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

[rockpond]

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.

The BSA no longer holds the position on gays. But the BSA still holds the position on choosing leaders per their moral principles.

[williamsmith]

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.

 

Your "rights" begin where another's end.

 

The Supreme Court has now ruled on two issues that blatantly infring on the rights of others (and maybe more prior, like taxes etc.)

 

- Abortion.... which infringes on the right of the most innocent and vulnerable to live (which is actually part of the Government's chartered duty, to protect it's citizens, the innocent, etc.)

 

- Gay Marriage.... Which infringes on the rights of Heterosexuals to keep and define the word Marriage how it has always been defined since the dawn of man, as between man and woman. (and yes Polygamy is still man and woman and is historical based marriage still, gay marriage isn't either)

 

- If homosexuals had wanted the "same rights", then they should have created their own entirely new word that defines their entirely new type of union.

 

Again, it is both immoral and unlawful to grant rights at the expense of the rights of others.

Liberals and gays have forever been falsely portraying this issue as "bigotry" of conservatives and the religious when it has always been bigotry by the liberals and gays first and foremost.

 

If the religious and conservatives were trying to stop gays from having equal "union" rights, then you/they would be correct it would be a form or discrimination in a pluralistic society.

But, that is not what people were fighting for.  They were fighting to protect the definition of Marriage.

[ERayR]

The BSA no longer holds the position on gays. But the BSA still holds the position on choosing leaders per their moral principles.

 

Yes true.  Now consider if a religious organization, LDS or, refused to allow a homosexual person to serve in their troops because they are homosexual they no longer have that BSA umbrella.  The homosexual goes to court and says they are moral people (just because they are homosexual doesn't mean they are not moral) and want to serve in that troop in an adult leader position.  They make the case, quite easily, that the scout troop is not a part of that religion but is a chartered appendage of BSA.

[cinepro]

Yes true.  Now consider if a religious organization, LDS or, refused to allow a homosexual person to serve in their troops because they are homosexual they no longer have that BSA umbrella.  The homosexual goes to court and says they are moral people (just because they are homosexual doesn't mean they are not moral) and want to serve in that troop in an adult leader position.  They make the case, quite easily, that the scout troop is not a part of that religion but is a chartered appendage of BSA.

 

I've said before how great it would be to have such willing volunteers for any BSA troop, LDS or not.  Call them as Assistant Scoutmasters, have them buy a uniform, get trained, and help plan weekly and monthly meetings.  Have them burn a week of vacation time at Scout camp.  If they can do it, great.  If not, they'll leave.  Being a Scout leader is a lot of time, effort and money just to make a point.

 

The thing that's keeping most men from being Scoutmasters isn't that they're gay.  It's that they don't want to do it.  I suspect most gay people don't want to be Scoutmasters either.  For the few that really do, and the fewer that have some association with an LDS Scout troop and want to be a leader in one, I say let them.  

 

Ultimately, the "Juggernaut" probably doesn't care much about actually having gay leaders; they just care that the rule is there saying they can't do it because they're gay.  It's like how I would be bothered if a local golf club had a "No Mormons" policy even though I don't golf.

 

But again, I could be wrong.  I just don't think I am.

[rockpond]

Yes true. Now consider if a religious organization, LDS or, refused to allow a homosexual person to serve in their troops because they are homosexual they no longer have that BSA umbrella. The homosexual goes to court and says they are moral people (just because they are homosexual doesn't mean they are not moral) and want to serve in that troop in an adult leader position. They make the case, quite easily, that the scout troop is not a part of that religion but is a chartered appendage of BSA.

Got it. And that fits Oman's theory which I agree is valid. But the example I was responding to was where a church unit has a gay leader in place. The gay leader then starts having sex with other men and is, therefore, released based on his violation of the chartering organizations moral principles. He wasn't released for being gay. I'm not sure how Oman's theory would apply in that case.

[ERayR]

I've said before how great it would be to have such willing volunteers for any BSA troop, LDS or not.  Call them as Assistant Scoutmasters, have them buy a uniform, get trained, and help plan weekly and monthly meetings.  Have them burn a week of vacation time at Scout camp.  If they can do it, great.  If not, they'll leave.  Being a Scout leader is a lot of time, effort and money just to make a point.

 

The thing that's keeping most men from being Scoutmasters isn't that they're gay.  It's that they don't want to do it.  I suspect most gay people don't want to be Scoutmasters either.  For the few that really do, and the fewer that have some association with an LDS Scout troop and want to be a leader in one, I say let them.  

 

Ultimately, the "Juggernaut" probably doesn't care much about actually having gay leaders; they just care that the rule is there saying they can't do it because they're gay.  It's like how I would be bothered if a local golf club had a "No Mormons" policy even though I don't golf.

 

But again, I could be wrong.  I just don't think I am.

 

Yes and for that reason any homosexual who would push that hard to get in that position leaves me with some suspicions  It may be best to sever ties before a serious problem arises.

[ERayR]

Got it. And that fits Oman's theory which I agree is valid. But the example I was responding to was where a church unit has a gay leader in place. The gay leader then starts having sex with other men and is, therefore, released based on his violation of the chartering organizations moral principles. He wasn't released for being gay. I'm not sure how Oman's theory would apply in that case.

 

It doesn't matter, what matters is the claims that would be made.  In the current climate Church organizations would automatically be in a difficult position.

[rockpond]

It doesn't matter, what matters is the claims that would be made. In the current climate Church organizations would automatically be in a difficult position.

Okay... I thought the discussion in this thread was HOW they could actually WIN.

[Scott Lloyd]

I've said before how great it would be to have such willing volunteers for any BSA troop, LDS or not. Call them as Assistant Scoutmasters, have them buy a uniform, get trained, and help plan weekly and monthly meetings. Have them burn a week of vacation time at Scout camp. If they can do it, great. If not, they'll leave. Being a Scout leader is a lot of time, effort and money just to make a point.

The thing that's keeping most men from being Scoutmasters isn't that they're gay. It's that they don't want to do it. I suspect most gay people don't want to be Scoutmasters either. For the few that really do, and the fewer that have some association with an LDS Scout troop and want to be a leader in one, I say let them.

Ultimately, the "Juggernaut" probably doesn't care much about actually having gay leaders; they just care that the rule is there saying they can't do it because they're gay. It's like how I would be bothered if a local golf club had a "No Mormons" policy even though I don't golf.

But again, I could be wrong. I just don't think I am.

I don't believe they're all that interested in Scouting either. But they are interested in pushing their agenda. One test case -- one man interested in pushing the point through the courts -- might be all that is needed.

Edited August 2, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

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.

I take it to mean they're waiting for him to die before they jettison Scouting because he has such residual affection for it.

I don't doubt there are other issues, but allowing sexually active gays as leaders would be a compelling one.

Edited August 1, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

Okay... I thought the discussion in this thread was HOW they could actually WIN.

If they place the Church in a difficult position, doesn't that make it likely they win?

And if the plaintiff contends that Church moral standards prohibit gay sex under any circumstances, married or not, and that's why he was dismissed, he has his discrimination claim. And in today's environment, he wins.

Edited August 1, 2015 by Scott Lloyd

[rockpond]

If they place the Church in a difficult position, doesn't that make it likely they win?

And if the plaintiff contends that Church moral standards prohibit gay sex under any circumstances, married or not, and that's why he was dismissed, he has his discrimination claim. And in today's environment, he wins.

If he was married (to another man) and was only having sexual relations with his husband, I could see that argument (since we permit sex only within marriage). But that wasn't the hypothetical case we were discussing.

Without the man in the example being in a gay marriage, you're just back to speculating that the courts will throw out all precedent and constitutional protections.

[cinepro]

I take it to mean they're waiting for him to die before they jettison Scouting because he has such residual affection for it.

I don't doubt there are other issues, but allowing sexually active gays as leaders would be a compelling one.

 

You mean gays that are engaging in homosexual acts.  If they are gay but married to a woman and sexually active with her, you wouldn't have a problem with it, right?

[Bernard Gui]

Will Scout camps and other facilities provide separate quarters, bathing rooms, and toilets

for gay or transgender leaders and members? If so, will the Church be required to do the same?

[Scott Lloyd]

If he was married (to another man) and was only having sexual relations with his husband, I could see that argument (since we permit sex only within marriage). But that wasn't the hypothetical case we were discussing.

Without the man in the example being in a gay marriage, you're just back to speculating that the courts will throw out all precedent and constitutional protections.

Precedent is already moot, because BSA has relaxed its policy. By being affiliated with BSA, the Church could not claim protection.

[TheSkepticChristian]

 the Church could not claim protection.

 

Don't you believe in the words of the Prophet Joseph Smith? "no unhallowed hand can stop the work from progressing; persecutions may rage, mobs may combine, armies may assemble, calumny may defame, but the truth of God will go forth boldly, nobly, and independent, till it has penetrated every continent, visited every clime, swept every country, and sounded in every ear, till the purposes of God shall be accomplished” - Joseph Smith

 

So stop worrying, no one is going to harm the church, why not be worried about world hunger instead? 

[rockpond]

Precedent is already moot, because BSA has relaxed its policy. By being affiliated with BSA, the Church could not claim protection.

The decision in the Dale case held that "A private organization is allowed, under certain criteria, to exclude a person from membership through their First Amendment right to freedom of association in spite of state antidiscrimination laws."

It MAY be, as Oman theorizes, that the BSA has given up their right to exclude based on sexual orientation. But I see no reason to conclude that they have given up their right to exclude based on moral principles and/or religious beliefs.

[mnn727]

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. 

 

Very very true, My wife's company does the travel for the local BS Council, they travel first class and stay in 4 and 5 star hotels when going to national meetings, etc. Their salaries are outrageous. 

[Bobbieaware]

Don't you believe in the words of the Prophet Joseph Smith? "no unhallowed hand can stop the work from progressing; persecutions may rage, mobs may combine, armies may assemble, calumny may defame, but the truth of God will go forth boldly, nobly, and independent, till it has penetrated every continent, visited every clime, swept every country, and sounded in every ear, till the purposes of God shall be accomplished” - Joseph Smith

 

So stop worrying, no one is going to harm the church, why not be worried about world hunger instead?

I respond to the above naive Pollyannaish post with the following sobering words:

“Nor are the days of our greatest sorrows and our deepest sufferings all behind us. They too lie ahead. We shall yet face greater perils, we shall yet be tested with more severe trials, and we shall yet weep more tears of sorrow than we have ever known before...

“We see evil forces everywhere uniting to destroy the family, to ridicule morality and decency, to glorify all that is lewd and base. We see wars and plagues and pestilence. Nations rise and fall. Blood and carnage and death are everywhere. Gadianton robbers fill the judgment seats in many nations. An evil power seeks to overthrow the freedom of all nations and countries. Satan reigns in the hearts of men; it is the great day of his power.”

“Truly the world is and will be in commotion, but the Zion of God will be unmoved. The wicked and ungodly shall be swept from the Church, and the little stone will continue to grow until it fills the whole earth.”

“The way ahead is dark and dreary and dreadful. There will yet be martyrs; the doors in Carthage shall again enclose the innocent. We have not been promised that the trials and evils of the world will entirely pass us by.” (Bruce R. McConkie, April 1980 General Conference)

[HappyJackWagon]

I respond to the above naive Pollyannaish post with the following sobering words:

“Nor are the days of our greatest sorrows and our deepest sufferings all behind us. They too lie ahead. We shall yet face greater perils, we shall yet be tested with more severe trials, and we shall yet weep more tears of sorrow than we have ever known before...

“We see evil forces everywhere uniting to destroy the family, to ridicule morality and decency, to glorify all that is lewd and base. We see wars and plagues and pestilence. Nations rise and fall. Blood and carnage and death are everywhere. Gadianton robbers fill the judgment seats in many nations. An evil power seeks to overthrow the freedom of all nations and countries. Satan reigns in the hearts of men; it is the great day of his power.”

“Truly the world is and will be in commotion, but the Zion of God will be unmoved. The wicked and ungodly shall be swept from the Church, and the little stone will continue to grow until it fills the whole earth.”

“The way ahead is dark and dreary and dreadful. There will yet be martyrs; the doors in Carthage shall again enclose the innocent. We have not been promised that the trials and evils of the world will entirely pass us by.” (Bruce R. McConkie, April 1980 General Conference)

Yep- The sky is falling.

[thesometimesaint]

A better case can be made for exiting the Boy Scouts is that about half the boys in the Church have no Boy Scouts organization available to them.

[Robert F. Smith]

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. 

You are somewhat correct, Gray, although it is possible that private, religious schools which discriminate can lose their tax exemption.  The Bob Jones Univ and Goldsboro Christian Schools case is a landmark decision against racial discriimination, which could conceivably be extended to discrimination based on sexual preference.  See http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1982/1982_81_3 .

[Robert F. Smith]

A better case can be made for exiting the Boy Scouts is that about half the boys in the Church have no Boy Scouts organization available to them.

Are you speaking only about U.S.A. Mormons, or worldwide?

[Tacenda]

TSS, I agree, and it seemed awfully lopsided when the church didn't sponsor Girl Scouts as well but had heard it was because they didn't have God in their motto or something like that.

I read today where they are pushing for that to be the case with Boy Scouts as well, where Atheists or Agnostics can join. I think the writing is on the wall.

I just never liked the BSA once I saw the business side. I'm like that with business in a church as well.

Edited August 1, 2015 by Tacenda

[Guest]

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 Church has very deep pockets, and most Judges use the bench to make law rather than interpret it...so yes we could be sued and lose big as it relates to money. If a single couple running a bakery could have to pay $184,000 and be ordered to not speak of it, just imagine what a multi-billion organization could face. It is after all what the Gay community wants...to force everyone to accept their rules and lifestyles and turn a profit in doing so. This money will enable them to sue even more until freedom of religion and conscience are no more. This way no organization on earth, including the family can teach against homosexuality, nor that any lifestyle is in violation to God's law. Until even a KJV, NIV, ASB, version of the Bible can no longer mention any practice related to homosexuality a sin. The remainder of our Standard Works will be safe as they make no mention (overtly) of homosexuality as a sin.