Redux: Bsa And California Supreme Court Edict

[Danzo]

So being afraid of something makes you attracted to it. Maybe the gay agenda is right and homophobes are all closeted gays?

 

 

Being afraid of attractive women means that you are not afraid of unattractive women.

 

That you can appreciate the difference might be an indication that you have an attraction to women.

 

Being afraid of attractive women is a common trait for men like me who were not blessed with the cool confidence and popularity that you probably have.

[Danzo]

Living with another man while an adult and not for any financial reasons is very different then an LDS mission or having college roommates. Not conclusive but indicative.

 

 

I think it might have been more common in the past.

 

I think it is frowned upon today precisely because, in our hypersexualized age people might get the wrong impression

 

As an example, if you read the works of Arthur Conan Doyle. is never presented as odd that Sherlock and James Watson room together.

 

Diickens also comes to mind (although his period was a bit earlier)

Edited February 3, 2015 by Danzo

[KevinG]

 

****ens also comes to mind (although his period was a bit earlier)

 

D-i-c-k-ens is not allowed!

 

Don't even get me started on the gay 90s.

[Scott Lloyd]

This discussion took a queer turn.

A derailment, to be more precise. An unacceptable one.

 

As thread originator, I ask that everyone drop the discussion and innuendo about Baden-Powell and other peripheral chit chat. If it continues, I'll lock the thread for a while in hope that it subsides.

Edited February 3, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

D-i-c-k-ens is not allowed!

 

Don't even get me started on the gay 90s.

If you do, please start your own thread for it.

[Scott Lloyd]

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?

At the outset of this thread, I asked that people avoid Godwin's Law comparisons, the sort of thing that got the last one shut down.

 

But to your point, maybe it had something to do with the KKK's involvement in illegal domestic terrorist behavior. Though some may not like it, the BSA policy has never been ruled illegal, much less criminal.

Edited February 3, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

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.  

Was this before or after the state supreme court issued this recent edict? If it was before, what was the basis of these efforts?

Edited February 3, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Kenngo1969]

D-i-c-k-ens is not allowed! ...

 

Richard-ens?

 

P.S.: "Ken, quit being such a Richard!"

Edited February 3, 2015 by Kenngo1969

[KevinG]

If you do, please start your own thread for it.

 

Apologies...  Its hard to tell if I'm throwing water or gas on a fire.

[Danzo]

At the outset of this thread, I asked that people avoid Godwin's Law comparisons, the sort of thing that got the last one shut down.

 

But to your point, maybe it had something to do with the KKK's involvement in illegal domestic terrorist behavior.

 

I wonder that as well. I wonder if someone here knows the history of such ethics rules.

 

Just sheer speculation, but I would bet the rules were pass after the it no longer became an issue.  I find that often rules are passed to address past problems, not to address current problems.

 

I am wondering if there any recent examples of a Judged being accused of being partial because he or she was a member of the boy scouts.

[Scott Lloyd]

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.  

What are your thoughts on the other possibilities I raised: judges in California who are Mormon having to turn down callings as Young Men president or Primary president or not being able to enroll their own children in Scouting?

[Scott Lloyd]

I wonder that as well. I wonder if someone here knows the history of such ethics rules.

 

Just sheer speculation, but I would bet the rules were pass after the it no longer became an issue.  I find that often rules are passed to address past problems, not to address current problems.

 

I am wondering if there any recent examples of a Judged being accused of being partial because he or she was a member of the boy scouts.

Well, Bob Crockett in this thread said:

 

I have a judge friend, non-member, who is a big Scouter.  He's been the repeated target of judicial disqualification efforts. 

 

Bob didn't elaborate on the details, though.

[toon]

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.

 

 

It's not clear what the consequences will be.  I doubt judges are going to be removed from their office.  But it cfould be that membership in a non-profit organization that practices invidious discrimination would be grounds for disqualification from hearing certain cases.

 

WIth regard to the boy scouts as used in the CHurch's program, it's not clear that the prohibition applies.

 

The comments to the changed section of the Code of Judicial Ethics state +that whether membership is permitted will be based not on the make up of the organization, but on other factors, including whether the organization exists to advance or support religious beliefs and practices. Presumably, membership in such a non-profit organization might be allowed. And I think this might apply to Boy Scouts in the way that it has been incorporated into the Church's YM's program, especially since the Church uses the boy scouts as an arm of its religious youth program.

 

It should also be noted that judges' First Amendment rights are restricted in other ways.  They are not allowed to publicly speak or take positions on matters that are likely to come before them.  And there are compelling reasons why that should be the cases.

 

47 states prohibit judges from having membership in organizations that discriminate against enumerated protected classes.  22 of those states include sexual orientation as a protected class.  California was the only one that had an exception for nonprofit organization.  People complaining that the sky is falling might have a little more credibility had they raised the issue before, or had they raised in the context of states that did not include sexuial orientation as a protected status.

[Scott Lloyd]

It's not clear what the consequences will be.  I doubt judges are going to be removed from their office.  But it cfould be that membership in a non-profit organization that practices invidious discrimination would be grounds for disqualification from hearing certain cases.

 

WIth regard to the boy scouts as used in the CHurch's program, it's not clear that the prohibition applies.

 

The comments to the changed section of the Code of Judicial Ethics state +that whether membership is permitted will be based not on the make up of the organization, but on other factors, including whether the organization exists to advance or support religious beliefs and practices. Presumably, membership in such a non-profit organization might be allowed. And I think this might apply to Boy Scouts in the way that it has been incorporated into the Church's YM's program, especially since the Church uses the boy scouts as an arm of its religious youth program.

 

It should also be noted that judges' First Amendment rights are restricted in other ways.  They are not allowed to publicly speak or take positions on matters that are likely to come before them.  And there are compelling reasons why that should be the cases.

 

47 states prohibit judges from having membership in organizations that discriminate against enumerated protected classes.  22 of those states include sexual orientation as a protected class.  California was the only one that had an exception for nonprofit organization.  People complaining that the sky is falling might have a little more credibility had they raised the issue before, or had they raised in the context of states that did not include sexuial orientation as a protected status.

If they're like me, they didn't know about it before now.

 

It should also be noted that judges' First Amendment rights are restricted in other ways.  They are not allowed to publicly speak or take positions on matters that are likely to come before them.  And there are compelling reasons why that should be the cases.

 

I would have no objection to a judge being required to recuse himself from a case involving Scouting if he himself were a Scouter. Nor, for that matter, do I have a problem with judges prudently and on their own initiative avoiding associations and activities that are likely to present a future conflict of interest in their profession. I do that myself as a journalist.

 

But it strikes me that we are talking here about something much more onerous than that: any and all judges being forbidden from any involvement or association with Scouting whatsoever, a burden that, in the case of the Latter-day Saints at least, is likely to result in de facto religious oppression.

Edited February 4, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Bob Crockett]

What are your thoughts on the other possibilities I raised: judges in California who are Mormon having to turn down callings as Young Men president or Primary president or not being able to enroll their own children in Scouting?

Knowing a little about what is happening here, I doubt very much that the Church would force such a calling.   In California, police officers take an oath to report crimes when they see them (which obligation ordinary citizens don't have), which puts the oath in conflict with and trumps the rights in confession.  For that reason the Church doesn't call police officers as bishops and would not force a prospective bishop to choose between his job and his faith.  (I realize there are evident exceptions in California.  I know of one police officer called as a bishop 25 years ago.  I don't know when that policy came into place.)  

 

Thus, it is not likely the church would force a judge to take a position, but I do think a judge if he or she wants to be a judge should not have sons in scouting. 

[Scott Lloyd]

Knowing a little about what is happening here, I doubt very much that the Church would force such a calling.   In California, police officers take an oath to report crimes when they see them (which obligation ordinary citizens don't have), which puts the oath in conflict with and trumps the rights in confession.  For that reason the Church doesn't call police officers as bishops and would not force a prospective bishop to choose between his job and his faith.  (I realize there are evident exceptions in California.  I know of one police officer called as a bishop 25 years ago.  I don't know when that policy came into place.)  

 

Thus, it is not likely the church would force a judge to take a position, ...

Whether or not the Church is likely to do that is a separate issue from whether or not the Church should be forced into that position by act of an instrument of government (i.e. the California Supreme Court).

 

... but I do think a judge if he or she wants to be a judge should not have sons in scouting.

 

Would you have said that before the state supreme court made this recent edict?

[Bob Crockett]

Whether or not the Church is likely to do that is a separate issue from whether or not the Church should be forced into that position by act of an instrument of government (i.e. the California Supreme Court).

 

Would you have said that before the state supreme court made this recent edict?

The edict isn't forcing the church.  It is forcing a judge.   I think the whole thing is abominable and an affront to the right to association, free speech and free exercise.  I think that it would not be upheld if challenged.  I'm shocked the Supreme Court did this, really.  If I were a judge I'd defy it.  What's next?  Knights of Columbus?  

Edited February 3, 2015 by Bob Crockett

[Scott Lloyd]

The edict isn't forcing the church.  It is forcing a judge.   I think the whole thing is abominable and an affront to the right to association, free speech and free exercise.  I think that it would not be upheld if challenged.  I'm shocked the Supreme Court did this, really.  If I were a judge I'd defy it.  What's next?  Knights of Columbus?  

I will amend my statement to say that the edict is forcing Church members (and other people of faith) into a difficult and unwelcome position.

 

I agree with you about it being an affront and hope that it is challenged and struck down.

[The Nehor]

But to your point, maybe it had something to do with the KKK's involvement in illegal domestic terrorist behavior. Though some may not like it, the BSA policy has never been ruled illegal, much less criminal.

With the number of "accidental fires" the BSA has caused I wonder which organization inflicted more damage on the physical environment?

[The Nehor]

Apologies...  Its hard to tell if I'm throwing water or gas on a fire.

I just throw both and let the fire exercise its agency.

[toon]

The edict isn't forcing the church.  It is forcing a judge.   I think the whole thing is abominable and an affront to the right to association, free speech and free exercise.  I think that it would not be upheld if challenged.  I'm shocked the Supreme Court did this, really.  If I were a judge I'd defy it.  What's next?  Knights of Columbus?  

 

Taking free speech rights as an example, I believe it's well established that while public employees do not surrender their speech rights upon employment, the public employer may still have an interest in restricting those rights depending upon the circumstances.  Thus, while a rank-and-file police officer might have a claim if terminated for criticizing departmental policy, a police chief might not.  Isn't there a similar argument in favor of balancing a judge's individual rights of speech, association, and free exercise against the needs to maintain the integrity of the judiciary?

[toon]

I would have no objection to a judge being required to recuse himself from a case involving Scouting if he himself were a Scouter. Nor, for that matter, do I have a problem with judges prudently avoiding associations and activities that are likely to present a future conflict of interest in their profession. I do that myself as a journalist.

 

But it strikes me that we are talking here about something much more onerous than that: any and all judges being forbidden from any involvement or association with Scouting whatsoever, a burden that, in the case of the Latter-day Saints at least, is likely to result in de facto religious oppression.

 

I think that recusal from cases involving scouting would have been likely if not required before this change.  But what about recusals from cases where a party, a witness, or a representative was gay or lesbian?  Or in a case where gay rights or discrimination was an issue?  Can we trust that a judge who has no qualms abour his or her membership in an organization that expressly discriminates against gays will rule impartially in those situations?

 

Again, it's not clear what consequences would follow if a judge ignored the Code and joined such an organizations.  But spect that removal from office is unlikely.  Also, as I mentioned, my read of the commends accompanying the revision seem to imply that membership in an organization like the BSA, if directly related to a Church calling, might be allowed.  After all, nowhere is BSA mentioned by name (that's the reporting, mostly likely fueled by BSA opposition), and the comments make it clear that the prohibition is not absolute and has exceptions, especially when a religious component is involved.

[Bob Crockett]

I think that recusal from cases involving scouting would have been likely if not required before this change.  But what about recusals from cases where a party, a witness, or a representative was gay or lesbian?  Or in a case where gay rights or discrimination was an issue?  Can we trust that a judge who has no qualms abour his or her membership in an organization that expressly discriminates against gays will rule impartially in those situations?

 

 

The defect in your rhetorical questions is plain.   Evangelicals, Mormons, Catholics and Muslims belong to religions that teach that homosexual conduct is a grievous sin.  I'd say that that would constitute about 3/4s of the world's population.  Thus, under your analysis, most people should be distrusted to render a decision about gays.  

 

Judge Walker decided the case against Prop 8.  He was gay.   Should he have abstained?   He was nominated by Reagan and gay rights groups opposed him because he represented the US Olympic Committee against the Gay Olympics. 

 

Judges are not wholly detached from the community in which they live and the religions they follow.  But, in the case of the California Supreme Court, the directive is an affront to freedom of association.

[toon]

To clarify, membership in nonprofit organizations that engage in invidious discrimination has been prohibited by the California Code of Judicial Ethics for some time (since about 1990).  The exception was for "nonprofit youth organizations."  (Emphasis added.)  That exception has been removed.

 

Here's an exerpt from the comments to that Canon of the Code:

 

Canon 2C refers to the current practices of the organization. Whether an organization practices invidious discrimination is often a complex question to which judges should be sensitive. The answer cannot be determined from a mere examination of an organization’s current membership rolls but rather depends on how the organization selects members and other relevant factors, such as whether the organization is dedicated to the preservation of religious, ethnic, or cultural values of legitimate common interest to its members, or whether it is in fact and effect an intimate, purely private organization whose membership limitations could not be constitutionally prohibited.

 

I think a solid argument could be made that participation in Boy Scout program as part of a Church calling is not prohibited.

[toon]

The defect in your rhetorical questions is plain.   Evangelicals, Mormons, Catholics and Muslims belong to religions that teach that homosexual conduct is a grievous sin.  I'd say that that would constitute about 3/4s of the world's population.  Thus, under your analysis, most people should be distrusted to render a decision about gays.  

 

 

Except that we're not talking about membership in a religious organization that discriminates, which remains an express exception to the canon prohibiting membership in organizations that practice invidious discrimination.  Rather, we're talking about membership in a nonprofit youth organization that does not also qualify as a religious organization.