at CCN or at WND does NOT mean that it is a “fact”- don’t be so gullible as to believe everything you read at a site if there is any hint of editorial slanting or twisting of the reporting. Read the linked article at the LA Times and see the balance of reporting on all of the other states that already do ban judges from belonging to groups that discriminate.


0

Why would CalCoastNews link to a story on Wing Nut Daily? Guess they want to “boost” their Google rankings.


0

And just a reminder as to where Hodin and where bobfromsanluis live…they believe the LAT is not a left wing shill but a neutral reporting site. Up is down.


0

Yes, having actual “facts” is so left wing ….


0

I guess I will need to register as being a Boy Scout when I was 11? Do we have beter things to worry about?


0

Read up, Tom. This issue has nothing to do with whether one ever was a Boy Scout as a child. Nothing at all. When you jump to conclusions, you fall.


0

i guess i failed at my attempt at humor. how about Masons?


0

Took a phone call from a customer in Florida today. He said he had been to California three times and that I “could keep it.”


This cr@p is the reason.


0

“Florida?” Oh, please. Florida, along with Arizona, are only marginally part of the United States anymore. Florida, where the Governor formerly headed up the organization convicted of the biggest Medicare fraud in U.S. history, and then he insists that all applicants for public assistance submit to drug tests. Total found to “fail” the tests? 2.6%, meaning the program cost way more than it saved. Florida, where it is legal to stalk a teenager and, when he resists, it’s okay to murder him. Florida, where the poverty rate is higher than the U.S. average, and certainly higher than California’s. Florida, where the teen birth rate and infant mortality rate are higher than California’s, where voter repression was “born” and still is practiced, where median wages are in the toilet… You know what? You can keep it.


0

Discrimination by association, perfect.


What organization or group will be next for the proposed Banned list? Religion, NRA, political party or who your favorite football team is? The list is endless.


0

Not only that but imagine what would happen if the Conservatives returned to power in this country. They could use the same precedents to discriminate against, atheists, pro-choice groups and political beliefs different from theirs. Just look at their past actions to see that some of them are equally nasty when they get in power.


This is an issue that freedom-loving people should keep on top of no matter which way they lean politically.


0

Well it’s come to never mentioning that you were a Boy Scout to avoid discrimination but don’t forget to mention your employment at Disneyland for your appointment to the Supreme Court.


0

Talk about discrimination and hatred. Our legal system is so corrupt picking and choosing what and who to prosecute, what is illegal today and legal tomorrow. But then, look who is the leading law enforcement and this Country.


Mr. Holder thinks he and Mr. Obama are mistreated and disrespected because of their race and not their actions, lack thereof, and decisions. But then again, they both support Al Sharpton. Enough said!


Only in California!


0

So Mozilla CEO Brendan Eich resigned under pressure from gay rights activists because he donated $1000 of his own money in 2008 for Prop 8.


Now a Boy Scout may never be a judge?


Why stop there? If we are so worried about ‘tainted’ judges how about banning all judges who ever in their lifetime voted or donated money to a political group?


I’m sorry but both sides are guilty then of “invidious discrimination” – just ask Brendan or at least read what they were about to do to him if he didn’t resign.


0

I think that there is a difference between a CEO and a judge under the law. I agree that the reaction to Brendan was going too far. He could have fought it but the financial costs to Mozilla would have been too great. It may have been a moral issue but it wasn’t a legal one.


In the case of the restriction on judges, I am less sure that it should be legal. I can see that it would be a factor if a judge was endorsing the BSA stand on homosexuality but mere membership in the organization shouldn’t imply complete approval of all their policies.


0

The moral decay of this state is simply astonishing.


0

Let me see I understand this correctly, a person who is here ILLEGALLY can now go to law school, become a lawyer, and eventually could become a judge, but a member of the Boy

Scouts may be banned from ever becoming a judge?

Unbelievable!


0

Only in California, or maybe Massachusettes


0

Utah

Mormons had to include Blacks in church authority hierarchies 1977 to continue BYU in the athletic conferences bowl games top talent


0

This article uses as its source a “faith” website that, of course, skews the meaning of the action, which you may read all about right here: http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/SP14-02.pdf


I support the change. California is one of only a handful of states that prohibits a Judge’s membership in discriminatory organizations EXCEPT for non-profit ones. No judge can swear to uphold the Constitution at the same time that he (or she) is a member of an organization that subverts the protections guaranteed by that same Constitution. Sorry–either you can belong to a bigoted, discriminatory organization, or you can be a Judge. You decide.


0

kevin, do you know if there is a listing of “discriminatory organizations” used by the California courts or was the BSA the only group ever pointed out by name?


0

It’ll take you about 3 minutes to read the text of the rules revision, linked in Kevin’s post.


0

R. Hodin, Did you read what I asked? I read Kevin’s link to the text of the rules revision. I asked if there was a listing of actual named groups. I looked and couldn’t find one.


0
1 2