California Supreme Court Gunning For Bsa; Is Church Of Jesus Christ Next?

[Stone holm]

A Canadian Bar Association is working hard towards just such a "fantastic" end:

 

http://www.cardus.ca/blog/2015/01/christian-lawyers-and-doctors-need-not-apply

 

A Canadian college with its own law school requires its students to abide by a code of conduct including a sexual component prohibiting all sex outside marriage between a man and a women, and the bar association won't let its law school grads sit for the bar exam or practice law.

 

Yeah.  It's paranoid.

 

Yeah.  It's rantings.

Did thee Church drop Scouts in Canada? Had the National BSA gone with the original compromise and let each unit's sponsor make the choice, we would no longer see BSA getting the bad press, and the Church could have gone on with its own policies. But instead we had to play political football with a venerated American iconic Organization.

[Avatar4321]

I love how Mormons had no problem doing all they could to take away the right to marry from gays, and then can so easily play the victim over something that hasn't even happened to them.  It is kinda scary having your civil rights up for grabs by popular support isn't it.  Fortunately for both groups, the constitution protects those rights regardless of popular support.  

 

The irony is further brought to light by the fact that in Utah someone can be fired from their job or be discriminated against in their housing simply for being gay.  Yet now Mormons are concerned they can be fired from being a judge simply because they are Mormon?  Perhaps you should be working towards correcting other discriminations if you want others supporting your right to work as well.

the irony is no one can permit you to marry or not marry someone of the same sex any more than we can permit you for forbid you to becoming a picnic basket. You can imitate marriage all you want, but it won't be marriage.

and yet the op starts with examples of persecution, and we have almost two hundred years of it, much of it created by the government overreaching on marriage laws, and yet you think it will never happen. Why? So you can pretend it's perfectly alright to ignore the commandments. As if some how changing the laws of men will make you happy. But you won't be. You can't. No one can unless they repent.

[The Nehor]

There is a huge contradiction here.

So no one should prepare because everyone else is also, so humanity will starve.

Huh?

Welcome to a scenario where no one wins.

[california boy]

the irony is no one can permit you to marry or not marry someone of the same sex any more than we can permit you for forbid you to becoming a picnic basket. You can imitate marriage all you want, but it won't be marriage.

and yet the op starts with examples of persecution, and we have almost two hundred years of it, much of it created by the government overreaching on marriage laws, and yet you think it will never happen. Why? So you can pretend it's perfectly alright to ignore the commandments. As if some how changing the laws of men will make you happy. But you won't be. You can't. No one can unless they repent.

 

I am an American.  I believe in the rights guaranteed me in the constitution.  I am willing to fight to keep those rights by those who seek to take them away from me.  If you think that makes me some unhappy soul fighting against God, you are dead wrong.  I have a wonderful life shared with a wonderful guy who is as much a part of me as my life itself. The fact that you make such a judgement of my happiness based on someone you don't even know is amazing and misguided.  Do you seriously believe that every gay person is living some miserable life?  Is that what you used to justify discriminating against them?

Edited January 25, 2015 by california boy

[mfbukowski]

Deleted.

I had not seen the context of the argument regarding Prop 8.

 

But it is certainly not the case that "Mormons took it away"

Edited January 25, 2015 by mfbukowski

[Rob Osborn]

I am an American.  I believe in the rights guaranteed me in the constitution.  I am willing to fight to keep those rights by those who seek to take them away from me.  If you think that makes me some unhappy soul fighting against God, you are dead wrong.  I have a wonderful life shared with a wonderful guy who is as much a part of me as my life itself. The fact that you make such a judgement of my happiness based on someone you don't even know is amazing and misguided.  Do you seriously believe that every gay person is living some miserable life?  Is that what you used to justify discriminating against them?

Im not really sure how homosexual marriage ever had rights. Please explain.

[jwhitlock]

Every time I hear someone spout off about how the First Amendment will protect the church from being legally challenged for its stand on SSM, I remember how the First Amendment was disregarded in the 19th century when it came to keeping the Mormons in line with the prevailing politically correct lines of thought about marriage. Precedent has already been set.

 

There's no doubt in my mind at all that the church eventually will be officially persecuted for its moral stance on this issue. And comments in this very thread, wrongly depicting the church as a vile, discriminatory organization give us a clue about how the church is going to be tarred as part of that hate campaign.

[Bob Crockett]

I suppose you don't want to comment on Prop 8.  You know, that proposition taken over by the Mormons to ensure gay couples were denied their constitutional right to marry.  Remember this constitutional right had just been ruled on by the Supreme Court of California which prompted Prop 8.  But the Mormons were determined to take away that right the courts had upheld.  

In a paper I published at Rutgers, I cite polling results that said that the single most significant factor in the passage of Proposition 8 was the black voter.  The second most significant factor was the black religious voter.  The third most significant factor was evangelical religious voters.  Mormons didn't surface.

 

In the days leading up to the vote, black pastors were sounding the drumbeat to vote for Obama and vote for Prop 8.  

 

So your premise, at least statistically, is not supported.  But you and your gay friends are unwilling to make blacks the whipping boy for the Prop 8 victory, and instead have chosen to make the Mormons the whipping boy.  

[Kenngo1969]

It amazes me how many people imagine that when society collapses they can survive on hunting and foraging by running out into the hills. Do they really think that when push comes to shove that the people in the cities and towns are just going to quietly starve to death instead of doing the same thing to try to survive? There isn't enough game out there. Sorry to burst their little bubbles.

 

Well cannibalism always works.

Any volunteers?

 

"Yes, I was quite happy to get that invitation to dinner at my neighbor's house ... until I found out exactly what he meant when he said he would make me the 'guest of honor' ..."

[Kenngo1969]

... [Y]our premise, at least statistically, is not supported.  But you and your gay friends are unwilling to make blacks the whipping boy for the Prop 8 victory, and instead have chosen to make the Mormons the whipping boy.  

Hey, anti-Mormonism is the last socially acceptable form of prejudice!

[Bob Crockett]

Hey, anti-Mormonism is the last socially acceptable form of prejudice!

 

As much as I did not like Prop 8, and thought it inadvisable as an affront to the civil rights of gays (meaning, once gays were given the right to marry by the overturn of Prop 22, they suddenly had a civil right to be married), I much less liked the attack on religion.  Religious people have the right to speak their minds on the definition of marriage.  They shouldn't be the subject of a work-place or professional boycott, as Maxine Hanks did to me with her website calling out my contribution, my religion and my church calling at the time.

Edited January 25, 2015 by Bob Crockett

[Kenngo1969]

 

A Canadian Bar Association is working hard towards just such a "fantastic" end:

 

http://www.cardus.ca/blog/2015/01/christian-lawyers-and-doctors-need-not-apply

 

A Canadian college with its own law school requires its students to abide by a code of conduct including a sexual component prohibiting all sex outside marriage between a man and a women, and the bar association won't let its law school grads sit for the bar exam or practice law.

 

Yeah.  It's paranoid.

 

Yeah.  It's rantings.

 

It is and you know it.

 

Perhaps you can show why the sky is falling because Canada does something?  

 

The US and Canada has distinctly different legal standards and such; given your education, you likely should know this.

 

You can accuse USU78 of paranoid rantings all you want, but I've never seen him opine on a topic such as this when he isn't stating his own deeply-held convictions.  If you think that nobody in the U.S. legal system pays any attention to, or has any desire to emulate, what goes on in other common law countries, with all due respect, you are woefully misinformed. 

Edited January 25, 2015 by Kenngo1969

[Calm]

Hey, anti-Mormonism is the last socially acceptable form of prejudice!

I think there are a lot of prejudices that are socially acceptable…just take a gander at whatever comedians are using for their punchlines.

[Kenngo1969]

I think there are a lot of prejudices that are socially acceptable…just take a gander at whatever comedians are using for their punchlines.

 

It's true what you say about comedians, but comedians can always say, "I was just using it [whatever the prejudice under discussion might be] for laughs."  Most people who are truly racist or sexist (except for yours truly; I can't explain why my presence is still tolerated on the Board ) or even truly homophobic are, as they should be, quickly marginalized by society.  But if you ask them about their particular prejudice, they will be able to give you reasons good and sound (at least in their mind) why they still hold it.  Humor is one thing; genuine prejudice is entirely another.  And while it's much more common to hear a comedian joke about, e.g., racism than it is to encounter someone who truly is racist, I think it's still quite common (indeed, it's much too common) to run into someone who wouldn't dream of saying the things they say about Mormons about people of color, or women, or gays, et cetera.

[canard78]

There is a huge contradiction here.

So no one should prepare because everyone else is also, so humanity will starve.

Huh?

Surely this is missing the point...

Some random state in America is going to (potentially) take steps that would (potentially) favour relationship rights over religious rights and Mormons are saying the constitution of America will (potentially) hang by a thread and, as a result, it's time to get dem gosh-durn-it guns out.

Americans would be funny sometimes if they weren't so terrifyingly serious about it. It would make brilliant satire if only it were intentional.

[Kenngo1969]

Surely this is missing the point...

Some random state in America is going to (potentially) take steps that would (potentially) favour relationship rights over religious rights and Mormons are saying the constitution of America will (potentially) hang by a thread and, as a result, it's time to get dem gosh-durn-it guns out.

Americans would be funny sometimes if they weren't so terrifyingly serious about it. It would make brilliant satire if only it were intentional.

CFR that MFBukowski (or anyone else) said anything about guns.  Thanks in advance.

 

P.S.: The title of the thread doesn't count; I'll let Scott speak for himself, but I'm fairly certain that, as a professional communicator, Scott can tell the difference between a metaphorical expression and a literal one, and that his intended use of that expression in the title is the former.

Edited January 25, 2015 by Kenngo1969

[eddie]

Actually what is troubling is that about 4 months ago I was called to be an assistant 11 year scout leader in my ward. So I accepted the call, was set apart, and did the online training and registered with the BSA as any leader does.

I am not lawyer by trade, nor a judge, but as with any other church calling those people could easily be called to a similar position.

With this action, a judge in my circumstance would have to ask for a release from his calling. I fail to see how this doesn't violate free expression of religion and disqualify someone from public office due to religious affiliation, both of which are specifically forbidden in the US constitution, not an vague interpretation of the 14th amendment that men have the right to marry other men or women to other women.

[The Nehor]

Actually what is troubling is that about 4 months ago I was called to be an assistant 11 year scout leader in my ward. So I accepted the call, was set apart, and did the online training and registered with the BSA as any leader does.

I am not lawyer by trade, nor a judge, but as with any other church calling those people could easily be called to a similar position.

With this action, a judge in my circumstance would have to ask for a release from his calling. I fail to see how this doesn't violate free expression of religion and disqualify someone from public office due to religious affiliation, both of which are specifically forbidden in the US constitution, not an vague interpretation of the 14th amendment that men have the right to marry other men or women to other women.

 

Only if you see the BSA as the expression of religion. I don't. If the BSA declares itself to be a religion it would be exempt.

[california boy]

Im not really sure how homosexual marriage ever had rights. Please explain.

Yeah and I suspect you have no desire to find out how gays are constitutionally guaranteed equal protection under the law.  If you had the slightest interest in understanding the legal rights of gays, you would have over 50 court decisions outlining the legal rights protected under the constitution.  Have you even read a SINGLE one?  Have you even read a dumbed down analysis of any of these rulings?

 

I find it hard to believe you have any sincere interest in understanding the legal protections given all Americans.  Ignorance of the law helps you maintain the illusion that you can discriminate against gays.  You would have a hard time facing the reality that what you do and preach against is completely illegal.  If 50 court rulings by both conservative and liberal judges from virtually every state that has have not convinced you, what would?

[california boy]

In a paper I published at Rutgers, I cite polling results that said that the single most significant factor in the passage of Proposition 8 was the black voter.  The second most significant factor was the black religious voter.  The third most significant factor was evangelical religious voters.  Mormons didn't surface.

 

In the days leading up to the vote, black pastors were sounding the drumbeat to vote for Obama and vote for Prop 8.  

 

So your premise, at least statistically, is not supported.  But you and your gay friends are unwilling to make blacks the whipping boy for the Prop 8 victory, and instead have chosen to make the Mormons the whipping boy.  

 

Seriously?  You have no idea why Prop 8 became "The Mormon Proposition?"  Blaming others for falling for the decietful ads paid for by members of the Mormon church is not going to lift the continued efforts to take away the civil rights of gay Americans by the Mormon church.  That black eye is there to stay.  And the Mormon churches continued support of the BSA and their discriminating practices continue to reinforce those prejudices towards gays that the church has.  

 

If as all the Mormon church did was to advise their members to vote for Prop 8 from the pulpit, the church would not be looked upon as being anti gay any more than any other church.  But that is not what happened.  And I think you know that.  

[The Nehor]

Seriously?  You have no idea why Prop 8 became "The Mormon Proposition?"  Blaming others for falling for the decietful ads paid for by members of the Mormon church is not going to lift the continued efforts to take away the civil rights of gay Americans by the Mormon church.  That black eye is there to stay.  And the Mormon churches continued support of the BSA and their discriminating practices continue to reinforce those prejudices towards gays that the church has.  

 

So when it is pointed out that black people voted against you you are going to blame their decisions on ads that led them to vote the wrong way. Good job taking away their agency. You should definitely take your Victorian ideals to their logical conclusion, take up the White Man's burden, and start civilizing and educating the heathen savage.

[rpn]

In the same decision, the CA Supreme Court did not revoke exemptions for religions.    Given that in the LDS church each BSA involvement IS a religious expression, a religious calling, I wonder how this would play out for an LDS scoutmaster.   You don't have to be a BSA member to be a merit badge counselor (at least it wasn't required in the past --- now merit badge counselors have to submit to a BSA background check, but I don't recall whether that also means membership).

[Rob Osborn]

Yeah and I suspect you have no desire to find out how gays are constitutionally guaranteed equal protection under the law.  If you had the slightest interest in understanding the legal rights of gays, you would have over 50 court decisions outlining the legal rights protected under the constitution.  Have you even read a SINGLE one?  Have you even read a dumbed down analysis of any of these rulings?

 

I find it hard to believe you have any sincere interest in understanding the legal protections given all Americans.  Ignorance of the law helps you maintain the illusion that you can discriminate against gays.  You would have a hard time facing the reality that what you do and preach against is completely illegal.  If 50 court rulings by both conservative and liberal judges from virtually every state that has have not convinced you, what would?

I can see where homosexuals have rights just as heterosexuals. That wasnt my question. My question was specific to homosexual marriage. Since when did homosexual marriage ever have constitutionally protected rights?

[Scott Lloyd]

Actually, this has been discussed by the bar of several States about belonging to groups which discriminate against minorities. The problem is whether the judge violates the judicial oath in doing so. When the Salt Lake Council kaboshed the first compromise, they set the stage for this. As to the question about the Church, the answer is no. The BSA is not a religious Organization. Judges are not allowed to belong to the KKK either.

BSA is nothing like the KKK. Who's the one engaging in histrionics here?

[california boy]

I can see where homosexuals have rights just as heterosexuals. That wasnt my question. My question was specific to homosexual marriage. Since when did homosexual marriage ever have constitutionally protected rights?

And that was my answer.  You have 50 court cases where gay marriage has been decided based on constitutional protected rights.  If you sincerely want to know the legal constitutional reasons for allowing gay marrige then just read ONE of those 50 rulings.  What the heck do you think these cases have been about if it is not the legal constitutional right to marry??