Scott Lloyd Posted February 3, 2015 Posted February 3, 2015 After I raised this topic the other day, my thread got shut down due to Godwin's Law type comparisons, race-baiting and general jerkiness. Maybe this time the usual suspects will behave themselves. At the risk of scandalizing poor tonie yet again, I will link to Dan Peterson's allegedly "for-profit blog," where he has a post linking to a letter written to the LA Times. In introducing the link, Dan, with characteristic wit, raises some points and implications worth considering: For example, what if a bishop in California tried to call a member of his ward to serve with the Scouts — and that ward member happened to be a judge? Can you think of any other case, anywhere else, where the sheer acceptance of a pretty normal ward calling could cost a person his or her job, or get that person into legal difficulties? Does this rule bar female judges from serving as Cub Scout den mothers? Can they bring treats to a pack meeting, maybe? (But what if people found out?!?!?) And, of course, if the Scouts are poisonous, the wicked Mormons are absolutely toxic on these same issues. Should Mormons be permitted to serve in the judiciary? What about Catholics? Orthodox Jews? Should judges be required to take an oath affirming their irreligiousness? Or, at least, their alienation from non-state-approved religions? Sir Thomas More famously refused to sign an oath affirming Henry VIII as head of the Church of England. How would he react to this?Read more: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeterson/2015/02/if-judges-cant-join-the-boy-scouts-what-about-the-mormon-church.html#ixzz3QdgWqq38 2
USU78 Posted February 3, 2015 Posted February 3, 2015 Lance Starr sez there that it's so plainly unconstitutional that it cannot possibly be upheld . . . by the very judges who imposed it or their brethren/sistern on the federal bench, I don't know. Color me skeptical.
Scott Lloyd Posted February 3, 2015 Author Posted February 3, 2015 Lance Starr sez there that it's so plainly unconstitutional that it cannot possibly be upheld . . . by the very judges who imposed it or their brethren/sistern on the federal bench, I don't know. Color me skeptical.I wouldn't put anything past the federal judiciary these days.
california boy Posted February 3, 2015 Posted February 3, 2015 Just so we are all on the same page about how this all came about, From the LA Times article In presenting its rationale for the ban, the committee considered other states' policies. Out of the 47 states that bar membership in organizations that discriminate on the basis of such classifications as race and gender, California and 21 other states list sexual orientation as one of the protected classes.But California was the only state that had made an exception for nonprofit youth organizations.This exception, the committee wrote, is "anomalous and inconsistent" in light of developments in the law regarding same-sex relationships, notably the Supreme Court's decision in 2013 to overturn the Defense of Marriage Act and to allow a lower court ruling to stand striking down Proposition 8, the ballot measure that outlawed same-sex marriages in California.
strappinglad Posted February 3, 2015 Posted February 3, 2015 On the other hand one can get almost anything passed(by) a federal judiciary nowadays.
Scott Lloyd Posted February 3, 2015 Author Posted February 3, 2015 Just so we are all on the same page about how this all came about, From the LA Times article Oh, well that makes such tyranny OK, then.
california boy Posted February 3, 2015 Posted February 3, 2015 Oh, well that makes such tyranny OK, then.I am only reporting the facts in the case. I am not willing to go down this rabbit hole again. The last time, it did not work out all that well.
Popular Post Hamba Tuhan Posted February 3, 2015 Popular Post Posted February 3, 2015 (edited) This exception, the committee wrote, is "anomalous and inconsistent" in light of developments in the law regarding same-sex relationships ... And thus we begin to see how 'same-sex marriage' isn't really just about marriage but rather about compelling society, at the threat of law, to accept the enforced normalisation of certain behaviours ... or remain forever silenced. Edited February 3, 2015 by Hamba Tuhan 9
The Nehor Posted February 3, 2015 Posted February 3, 2015 I find it strange that many LDS want religion out of the marriage business and are perfectly willing to toss it but the BSA must be protected to the death. Especially considering the "Queerness" of Scouting's founder. 1
Hamba Tuhan Posted February 3, 2015 Posted February 3, 2015 (edited) I don't live in America and so don't feel any particular affinity with the BSA (or any other branch of the Scouting movement), but I find the fanciful posthumous queerifying of historical figures to be distasteful to the extreme. We don't even have to wait for you to die to impose this nonsense on you, Nehor. We all know the real reason you're still not married ... Edited February 3, 2015 by Hamba Tuhan
The Nehor Posted February 3, 2015 Posted February 3, 2015 I don't live in America and so don't feel any particular affinity with the BSA (or any other branch of the Scouting movement), but I find the fanciful posthumous queerifying of historical figures to be distasteful to the extreme. We don't even have to wait for you to die to impose this nonsense on you, Nehor. We all know the real reason you're still not married ...That no woman (or man) is worthy of me? It is a difficult burden to bear.I usually find it distasteful but in this case I would put odds at 90% plus that they are right. He appears to have never acted on it so that should make him successful by LDS standards.
Scott Lloyd Posted February 3, 2015 Author Posted February 3, 2015 (edited) Dan's latest post prompts more questions. How extensively do the California justices intend to enforce this thing? A ward Young Men president has an ancillary role in Scouting. So does a bishopric member, for that matter, or the ward Primary president. Will California judges who are Mormons be allowed to enroll their sons in Scouting? Parental involvement is, after all, integral to the Scouting experience. Edited February 3, 2015 by Scott Lloyd
Scott Lloyd Posted February 3, 2015 Author Posted February 3, 2015 I find it strange that many LDS want religion out of the marriage business and are perfectly willing to toss it but the BSA must be protected to the death. Especially considering the "Queerness" of Scouting's founder.Silly Nehor. This is not about protecting Scouting. It's about preserving individual liberties, freedom of association, that sort of thing. I'm amazed it should be necessary to point this out. 2
Scott Lloyd Posted February 3, 2015 Author Posted February 3, 2015 I don't live in America and so don't feel any particular affinity with the BSA (or any other branch of the Scouting movement), but I find the fanciful posthumous queerifying of historical figures to be distasteful to the extreme. We don't even have to wait for you to die to impose this nonsense on you, Nehor. We all know the real reason you're still not married ...I don't have any great affinity for it myself. But I <am> greatly disturbed when I see a threat to the religious liberty of members of the Church of Jesus Christ. And that applies whether those members live in the United States or elsewhere.
Hamba Tuhan Posted February 3, 2015 Posted February 3, 2015 I don't have any great affinity for it myself. But I <am> greatly disturbed when I see a threat to the religious liberty of members of the Church of Jesus Christ. And that applies whether those members live in the United States or elsewhere. 100% agreed. 1
Hamba Tuhan Posted February 3, 2015 Posted February 3, 2015 I usually find it distasteful but in this case I would put odds at 90% plus that they are right. And I'm 98.7% certain that whatever you may have read is demonstrably ahistorical nonsense that anachronistically projects backward categories and concepts that make sense only in the oversexualised assumptions of the late 20th-century West. 1
Storm Rider Posted February 3, 2015 Posted February 3, 2015 After I raised this topic the other day, my thread got shut down due to Godwin's Law type comparisons, race-baiting and general jerkiness. Maybe this time the usual suspects will behave themselves. At the risk of scandalizing poor tonie yet again, I will link to Dan Peterson's allegedly "for-profit blog," where he has a post linking to a letter written to the LA Times. In introducing the link, Dan, with characteristic wit, raises some points and implications worth considering: This decision actually came from what are supposed to be educated individuals - those specifically trained in the law. When does an educated person turn into an idiot? When do they go from being educated and producing thoughtful judicial actions to being absurd in their thought process? 2
Bob Crockett Posted February 3, 2015 Posted February 3, 2015 After I raised this topic the other day, my thread got shut down due to Godwin's Law type comparisons, race-baiting and general jerkiness. Maybe this time the usual suspects will behave themselves. At the risk of scandalizing poor tonie yet again, I will link to Dan Peterson's allegedly "for-profit blog," where he has a post linking to a letter written to the LA Times. In introducing the link, Dan, with characteristic wit, raises some points and implications worth considering: Well, the Church usually avoids calling as a bishop or stake president a person who holds a particular public servant occupation in California, so it won't be a big deal to avoid this. But I point out that a bishop is a BSA unit committee chair or whatever they call it, so a judge might have to turn down a calling as a bishop. I have a judge friend, non-member, who is a big Scouter. He's been the repeated target of judicial disqualification efforts. 2
The Nehor Posted February 3, 2015 Posted February 3, 2015 Silly Nehor. This is not about protecting Scouting. It's about preserving individual liberties, freedom of association, that sort of thing. I'm amazed it should be necessary to point this out.Then why did we only get concerned about it when an organization tied up with the LDS church got involved? Why did we not stand up and defend free association when KKK members were banned from serving in the courts and in our police force?
The Nehor Posted February 3, 2015 Posted February 3, 2015 And I'm 98.7% certain that whatever you may have read is demonstrably ahistorical nonsense that anachronistically projects backward categories and concepts that make sense only in the oversexualised assumptions of the late 20th-century West.I suppose that saves you from actually investing some time actually reading up on the man but I am going to go with my conclusion since I actually did read up on him and that would seem to give me an advantage.
Danzo Posted February 3, 2015 Posted February 3, 2015 I suppose that saves you from actually investing some time actually reading up on the man but I am going to go with my conclusion since I actually did read up on him and that would seem to give me an advantage. Please share your research. Since Homosexuality can only be self diagnosed, you need to give quotes from baden powell
The Nehor Posted February 3, 2015 Posted February 3, 2015 (edited) Please share your research.No, I did it years ago and have no interest in spending a lot of time compiling it for you. Like most CFRs on this board this is an attempt to discredit what I said because I am unwilling to write up a big research paper that no one would read if I did.Since Homosexuality can only be self diagnosed, you need to give quotes from baden powellAnd then you move the goal posts so I think I will return the CFR with interest:CFR that homosexuality can only be self-diagnosed from at least three credible medical sources please. Edited February 3, 2015 by The Nehor 1
Danzo Posted February 3, 2015 Posted February 3, 2015 No, I did it years ago and have no interest in spending a lot of time compiling it for you. Like most CFRs on this board this is an attempt to discredit what I said because I am unwilling to write up a big research paper that no one would read if I did. You withdraw your accusation, then.
The Nehor Posted February 3, 2015 Posted February 3, 2015 You withdraw your accusation, then.Nope, I am not going to withdraw the statement until you answer my CFR to show that your criteria for your CFR is warranted. Two can play at this inane game.It is also not an accusation. I am not convinced he did anything wrong. Having SSA and not acting on it is not a sin and there is no evidence he did act on it.
Recommended Posts