Comments about ‘Calif. bill aimed at Scouts' gay ban passes hurdle’

Return to article »

Published: Wednesday, April 10 2013 12:00 a.m. MDT

  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Lebanon, TN

@Red --

"Actually what I have said is true, if you use the dictionary definition of Discrimination, which is "Recognize a distinction; differentiate"

We are talking about the definition of "discrimination" as it specifically applies to our LEGAL SYSTEM, not a generalized definition that applies to our physical sensory capabilities.

I tried to keep it simple in my previous post, but here's a more legalistic definition for you --

"In Constitutional Law, the grant by statute of particular privileges to a class arbitrarily designated from a sizable number of persons, where no reasonable distinction exists between the favored and disfavored classes. Federal laws, supplemented by court decisions, prohibit discrimination in such areas as employment, housing, voting rights, education, and access to public facilities. They also proscribe discrimination on the basis of race, age, sex, nationality, disability, or religion. In addition, state and local laws can prohibit discrimination in these areas and in others not covered by federal laws."

Take special note of the part that says "where no reasonable distinction exits between the favored and disfavored classes".

I hope this helps!

Durham, NC

VST - that is fine that you don't agree with me... we each have our own point of reference. My grandfather, George Albert Smith, was one of those who was critical in bringing the organization to the states after he was president of the European mission, and was introduced to it while in england. In his mind, it absolutely was a religious organization, and hence why it was engrained into the churches fabric.

But there are many who take a secular view of the organization. And that is fine. The organization is many things to many people. I am not going to argue with you over the opinion. My point of reference is obviously very much different than yours.

Deep Space 9, Ut

To "Contrarius" prove that what you say is what "KJB1" meant. Since when are legal descriptions fixed? Discrimination can be changed at anytime by the lawyers.

Bountiful, UT

@BlueDevil said, "VST - that is fine that you don't agree with me... we each have our own point of reference."

Dear Brother Blue Devil. Please carefully re-read the very first sentence that I said to you in my previous post.

I very clearly stated that "I *DO NOT* disagree with ANYTHING you said."

Lebanon, TN

@Red --

"prove that what you say is what "KJB1" meant."

Why do you expect me to even *care* what KJB meant? I am not KJB. I'm sure that KJB can speak for him or herself.

My aim here is to educate you about the legal meaning of "discrimination" -- regardless of anything that KJB may or may not have meant.

"Since when are legal descriptions fixed? Discrimination can be changed at anytime by the lawyers."

Nothing in this world is "fixed" enough to fully satisfy you, I'm sure. Nonetheless, the legal principle of discrimination has been around for at least as long as the US Constitution.

For more details on the fundamental Constitutional protections against discrimination, check the equal protections clause in the US Constitution, ratified in 1789 (Bill of Rights ratified in 1791).

Further Federal protections can be found in: the Civil Rights Act; the Voting Rights Act; the Fair Housing Act; the Fair Housing Amendments Act; the Age Discrimination in Employment Act; the Rehabilitation Act; the Americans with Disabilities Act; the Equal Pay Act; the Fair Labor Standards Act; the Pregnancy Discrimination Act; the Education Amendments; and the Equal Credit Opportunity Act.

I hope this helps!

Murrieta, CA

The bill doesn't say they can't exist discriminating against gays. It just says they are not going to be exempt from CA tax. Hardly a matter for the US Supreme court.

A Scientist
Provo, UT

Getting it Right wrote:

"Are you saying that churches in the state where SSM is already legal be required to marry them or lose their tax exempt status?"



Salt Lake City, UT

Unbelievable, but considering California it is believable. The gay lobby is more threatening that the NRA.

Durham, NC

VST - my bad....

G L W8

To those of you insisting that scouting is not a religious organization: your are partly right and partly wrong. Scouting is designed to be supportive of it's chartered organization: in common aims and goals, which scouting lists as character development, citizenship training, mental and physical fitness. Where a religion is the chartering organization, their scouting program is indeed a religious "organization." Where the chartering organization is civil or communal in nature, the religious element is less of a structured "religious organization" and takes on more of a diverse, ethical, and philosophical nature. But it is still there.

Mike Richards
South Jordan, Utah

The Scout Oath:

"On my honor I will do my best
To do my duty to God and my country
and to obey the Scout Law;
To help other people at all times;
To keep myself physically strong,
mentally awake, and morally straight."

How does a scout do his duty to God by participating in sex outside of marriage?

How does a scout remain morally straight by having sex outside of marriage?

How does a father instill in his son correct principles when he threatens to sue the Boy Scouts of America because they don't believe in sex outside of marriage?

Has society fallen to the point that our boys must embrace same-sex sex or risk being sued?

Bountiful, UT

@G L W8,

I do not disagree with what you said. However, from a purely legal standpoint, the BSA is incorporated and congressionally chartered as a youth organization – not a religious organization. This is an important distinction.

As I previously stated, we, who are supporters of the BSA, need to avoid falling into the same trap the ACLU has sometimes successfully used to their advantage by erroneously claiming the BSA is a religious organization, which it is not. To continue to claim that the BSA is a religious organization only reinforces the ACLU argument before the Courts that it is a religious organization because we continue to call it a religious organization.

The BSA lost a Court decision back in 2003 and a subsequent appeal regarding a government-owned property lease availability in San Diego, simply because the ACLU "won the day" by insisting the BSA is a religious organization.

A Scientist
Provo, UT

VST wrote:

"...from a purely legal standpoint, the BSA is incorporated and congressionally chartered as a youth organization – not a religious organization. This is an important distinction."

Yes, it is. And as a "congressionally chartered youth organization", it is a violation of the 1st Amendment for such an organization to impose a religious belief as a condition of membership or "good standing", as the BSA does in its "Scout Oath" and elsewhere.

Unless the BSA wants to relinquish its "congressional charter"...?

Medical Lake, Washington

In the first place, California is broke --- they need all the money they can get.
When people or groups become so desperate for money, they'll do anything they to get it, regardless of the wisdom, legality or even common sense of the means.

Secondly, isn't this what we have come to expect from California law makers?

Taylorsville, UT


Sorry but your side already lost that argument when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 2000 that the Boy Scouts of America, and all private organizations, have the constitutionally protected right under the First Amendment of freedom of association to set membership standards [Reference: U.S. Supreme Court Decision, Boy Scouts of America et al. v. Dale, 530 U.S 640 (2000)].

Translation: According to this decision, the BSA has the full legal right under the Constitution to set its membership standards including adherence to the Scout Oath wherein it states "…To do my duty to God and my country…" and to be "…morally straight…"

Ogden, UT

@RetiredEngineer 10:28 p.m. April 12, 2013

You're missing the point. California legislators are not trying to say that the BSA cannot be a bigoted and discriminatory as it wants to be. They are just saying that the BSA won't get the State's financial support if it choses to do so.

A Scientist
Provo, UT


No problem.

Then they forego public support through tax exemption.


Orem, UT

That is the problem. BSA is non-profit. It doesn't make money for stockholders or owners. Anti-Mormon groups have tax-exemption status. I don't see any of you screaming to tax those people. The tax payers are not paying for the BSA, so they shouldn't have to accept the entire tax base. If the BSA were funded by the government, then you have a point. This is California's way of controlling people. Ultimately this will set presidence to punish Churches they don't like.

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments