How The Juggernaut Could Sue The Church -- And Win -- On Bsa Issue

[Scott Lloyd]

Blogger Nate Oman applies his legal background in presenting a plausible scenario of how the gay advocacy groups, now that BSA has caved in, could sue and win to make chartering organizations such as the Church appoint sexually active homosexuals as Scoutmasters, and why it would be prudent for the Church to step away now.

Edited July 31, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Russell C McGregor]

Blogger Nate Oman applies his legal background in presenting a plausible scenario of how the gay advocacy groups, now that BSA has caved in, could sue and win to make chartering organizations such as the Church appoint sexually active homosexuals as Scoutmasters, and why it would be prudent for the Church to step away now.

 

The bottom line appears to be that, since the BSA has abandoned the position which the SCOTUS had previously upheld, the decision upholding it is now moot, so chartering organisations can no longer rely upon it.

 

Which is another way of saying that the BSA has sawn off the limb the chartering organisations were sitting on.

 

Or, to choose another, more common metaphor: the BSA has hung the chartering organisations out to dry.

Edited July 31, 2015 by Russell C McGregor

[The Nehor]

O merit badges, we hardly knew thee.

[Daniel2]

Yeah... you're probably right, Scott.

While there was a time that I supported and fought for your right to discriminate, it's clear that you'd prefer othwrwise to bolster your victim status.

Best for you to leave the BSA, thereby further isolatinging yourself from social norms and widening the divide between society and your "peculiarity" as a people.

Despite my initial incilination to protect your religious freedoms and interests, don't let the door hit you on your way out of the BSA.

Good riddence.

Edited July 31, 2015 by Daniel2

[Scott Lloyd]

Yeah... you're probably right, Scott.

While there was a time that I supported and fought for your right to discriminate, it's clear that you'd prefer othwrwise to bolster your victim status.

Best for you to leave the BSA, thereby further isolatinging yourself from social norms and widening the divide between society and your "peculiarity" as a people.

Despite my initial incilination to protect your religious freedoms and interests, don't let the door hit you on your way out of the BSA.

Good riddence.

What a warm sentiment.

 

I might feel bad if it were clear to me just how you had contemplated protecting my religious freedoms and interests.

Edited July 31, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Freedom]

the scouting program is too expensive. We are putting millions of dollars to pay salaries of people who do nothing to benefit our youth. We have plenty of volunteer who do a fantastic job for free. Uniforms and badges are a drain on our budgets. And don't get me started on the Canadian scouting program. We have 5  sections. Beavers for ages 5-7, cubs for ages 8-10, scouts for ages 11-13, ventures for 14-16, and rovers for 17-20. The scout section has become a monstrosity of complex requirements and it is impossible to find a leader who can navigate through it.

 

Just let us go out camping and develop our talents. Leave all the environmental and government research to the school system. It is completely redundant to have boys prepare projects on conservation that takes hours of planning when they are doing the very same thing at the local high school already. Give the leader 6 areas of focus to make it simple, and get the outside going hiking, building model airplanes, touring factories, repairing cars, painting houses and a host of other practical skills that they love. Take all the 20 requirements that must satisfied to earn the cooking badge and let the boys make a meal and be done with it.

 

I will not take the calling of a scout leader because of its complexity. I loved ventures because we focused on career planning, service projects, and amazing camping trips that cost very little. But with the scouting program we were bogged down with paperwork, having to get all the forms signed and into the scout house before we could get on the road. Inevitably someone would have lost their form J, or form 383 or what ever they are called and we were suddenly stuck.

[Mormonmaniac]

Yeah, the BSA and the church is over. The BSA will soon adopt the rainbow flag and change the oath to celebrate gays as the new order of what boys should be. Sad day, the gays will take over boy scouts as their new uniform to flaunt. Disgusting stuff.

[PeterPear]

Blogger Nate Oman applies his legal background in presenting a plausible scenario of how the gay advocacy groups, now that BSA has caved in, could sue and win to make chartering organizations such as the Church appoint sexually active homosexuals as Scoutmasters, and why it would be prudent for the Church to step away now.

Ridiculous scenario. The Church would be "forced."

And who would be the sexually-active homosexuals the Church or Ward would be forced to appoint as openly gay scoutmasters?

According to this nonsense every Scout Troop, LDS-sponsored or not, would be required to have openly gay leaders. Ridiculous.

If the LDS Church pulled out of Scouting it would be on the grounds of having to be perceived as supporting an organization that supports immoral behavior, whether that support is financial or through association. Many LDS Scout Troops and even individual LDS Scouts, in the past have attended National Jamborees, etc. which involve the young LDS boys and men associating with others of differing faiths and beliefs. To potentially expose them to leaders openly promoting homosexuality, would be hypocritical by the Church. In addition BSA literature may change including oaths and pledges which may be unacceptable to the LDS Church.

But to claim Courts would require LDS Wards sponsoring Scout Troops to appoint openly gay leaders - as if they had to import an outsider into each Ward/Troop - is nonsense.

Edited July 31, 2015 by PeterPear

[Mormonmaniac]

Ridiculous scenario. The Church would be "forced."

And who would be the sexually-active homosexuals the Church or Ward would be forced to appoint as openly gay scoutmasters?

According to this nonsense every Scout Troop, LDS-sponsored or not, would be required to have openly gay leaders. Ridiculous.

If the LDS Church pulled out of Scouting it would be on the grounds of having to be perceived as supporting an organization that supports immoral behavior, whether that support is financial or through association. Many LDS Scout Troops in the past have attended National Jamborees, etc. which involve the young LDS boys and men associating with others of differing faiths and beleifs. In addition BSA literature may change including oaths and pledges which would be unacceptable to the LDS Church.

But to claim Courts would require LDS Wards sponsoring Scout Troops to appoint openly gay leaders - as if they had to import an outsider into each Troop - is nonsense.

20 years ago we would of laughed at the idea of homosexual leaders and said it was nonsense. Welcome to our cruel immoral society!

[PeterPear]

20 years ago we would of laughed at the idea of homosexual leaders and said it was nonsense. Welcome to our cruel immoral society!

LDS Troops are sponsored by LDS Wards and men are called to Scout Leadership positions by the Ward Leaders.

And we're to believe Courts would rule this as unacceptable on the basis of a private group, the National BSA dropping its objections to, but not require local Scout Organizations, to appoint openly-gay leaders? The BSA still is Constitutionally protected due to the SCOTUS ruling. An internal decision by the BSA to partially abandon that defense, doesn't make it defenseless.

[Mormonmaniac]

LDS Troops are sponsored by LDS Wards and men are called to Scout Leadership positions by the Ward Leaders.

And we're to believe Courts would rule this as unacceptable on the basis of a private group, the National BSA dropping its objections to, but not require local Scout Organizations, to appoint openly-gay leaders? The BSA still is Constitutionally protected due to the SCOTUS ruling. An internal decision by the BSA to partially abandon that defense, doesn't make it defenseless.

The gay agenda knows no bounds. Thats all I am gonna say.

[Tacenda]

the scouting program is too expensive. We are putting millions of dollars to pay salaries of people who do nothing to benefit our youth. We have plenty of volunteer who do a fantastic job for free. Uniforms and badges are a drain on our budgets. And don't gjet me started on the Canadian scouting program. We have 5 sections. Beavers for ages 5-7, cubs for ages 8-10, scouts for ages 11-13, ventures for 14-16, and rovers for 17-20. The scout section has become a monstrosity of complex requirements and it is impossible to find a leader who can navigate through it.

Just let us go out camping and develop our talents. Leave all the environmental and government research to the school system. It is completely redundant to have boys prepare projects on conservation that takes hours of planning when they are doing the very same thing at the local high school already. Give the leader 6 areas of focus to make it simple, and get the outside going hiking, building model airplanes, touring factories, repairing cars, painting houses and a host of other practical skills that they love. Take all the 20 requirements that must satisfied to earn the cooking badge and let the boys make a meal and be done with it.

I will not take the calling of a scout leader because of its complexity. I loved ventures because we focused on career planning, service projects, and amazing camping trips that cost very little. But with the scouting program we were bogged down with paperwork, having to get all the forms signed and into the scout house before we could get on the road. Inevitably someone would have lost their form J, or form 383 or what ever they are called and we were suddenly stuck.

I couldn't say this better, been trying, finally you did it for me.

I've been involved in cub scouts as a den mother a few times while my boys were younger and my husband was a scout leader for years. He became disaffected, for lack of a better word, when he'd interview the scouts to pass off the requirements and alot of the time the boys couldn't answer what they'd done to earn the badge because their mothers did it. Well, that was my husband's side of it. He got to the point where he loved all the things you mentioned that were good, but hated the rest, so pretty much the quorum side vs. BSA. It got to the point when my sons weren't in scouts any longer that my husband wouldn't give to FOS.

My sons were always good to help with service projects to help others get their Eagle, but they didn't get their own. We'd encourage a lot but they just lost steam and we probably didn't push it. We'd soured on the BSA side for various reasons.

There was a big push in my ward to earn the Eagle, even to the point of withholding a driver's license if they didn't get their Eagle. A few families did this, true story.

Some paid for their sons, me included, to take classes to help their boys with badges.  One of my sons worked on a badge and the leader lost some paperwork he' turned in after completing it. He was not a happy camper to have that go to waste, he didn't realize any of the benefits to having worked on it with no reward I guess.

But do want to say having an admitted gay man serve as a scout leader is ok in my book, it doesn't make them a pedophile.

[california boy]

The gay agenda knows no bounds. Thats all I am gonna say.

I just don't get this attitude church members have towards gays. Just because you are gay you should give up your civil rights? Just because you are gay you should not demand that others follow the laws of this country that protect your rights? Maybe you or Scott could explain why gays should give up their legal rights?

I actually agree with most posters the church should leave BSA if it wants to continue to discriminate against gays. It has become apparent that BSA has moved on and no longer wants to be known as an organization where some are not welcome. The desire of the church to continue to discriminate is not good for scouting.

By leaving the church will be able to continue to discriminate. Attitudes toward gays will remain very clear. Everyone wins.

[Scott Lloyd]

I just had a thread closed because it drifted off topic.

I have resolved to be more proactive about moderating my own threads. I will close them temporarily if need be to keep them from being closed permanently.

The posts on this thread have mostly been disappointing so far in that they haven't been relative to the topic, which is whether the Church could plausibly be coerced through litigation to appoint gay men who are sexually active as Scout leaders.

So I will close this thread for now, possibly to reopen it later in hopes the contributions will improve.

[Scott Lloyd]

Ridiculous scenario. The Church would be "forced."

And who would be the sexually-active homosexuals the Church or Ward would be forced to appoint as openly gay scoutmasters?

According to this nonsense every Scout Troop, LDS-sponsored or not, would be required to have openly gay leaders. Ridiculous.

If the LDS Church pulled out of Scouting it would be on the grounds of having to be perceived as supporting an organization that supports immoral behavior, whether that support is financial or through association. Many LDS Scout Troops and even individual LDS Scouts, in the past have attended National Jamborees, etc. which involve the young LDS boys and men associating with others of differing faiths and beliefs. To potentially expose them to leaders openly promoting homosexuality, would be hypocritical by the Church. In addition BSA literature may change including oaths and pledges which may be unacceptable to the LDS Church.

But to claim Courts would require LDS Wards sponsoring Scout Troops to appoint openly gay leaders - as if they had to import an outsider into each Ward/Troop - is nonsense.

Please read the link in the OP before posting so you can make an informed comment.

[Scott Lloyd]

I'm reopening this thread to make this post, because, though it focuses on the broader issue of attacks against religious liberrty,  I think it has bearing on whether or not gay advocacy groups really would pursue an objective of all-out annihilation of a chartering organization's autonomy in choosing not to appoint sexually active gays as Scoutmasters

 

Here is an article from the Catholic News Agency highlighting a gay opinion leader's brashness in acknowledging a war against religious liberty to promote a gay advocacy agenda, but also the urgency he is pushing to get the job done within three years.

 

“We are at a crossroads where the choices we make will mean we will fight religious exemptions for two to three years or have a protracted twenty year struggle on our hands,” Tim Sweeney told leading business executives and others attending the Out & Equal Workplace Advocates executive forum, held in San Francisco in late March 2015.

 

Those who are deriding concerns about this as a "sky is falling" mentality ought to seriously consider this article.

Edited July 31, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Saint Sinner]

Scott, what would you suggest as a balanced solution to this dilemma? I refuse to join this juggernaut based on principle alone.

[Scott Lloyd]

Scott, what would you suggest as a balanced solution to this dilemma? I refuse to join this juggernaut based on principle alone.

A start would be for lgbt groups to back off now on targeting the Boy Scouts.

 

This would have been an ideal time to savor the win but at the same time show graciousness in victory and announce a live-and-let-live attitude with regard to those chartering organizations that won't be appointing sexually active gays as Scout leaders.

 

Instead, we have groups like the HCC announcing that it is only a matter of time before they have forced such chartering organizations to comply with their demands.

 

Edited to add:

 

And we have those like california boy saying BSA has "moved on," -- when in reality, it has been hijacked -- and that if the Church doesn't like it, the Church should get out.

Edited July 31, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[ERayR]

the scouting program is too expensive. We are putting millions of dollars to pay salaries of people who do nothing to benefit our youth. We have plenty of volunteer who do a fantastic job for free. Uniforms and badges are a drain on our budgets. And don't get me started on the Canadian scouting program. We have 5  sections. Beavers for ages 5-7, cubs for ages 8-10, scouts for ages 11-13, ventures for 14-16, and rovers for 17-20. The scout section has become a monstrosity of complex requirements and it is impossible to find a leader who can navigate through it.

 

Just let us go out camping and develop our talents. Leave all the environmental and government research to the school system. It is completely redundant to have boys prepare projects on conservation that takes hours of planning when they are doing the very same thing at the local high school already. Give the leader 6 areas of focus to make it simple, and get the outside going hiking, building model airplanes, touring factories, repairing cars, painting houses and a host of other practical skills that they love. Take all the 20 requirements that must satisfied to earn the cooking badge and let the boys make a meal and be done with it.

 

I will not take the calling of a scout leader because of its complexity. I loved ventures because we focused on career planning, service projects, and amazing camping trips that cost very little. But with the scouting program we were bogged down with paperwork, having to get all the forms signed and into the scout house before we could get on the road. Inevitably someone would have lost their form J, or form 383 or what ever they are called and we were suddenly stuck.

 

Deleted - off topic.

Edited July 31, 2015 by ERayR

[Saint Sinner]

A start would be for lgbt groups to back off now on targeting the Boy Scouts.

 

This would have been an ideal time to savor the win but at the same time show graciousness in victory and announce a live-and-let-live attitude with regard to those chartering organizations that won't be appointing sexually active gays as Scout leaders.

 

Instead, we have groups like the HCC announcing that it is only a matter of time before they have forced such chartering organizations to comply with their demands.

I think this is wise and you are correct. My contention is the outside social pressures governing ethics that should be internally discussed by the chartering organizations. I see no backbone on either side (BSA and the activists).

[Gray]

I'll repost my comment from the article:

 

Private clubs and churches have unlimited freedom to discriminate in any way they choose. They could ban black people and Catholics if they wanted to and no one could successfully sue them. In fact, don’t they already ban women and girls? No one can challenge that and win. 

 

 

If the concern is a torrent of frivolous, doomed to fail lawsuits filed against individual troops, I don't see that as a plausible threat. 

Edited July 31, 2015 by Gray

[readstoomuch]

The chances that the Church would be required to appoint openly gay leaders to our scouting ranks seem small, but the bigger question is how far can someone exercise their religious rights in opposing what are now court mandated legal rights.  I think some here and many other places are saying that they won`t stop until they either make an organization bend to its will, it is out of business or forced to receive no federal aid/tax exemption.  There are some others that say that lgbt won`t push to make churches perform gay marriages or appoint gay leaders.   It all awaits to be seen how far both sides will go in forcing their will on the other group.  

 

For me the biggest reason to get out of scouting is cost, bureaucracy, and redundancy in our existing young mens program.  I think the Church`s bureaucracy is much more efficient than the Boy Scouts. All of it my opinion.  

[HappyJackWagon]

A start would be for lgbt groups to back off now on targeting the Boy Scouts.

 

This would have been an ideal time to savor the win but at the same time show graciousness in victory and announce a live-and-let-live attitude with regard to those chartering organizations that won't be appointing sexually active gays as Scout leaders.

 

Instead, we have groups like the HCC announcing that it is only a matter of time before they have forced such chartering organizations to comply with their demands.

 

Edited to add:

 

And we have those like california boy saying BSA has "moved on," -- when in reality, it has been hijacked -- and that if the Church doesn't like it, the Church should get out.

Do you really think every lawsuit is coordinated from a central Gay Agenda HQ?

I'm guessing Gay rights activitists have about as much control over it's members as the church would have telling all of its members not to file any lawsuits. Would we hold the church responsible for every lawsuit brought by a member? Of course not. The GR agenda isn't monolithic and can't centrally control of all GR Activists.

 

Having said that, I believe the NY attorney has already dropped the antidiscrimination suit against the BSA

[Scott Lloyd]

Do you really think every lawsuit is coordinated from a central Gay Agenda HQ?

I'm guessing Gay rights activitists have about as much control over it's members as the church would have telling all of its members not to file any lawsuits. Would we hold the church responsible for every lawsuit brought by a member? Of course not. The GR agenda isn't monolithic and can't centrally control of all GR Activists.

 

Having said that, I believe the NY attorney has already dropped the antidiscrimination suit against the BSA

From its own website, this is how the Human Rights Campaign touts itself:

 

As the largest civil rights organization working to achieve equality for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Americans, the Human Rights Campaign represents a force of more than 1.5 million members and supporters nationwide — all committed to making HRC's vision a reality.

 

 

From that same website, here is what the HRC said about the recent BSA action:

 

HRC responded to today's historic vote by the Boy Scouts of America (BSA) to end its blanket national ban on gay, lesbian and bisexual adults serving as employees and volunteers.

The new policy, which bars discrimination based on the sexual orientation of organization employees, still allows church-organized local units to consider an individual's sexual orientation when deciding who can volunteer and lead Cub Scout packs, Boy Scout troops, and Venturing crews. HRC called on the organization to adopt a policy of full LGBT inclusion for both employees and volunteers.

“Today’s vote by the Boy Scouts of America to allow gay, lesbian and bisexual adults to work and volunteer is a welcome step toward erasing a stain on this important organization,” said HRC President Chad Griffin. “But including an exemption for troops sponsored by religious organizations undermines and diminishes the historic nature of today's decision.  Discrimination should have no place in the Boy Scouts, period.”

“BSA officials should now demonstrate true leadership and begin the process of considering a full national policy of inclusion that does not allow discrimination against anyone because of who they are,” Griffin said.

 

Clearly, they don't intend to back off until they have achieved total hijacking of the BSA, including removal of local autonomy on whether or not to appoint sexually active gays as Scoutmasters.

 

A question for you: Do you know of any gay advocacy group of any substance or stature that expresses a more moderate or conciliatory or compromising stance than what the HRC does here? If so, can you document it? If not, why should I take any comfort in your assurance that "the GR agenda isn't monolithic and can't centrally control of all GR Activists"?

Edited July 31, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

I'll repost my comment from the article:

 

Private clubs and churches have unlimited freedom to discriminate in any way they choose. They could ban black people and Catholics if they wanted to and no one could successfully sue them. In fact, don’t they already ban women and girls? No one can challenge that and win. 

 

 

If the concern is a torrent of frivolous, doomed to fail lawsuits filed against individual troops, I don't see that as a plausible threat. 

As someone aptly said on the now-closed thread, an organization can squander its resources defending lawsuits, however devoid of merit they are, or it could spend its resources on programs for youth.