Gray Posted July 31, 2015 Posted July 31, 2015 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. Yes, it could. But I still don't see it as a credible threat.
Scott Lloyd Posted July 31, 2015 Author Posted July 31, 2015 (edited) Yes, it could. But I still don't see it as a credible threat. So why do you see it as not credible? Because you doubt that the juggernaut will even try, or you doubt that the defendants would bear a lot of expense? Unless there is abject surrender, all lawsuits must be defended against, and it takes money to do so. Edited July 31, 2015 by Scott Lloyd 1
ERayR Posted July 31, 2015 Posted July 31, 2015 Yes, it could. But I still don't see it as a credible threat. Then you are not looking at the stated goals and past history. 2
Gray Posted July 31, 2015 Posted July 31, 2015 Then you are not looking at the stated goals and past history. No, I think I'm just being realistic.
ERayR Posted July 31, 2015 Posted July 31, 2015 No, I think I'm just being realistic. Then there will be one surprised person when it happens.
Gray Posted July 31, 2015 Posted July 31, 2015 So why do you see it as not credible? Because you doubt that the juggernaut will even try, or you doubt that the defendants would bear a lot of expense? Unless there is abject surrender, all lawsuits must be defended against, and it takes money to do so. I don't see activists trying to sue individual troops. That would be shooting themselves in the foot, PR-wise. Not to mention getting standing as having someone as a potential person to be called for a ward scoutmaster calling. Not to mention, in LDS troops you can't volunteer for the job anyway. In order to even plausibly be in a position to file a suit, they'd need to have James Bond-level of infiltration in LDS wards, and probably stay there for a number of years and somehow be in a position to know that they were passed over for the calling due to sexual orientation.
Gray Posted July 31, 2015 Posted July 31, 2015 Then there will be one surprised person when it happens. Gay rights activists are not the scary boogeymen or all-powerful juggernaut some of you are making them out to be.
ERayR Posted July 31, 2015 Posted July 31, 2015 Gay rights activists are not the scary boogeymen or all-powerful juggernaut some of you are making them out to be. I have not said anything about them being a boogeyman. However I do acknowledge that they have a very powerful lobby. 2
Calm Posted July 31, 2015 Posted July 31, 2015 (edited) Yes, it could. But I still don't see it as a credible threat.Do you mean a threat in terms of legality, a threat in terms of economics (costs getting any frivolous lawsuits dismissed will be nonexistent or neglible) or both?If your opinion includes any financial costs, would you please explain and if possible support your claim that troops won't have to worry about money going to lawyers instead of activities for the boys and young men.What about nonLDS religious groups that take volunteers? Edited July 31, 2015 by calmoriah 3
Scott Lloyd Posted July 31, 2015 Author Posted July 31, 2015 (edited) I don't see activists trying to sue individual troops. That would be shooting themselves in the foot, PR-wise. Not to mention getting standing as having someone as a potential person to be called for a ward scoutmaster calling. Not to mention, in LDS troops you can't volunteer for the job anyway. In order to even plausibly be in a position to file a suit, they'd need to have James Bond-level of infiltration in LDS wards, and probably stay there for a number of years and somehow be in a position to know that they were passed over for the calling due to sexual orientation. Suppose some guy is having sex with other men during the time he is serving as a ward Scoutmaster, gets found out and is subsequently released from his calling pursuant to standard Church disciplinary procedure. He then runs to the HRC, plays the role of the poor, oppressed gay and gets them to fund a lawsuit against the Church for allegedly violating his civil rights, citing the newly changed BSA policy. Does this seem more plausible to you? Edited July 31, 2015 by Scott Lloyd 3
rockpond Posted July 31, 2015 Posted July 31, 2015 Suppose some guy is having sex with other men during the time he is serving as a ward Scoutmaster, gets found out and is subsequently released from his calling pursuant to standard Church disciplinary procedure. He then runs to the HCC, plays the role of the poor, oppressed gay and gets them to fund a lawsuit against the Church for allegedly violating his civil rights, citing the newly changed BSA policy. Does this seem more plausible to you? Couldn't the church claim that he was released because he violated the moral standards rather than for being gay? Or do you think that Nate Oman's theory (which I agree is a good theory) would apply to that aspect of BSA discrimination as well?
ERayR Posted July 31, 2015 Posted July 31, 2015 Couldn't the church claim that he was released because he violated the moral standards rather than for being gay? Or do you think that Nate Oman's theory (which I agree is a good theory) would apply to that aspect of BSA discrimination as well? I think it would apply to anything connected to BSA. I think the argument would be that scoutmaster is not an LDS religious calling but is a BSA position.
Scott Lloyd Posted July 31, 2015 Author Posted July 31, 2015 (edited) Couldn't the church claim that he was released because he violated the moral standards rather than for being gay? Or do you think that Nate Oman's theory (which I agree is a good theory) would apply to that aspect of BSA discrimination as well?But, you see, the Church couldn't claim that if it had a policy in place that precluded the appointment of sexually active gay men to the position of Scoutmaster. Edited July 31, 2015 by Scott Lloyd
rockpond Posted July 31, 2015 Posted July 31, 2015 But, you see, the Church couldn't claim that if it had a policy in place that precluded the appointment of sexually active gay men to the position of Scoutmaster. Why not? It does have the policy.
rockpond Posted July 31, 2015 Posted July 31, 2015 I think it would apply to anything connected to BSA. I think the argument would be that scoutmaster is not an LDS religious calling but is a BSA position. But the SCOTUS decision held that the BSA could discriminate based on moral/religious principles.
Scott Lloyd Posted July 31, 2015 Author Posted July 31, 2015 Why not? It does have the policy.Because it would be affiliated with the BSA. We're talking about the likelihood that Nate Oman's scenario might come true.
Scott Lloyd Posted July 31, 2015 Author Posted July 31, 2015 (edited) But the SCOTUS decision held that the BSA could discriminate based on moral/religious principles.I thought you said you had read the link in the OP. The SCOTUS decision would no longer apply. Gates in effect nullified that when he got the executive board to change the policy. Which is why it makes sense for the Church to cut ties now. Edited to add: Russell McGregor put it very succinctly in the second post on this thread: 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 Scott Lloyd 2
ERayR Posted July 31, 2015 Posted July 31, 2015 But the SCOTUS decision held that the BSA could discriminate based on moral/religious principles. But by this recent change the BSA has given up that position. It is no longer a valid claim for the BSA because they now accept homosexual leaders. 3
carbon dioxide Posted July 31, 2015 Posted July 31, 2015 (edited) My question is how often would an openly gay man even attempt to get involved in an LDS sponsored scout troop. Are not the leadership positions usually filled by a calling in the Church? Would a bishop call an openly gay man to be a scoutmaster? Seems to me that much of this debate is more on theory of "what if" an openly gay man wanted to be a part of the LDS troop and ignores the small chance that it would ever happen. If an openly gay man wants to be involved in scouting, there are non-LDS sponsored troops he would join and he would not have to deal with the baggage of being gay in an LDS troop. Edited July 31, 2015 by carbon dioxide
ERayR Posted August 1, 2015 Posted August 1, 2015 My question is how often would an openly gay man even attempt to get involved in an LDS sponsored scout troop. Are not the leadership positions usually filled by a calling in the Church? Would a bishop call an openly gay man to be a scoutmaster? Seems to me that much of this debate is more on theory of "what if" an openly gay man wanted to be a part of the LDS troop and ignores the small chance that it would ever happen. If an openly gay man wants to be involved in scouting, there are non-LDS sponsored troops he would join and he would not have to deal with the baggage of being gay in an LDS troop. Simple, we accept non-member scouts. If a father, brother, uncle, etc of that scout volunteered and was turned down the scenerio in the OP just became reality. Not so far fetched. 1
cinepro Posted August 1, 2015 Posted August 1, 2015 20 years ago we would of laughed at the idea of homosexual leaders and said it was nonsense. Welcome to our cruel immoral society! No, it was 37 years ago, and we did laugh.
cinepro Posted August 1, 2015 Posted August 1, 2015 (edited) 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. Well, just as some people were wrong about the ultimate timeline and resolution of the gay marriage debate in the last 10 years, I'm willing to concede that I could be wrong about this. I still think the BSA could survive as a Church program, but it's not my call. If it looks too dangerous to the leaders in SLC, then it's their call. One interesting comment to that article bring in other possibilities: From my sources the decision to axe BSA had been made a long time ago, but they were waiting for Monson to pass. Church leadership has felt increasingly disrespected by BSA and I heard when they requested a vote delay it wasn’t even acknowledged, not even to say no. My source indicates this has nothing to do with LGBT other than making a strategic decision to get out now; how they were treated by BSA this week was the straw that broke the camel’s back – and since the decision to leave had already been made….they decided might as well now. I even told the decision has very little to do w LGBT issues. But that’s just from my source, whom I trust. Take it as you will. Kristine A. I'm not sure what she means by President Monson having "passed", unless he is less involved in such decisions than we know. But I would find it easier to believe that this issue is more of the straw that broke the camels back, and there are additional issues at the National level impacting this decision. Edited August 1, 2015 by cinepro
ERayR Posted August 1, 2015 Posted August 1, 2015 Well, just as some people were wrong about the ultimate timeline and resolution of the gay marriage debate in the last 10 years, I'm willing to concede that I could be wrong about this. I still think the BSA could survive as a Church program, but it's not my call. If it looks too dangerous to the leaders in SLC, then it's their call. One interesting comment to that article bring in other possibilities: I'm not sure what she means by President Monson having "passed", unless he is less involved in such decisions than we know. But I would find it easier to believe that this issue is more of the straw that broke the camels back, and there are additional issues at the National level impacting this decision. Sounds reasonable. There has been more and more push back because of the increasing financial burden BSA has been requesting from Church sponsored units. In our ward nearly three thousand in FOS assessments and ever rising scout camp costs. 2
rockpond Posted August 1, 2015 Posted August 1, 2015 I thought you said you had read the link in the OP. The SCOTUS decision would no longer apply. Gates in effect nullified that when he got the executive board to change the policy. Which is why it makes sense for the Church to cut ties now.Edited to add:Russell McGregor put it very succinctly in the second post on this thread:Yes, I think Nate Oman had a good theory... Just trying to clarify how far it extends. My understanding is that he's saying chartering organizations can no longer lean on the Dale decision to discriminate against gays because the BSA now allows gays effectively nullifying that part of the SCOTUS ruling. But, does that also extend to being able to choose leaders according to religious and moral principles? If so, why? I wouldn't think that part of the SCOTUS ruling had been nullified.
ERayR Posted August 1, 2015 Posted August 1, 2015 Yes, I think Nate Oman had a good theory... Just trying to clarify how far it extends.My understanding is that he's saying chartering organizations can no longer lean on the Dale decision to discriminate against gays because the BSA now allows gays effectively nullifying that part of the SCOTUS ruling.But, does that also extend to being able to choose leaders according to religious and moral principles? If so, why? I wouldn't think that part of the SCOTUS ruling had been nullified. Because the scout troop is a chartered entity of BSA. It is not an entity of the religious organization. The religious organization is using the BSA program. The SCOTUS ruling was for the BSA not the religious organizations who chartered the program for their use and BSA no longer holds the position they did when the ruling was made.
Recommended Posts