Not a lawyer here, but it seems like the BSA decision to allow individual sponsoring organizations (like LDS Corporate) to discriminate based on religious dictates really hangs those entities out in the wind.

BSA National takes a position of being INCLUSIVE and progressive (score one for Robert Gates and the committee members who followed his recommendation).

LDS Corporate now has to drop Scouting, accept LGBT adults as leaders OR discriminate and open the door for lawsuits. All hard for TSCC leaders to swallow.

For you lawyers out there... From a legal standpoint do I have this right? Are the individual sponsoring entities (LDS, Inc. Catholic parish X etc.) more vulnerable to lawsuits because the national organization allows LGBT leaders and employees?

I'm not a lawyer. I have spent a great deal of time discussing "discrimination" law with lawyers. Don't take my opinion as legal fact (then again, don't take the opinions of lawyers as legal fact, only as their opinions).

As a private organization, the BSA does not have to "accomodate" gays as members or leaders under the law. They can legally "discriminate," just like the Freemasons can, just like Augusta National Golf Club can, etc.

It's not pressure from lawsuits that has led BSA to their decision, it's social pressure and financial pressure. They stand to lose donors and members and social approval if they DON'T stop discriminating, so they're going to stop discriminating. By leaving open a "religious exemption," they are trying to hang onto those troops that are sponsored by the morg and others who won't agree with them ceasing to discriminate, but it doesn't open them to lawsuits.

Private organizations can arbitrarily decide who can be a member and who can't. They aren't subject to anti-discrimination laws, they're not "public accommodation" businesses, etc. Any federal funding they might get could be at risk if they continue to discriminate, but they CAN legally discriminate. Their decision is pragmatic, social, and public-relations based. It's not from a fear of lawsuits.

BSA won that right in the Supreme Court in 2000, but it has cost them dearly. Forever they will have that odious decision in their history books.

Do you really want to be known for winning the right to shun people when you are supposed to be helping boys grow to be men?

BSA has suffered dearly for its Supreme Court "win" in 2000. They lost a lot of social capital and many civic and non-bigoted churches have abandoned them.

One of the main arguments made by TBMs today is that 27% of troops are now LDS sponsored. They are trying to say, "we own you!" BSA has to recognize how dangerous it is to have a narrow, reactionary church as your primary sponsor.

BSA may lose the LDS Church and its money, but if they waited longer, Mormons would be half their troops and really have them in a bind. They should have cut them off 15 years ago, but now it is unsustainable to keep gays out and be respected by society.

So the real threat now that national BSA has taken a stand and left it to individual sponsoring organizations is governmental sanction and social pressure.

You're saying a gay leader could sue LDS, Inc. for discrimination but it wouldn't go anywhere because the allows the sponsoring entity to discriminate.

The lawsuit would be thrown out:

1) BSA has the right to discriminate and deferred that right to its troops (BSA v. Dale, 2000)
2) Scouts have the opportunity to serve in non-LDS troops and be openly gay.
3) LDS troop leaders are church callings, so you would have to repeal the 1st Amendment to force the church to accept you as a leader.

There is no legal route to becoming a scout leader in an LDS troop other than selection by the Bishop. Social pressure, on the other hand, forced LDS Inc to drop racism.

So why the hot rhetoric by TSCC? Why not just say we maintain our position on adult leaders cannot be gay?

Doubting Thomas Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So why the hot rhetoric by TSCC? Why not just say
> we maintain our position on adult leaders cannot
> be gay?

Because if BSA continued to deny gays leadership roles, the morg would be just like the rest of the groups in BSA.

With BSA admitting gay leaders, even with their "religious exemption," the morg is now singled out as odd, different, intolerant. BSA is seen as "moving along," the morg is seen as stuck in the discriminatory past. They lost their peer support, and it makes them look bad.

I see that. Good point.

Is it possible that the LDS votes or presence could have changed the outcome?

Possible? Sure.
Likely? No.
Given the press releases BSA gave before the official meetings, it seems pretty clear that the decision had already been made. It had been discussed for quite some time beforehand.

axeldc Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The lawsuit would be thrown out:
>
> 1) BSA has the right to discriminate and deferred
> that right to its troops (BSA v. Dale, 2000)
> 2) Scouts have the opportunity to serve in non-LDS
> troops and be openly gay.
> 3) LDS troop leaders are church callings, so you
> would have to repeal the 1st Amendment to force
> the church to accept you as a leader.
>
> There is no legal route to becoming a scout leader
> in an LDS troop other than selection by the
> Bishop. Social pressure, on the other hand,
> forced LDS Inc to DROP racism.


Meh - tone down I can buy, lessen, yes indeed, but drop? I disagree.

I submit that the LDS church has gay scout leaders now..yes, closeted ones, but still. My ex was an excellent scoutmaster for years who really helped the scouts in our ward achieve their merit badges by mentoring them to really work on the badges.

http://www.deseretnews.com/user/comments/865633343/LDS-Church-relationship-with-Boy-Scouts-in-doubt-may-create-new-international-program.html#cId_28911433
Comment from reader:
sunstoned
Payson, UT

If the church wants to start their own program, then I hope they do a better job of it that the young women's program. Currently Boys in the church have a much better program than the girls. The boy's program has more money and more activities.

---
Rarely observed truth about the discrimination and favoritism of boys over girls, not just in the priesthood, but in the comparative resources their programs are given.