Skip to comments.
San Francisco Bar Association Prohibits Judges from Participating in Boy Scouts
San Francisco Chronicle ^
| July 26, 2002
| Bob Egelko
Posted on 07/26/2002 2:36:26 PM PDT by Selmo
Edited on 04/13/2004 2:40:39 AM PDT by Jim Robinson.
[history]
San Francisco's judges have become the first in the state to cut ties with the Boy Scouts because of the organization's refusal to admit gays and lesbians. A lawyer who sought the change said Thursday she hoped to take it statewide.
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
TOPICS: Culture/Society; Front Page News; News/Current Events; US: California
KEYWORDS: legal; scouts
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-79 next last
IANAL, but it seems ridiculous that the SCOTUS has ruled that the Scouts can restrict their membership as a private organization and then the SF Bar Association makes an end-run around it by prohibiting judges from participating in the BSA.
The SF Bar Association is showing its true colors as an unaccountable nongovernmental organization. As it is now they're a Good Old Boys club of gatekeepers out of reach of the voters, yet able to dictate conduct for public officials (judges).
1
posted on
07/26/2002 2:36:26 PM PDT
by
Selmo
To: Selmo
The Boy Scouts has every right to prohibit homosexual men from being scoutmasters. One look at the Catholic Church, where 95% of the all the molestations in the recent scandal have been by homosexual priests against teenage boys, and anyone with a bit of common sense could see why its a good policy. There are several other good reasons as well. Homosexuals, if so truly concerned about scouting opportunities for gays, should go out and form their homosexual scouts organization. The judges can join that one, and bring their teenage sons along with them.
To: Selmo
3
posted on
07/26/2002 2:42:23 PM PDT
by
dighton
To: Selmo
How can the Bar Association prohibit the private activities of judges, or of its members?
Catholicism, and a number of other religions, disapproves of homosexuality. Do they intend to make belonging to a specific religion a disqualifier, as well?
4
posted on
07/26/2002 2:42:28 PM PDT
by
LouD
To: Selmo
I was glad to have left the SF Bay Area just as homosexuality was becoming an acceptable life style, but I really am glad that I left before it became mandatory....
5
posted on
07/26/2002 2:42:41 PM PDT
by
tracer
To: Selmo
Does this mean that a boy growing up in S.F. who becomes a Boy Scout can never be elected to any public office?
6
posted on
07/26/2002 2:43:12 PM PDT
by
kitkat
To: Selmo
San Francisco Bar Association Prohibits Judges from Participating in Boy Scouts
This is unconstitutional.
7
posted on
07/26/2002 2:43:35 PM PDT
by
aruanan
To: Selmo
San Francisco's judges have become the first in the state to cut ties with the Boy Scouts because of the organization's refusal to admit gays and lesbians I think the Boy Scouts already banned the San Francisco's judges and commisioners from being scoutmasters...or in their case scout-abusers.
To: dighton
She looks like Lucy when she drank too much cough syrup doing 'takes' on her commercial...
9
posted on
07/26/2002 2:44:37 PM PDT
by
Swanks
To: tracer
I wonder what this policy says about the impartiality of San Francisco judges. I'm not sure I'd want to be a party to a case before them.
To: tracer
but I really am glad that I left before it became mandatory.... It's a religion now.
To: Selmo
As another poster said, this is clearly unconstitutional (that freedom of assembly thing). And to be consistent, they'd have to bar judges from belonging to any religious group that finds homosexual behavior to be sinful.
To: Selmo
They are all probably butt pirates anyway.
To: LouD
How can the Bar Association prohibit the private activities of judges, or of its members? It appears that the judges decided to impose this on themselves, following the Bar's resolution.
In response to a resolution in January from the local bar association, San Francisco Superior Court judges and commissioners adopted a policy July 11 saying they would not take part in any organization that "discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation by excluding members on the grounds that their sexual orientation renders them 'unclean,' 'immoral' or 'unfit.' "
To: Selmo
The organization had argued that its code, requiring scouts to be "morally straight" and "clean," excluded homosexuals, and the court majority said the Boy Scouts were entitled to define their own principles.The first half of this sentence is a baldfaced lie. The Boy Scouts argued no such thing before the Supreme Court.
They did argue for the right to define the terms of Scout membership.
And a good thing for the gays, too. By extension, straight Hell's Angels members can't join GLADD at their own whim and fancy.
15
posted on
07/26/2002 2:57:06 PM PDT
by
angkor
To: Selmo
Let's see now:
- No religious affiliations. They're so judgemental.
- Can't belong to the NRA. Do I need to explain why?
- MENSA, Phi Beta Kappa, etc. are out. Too classist.
- Republican party membership? Obvious agenda bias.
OOH. This will be fun...
To: Selmo
Funny, I would think they'd busy themselves with checking out NAMBLA memberships and the like, rather than the BSA.
To: Selmo
One more reason to hate lawyers.
To: Selmo
"This is a fundamental part of being a judicial officer . . . avoiding even the appearance of partiality at all times so that every litigant who appears in front of you is treated fairly and equally," said Angela Bradstreet, president of the Bar Association of San Francisco.
This is a transparent argument..
So, judges must live in a cardboard box packed with cotton, lest they ever accidentally come in contact with someone who might be before them in the court? They can't eat at local restrauants? They can't sponsor little league? They can't invest? They can't do business with the local bank or insurance agency? They can't buy a car from a local dealer? They can't interact with anyone, anywhere, ever?
B/S There is a mechanism in place for Judges to recuse themselves, and if they refuse and they are prejudiced in any way they place both themselves and their ruling in jeapordy.
This is a sham decision intended to slap the face of the BSA because they refuse to let little kids be fondled in the woods by a queer scoutmaster. It's also an implicit insult to the intelligence of the reader.
(You know, I think the gays do protest too much.. They loudly proclaim to be homosexuals but not pedophiles (!) but their actions continue to say something completely different.
19
posted on
07/26/2002 2:59:35 PM PDT
by
Jhoffa_
To: Selmo
The irony is that Boy Scouts is growing very rapidly in the San Francisco area. It's just about the only place there where teenage boys are sheltered from homosexual indoctrination.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-79 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson