L.d.s. Church To Stay With Scouting

[Analytics]

You are not looking at this the way it will happen.  The lawsuit will not be against the bishop.  It will be against the BSA and the LDS church as a chartered group of the BSA.  The BSA has agreed to allow homo-sexual scoutmasters.  As a chartered appendage of the BS the Church is bound to that agreement irregardless of what the BSA has now assured the Church.

 

But what is the legal basis of the case? 

 

Fleshing this out, we'll assume the BSA will give "Scouts for Equality" everything they want and come out with a policy that they don't discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, and that troops aren't permitted to discriminate based on sexual orientation either.

 

So, if the gay scout master gets busted as being "sexually active" and gets released, he could complain to the BSA about it.  The BSA might inquire to the church about what happened, and the church would explain he wasn't released because of his sexual orientation, but rather because of his sexual practices.  The BSA would then back up the church.

 

At that point, on what basis could he sue?  Just because the BSA "agrees" to allow people with certain attributes to hold certain volunteer positions doesn't mean that there is a legal basis to sue if an individual isn't granted or allowed to keep a voluntary position he wants.  There is no legal right to be a scout master.  There is no contract that obligates the troop, the BSA, or the Church to allow the guy to remain a scout master.  There are no actual financial damages associated with not being allowed to volunteer in a specific capacity.

 

If it was a paid position there might be a basis to sue based on fair employment practices.  But there are no commensurate rights associated with volunteering.

[Scott Lloyd]

This is a very gracious approach, Scott. My compliments. I hope that I would have reacted as positively if the church decided to cut ties.

 

I wonder if you've reconsidered your previous statement that, despite Wednesday's announcement, you still expect the church to eventually cut ties with BSA. If we judge things from the angle of the church helping BSA, shouldn't we hope that such a day is very far off, if at all?

 

FWIW, I'm with you (and Daniel) about the HRC overreaching.

You will have to give me a precise quote before I can tell you whether I will reconsider it.

[Scott Lloyd]

But what is the legal basis of the case? 

 

Fleshing this out, we'll assume the BSA will give "Scouts for Equality" everything they want and come out with a policy that they don't discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, and that troops aren't permitted to discriminate based on sexual orientation either.

 

So, if the gay scout master gets busted as being "sexually active" and gets released, he could complain to the BSA about it.  The BSA might inquire to the church about what happened, and the church would explain he wasn't released because of his sexual orientation, but rather because of his sexual practices.  The BSA would then back up the church.

 

At that point, on what basis could he sue?  Just because the BSA "agrees" to allow people with certain attributes to hold certain volunteer positions doesn't mean that there is a legal basis to sue if an individual isn't granted or allowed to keep a voluntary position he wants.  There is no legal right to be a scout master.  There is no contract that obligates the troop, the BSA, or the Church to allow the guy to remain a scout master.  There are no actual financial damages associated with not being allowed to volunteer in a specific capacity.

 

If it was a paid position there might be a basis to sue based on fair employment practices.  But there are no commensurate rights associated with volunteering.

They could cite examples of other Scout leaders who were sexually active (heterosexual) and allowed to retain their positions. They might claim discrimination on that basis.

Are you acquainted with Nate Oman's theory?

[ERayR]

But what is the legal basis of the case? 

 

Fleshing this out, we'll assume the BSA will give "Scouts for Equality" everything they want and come out with a policy that they don't discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, and that troops aren't permitted to discriminate based on sexual orientation either.

 

So, if the gay scout master gets busted as being "sexually active" and gets released, he could complain to the BSA about it.  The BSA might inquire to the church about what happened, and the church would explain he wasn't released because of his sexual orientation, but rather because of his sexual practices.  The BSA would then back up the church.

 

At that point, on what basis could he sue?  Just because the BSA "agrees" to allow people with certain attributes to hold certain volunteer positions doesn't mean that there is a legal basis to sue if an individual isn't granted or allowed to keep a voluntary position he wants.  There is no legal right to be a scout master.  There is no contract that obligates the troop, the BSA, or the Church to allow the guy to remain a scout master.  There are no actual financial damages associated with not being allowed to volunteer in a specific capacity.

 

If it was a paid position there might be a basis to sue based on fair employment practices.  But there are no commensurate rights associated with volunteering.

 

The BSA can be said to have ceded their authority to grant exceptions to any chartered organization when they  acceded the to demands that homo-sexual men be called as scoutmasters.  Further that as a BSA chartered organization the Church is subject to the same terms as the BSA.

 

I not only think it possible but think it will be the basis of a lawsuit in the next five years.  Whether it succeeds or not depends on the political climate at the time.

[BCSpace]

It shocks me to admit that I'm happy the church isn't dropping scouting...at least for now...for this reason. Perhaps the church's past press release was the trial balloon to get members very comfortable with the eventual drop, which is deserved for many reasons. In any case, I'm glad the church isn't taking an anti-gay stand with their BSA decision. Well done, church.

 

Get prepared and drop the BSA next year because we can do better

 

The Church has NEVER taken an anti-gay stand on anything ever.  I also disagree in that I don't believe the Church can do better than Scouting.

[Analytics]

They could cite examples of other Scout leaders who were sexually active (heterosexual) and allowed to retain their positions. They might claim discrimination on that basis.

Are you acquainted with Nate Oman's theory?

 

They can claim whatever they want--that doesn't mean that the law supports their claim.  Is there a law that says religious sponsoring organizations may not discriminate based upon one's level of sexual activity when choosing who to select for a specific volunteer position (in this case, that of scout master)?

 

I've read Oman's blog on the matter.  I just can't imagine a judge saying that anybody has the "right" to be a scout master, other than the individual selected by the troop's sponsoring organization.

[Russell C McGregor]

 

They can claim whatever they want--that doesn't mean that the law supports their claim.  Is there a law that says religious sponsoring organizations may not discriminate based upon one's level of sexual activity when choosing who to select for a specific volunteer position (in this case, that of scout master)?

 

I've read Oman's blog on the matter.  I just can't imagine a judge saying that anybody has the "right" to be a scout master, other than the individual selected by the troop's sponsoring organization.

 

Oh, so you can't imagine an American court ever affirming that someone has a right to expect their community to validate their identity?

 

Good for you.

[Analytics]

Oh, so you can't imagine an American court ever affirming that someone has a right to expect their community to validate their identity?

 

Good for you.

 

I hope you're right.  If somebody successfully sues to be a scout master, I'll sue to be a Mormon bishop. 

[rockpond]

The Church has NEVER taken an anti-gay stand on anything ever. 

 

You realize that many (if not most) outside of the church would consider campaigning against gay marriage and legal protections for homosexuals to be "anti-gay stands", right?

[Daniel2]

 

They can claim whatever they want--that doesn't mean that the law supports their claim.  Is there a law that says religious sponsoring organizations may not discriminate based upon one's level of sexual activity when choosing who to select for a specific volunteer position (in this case, that of scout master)?

 

I've read Oman's blog on the matter.  I just can't imagine a judge saying that anybody has the "right" to be a scout master, other than the individual selected by the troop's sponsoring organization.

 

Well said.

 

There isn't any law that says religious organizations may not discriminate based on one's sexual orientation (let alone level of sexual activity).

 

And I know of no legal precedent that would support anyone claiming to have a right to be a scoutmaster, so I don't find Oman's blog entry as legally compelling.  It just strikes me as more fear-mongering.

[Daniel2]

You realize that many (if not most) outside of the church would consider campaigning against gay marriage and legal protections for homosexuals to be "anti-gay stands", right?

 

Exactly, Rockpond...

 

Apparently, BC wants to define "anti-gay" in such a way that allows him to feel as though his church hasn't taken any anti-gay stands.  Ironically, I'd bet that he'd define "anti-Mormon" to include any groups that sought to take legal action against the church--or even those that have never taken any legal action, but may be verbally critical of the church--thereby showing a double standard in how he applies the term "anti" to either "Mormon" vs. "gay."

 

His efforts to do so don't change that a large (I'd wager) majority of people would perceive many the church's past anti-gay-marriage efforts to be "anti-gay."

[Russell C McGregor]

You realize that many (if not most) outside of the church would consider campaigning against gay marriage and legal protections for homosexuals to be "anti-gay stands", right?

 

You realise that most of the people for whom you are an "ally" -- against the Church -- would regard teaching young men (and YM leaders) techniques to ensure their safety against pederasts to be "anti-gay," right?

[Analytics]

You realise that most of the people for whom you are an "ally" -- against the Church -- would regard teaching young men (and YM leaders) techniques to ensure their safety against pederasts to be "anti-gay," right?

 

Could you elaborate on these "techniques" to ensure safety against pederasts that would appear "anti-gay" to mainstream society?  I'm curious how these techniques would apply to the following event. 

 

In the North-American winter of 1980-1981, I was in a Boy Scout troop sponsored by the local ward, and we went on an overnight winter camping trip in the Wasatch mountains.  The ground was covered with a few feet of snow, and the overnight temperature was well bellow 0 Fahrenheit. 

 

Not too long after we crawled into our tents and went to bed, a twelve-year old scout realized he didn't have a warm-enough sleeping bag, and went to the scout master to let him know he thought he was going to freeze to death. 

 

The Scout Master was a big bear of a man and had lots of options.  In addition to what he brought to be prepared for a severe winter camping trip, he had a car, and we were 15 minutes away from civilization and 30 minutes away from our homes.  The Scout Master told the kid he would warm him up, so the two of them crawled into a sleeping bag together and spent the night cuddling.

 

The kid seemed to be uncomfortable with what happened and didn't tell anyone.  Even though I was on the camping trip, I didn't even hear about the incident until a couple of weeks later in testimony meeting.  The scout master's wife bore her testimony and told about how wonderful it was that her husband was able to spoon with this 12-year old boy.  In a sleeping bag.  All night long.  Ancient Greeks couldn't have extolled the beauty of man-boy love any better than she did. 

 

On the one hand, I'm glad the kid didn't get hypothermia or frostbite, and I appreciate the efficacy of body warmth to stay warm.  But there were other options.  Just hearing the story made me violated; it was very vivid and hit too close to home for me.  I was on that camping trip too, and it could have been me that was cuddling with the Mormon scout master.  In a sleeping bag.  All night long.  As detailed to the entire ward. By the scout master's wife. 

[Ares]

Off topic...