Reply to Indiana's Religious Freedom law

Forum Index » Political Discussion

Reply to "Indiana's Religious Freedom law"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous] [blah blah blah about sex that is "unnatural in most monotheistic or abrahamic faiths"] That criteria is well established in these faiths. Respect for such beliefs is codified in US law and confirmed via the Boy Scouts of America decision of the SCOTUS. [/quote]
Let's all be clear about what the Boy Scouts ruling from the Supreme Court really says.  It's not really a decision about religion, but rather about the First Amendment.  It essentially says the First Amendment's guarantee of "freedom of association" (the right to group together with like-minded people, and not join groups with people you disagree with) is important enough to trump state laws prohibiting groups from discriminating.  The Boy Scouts claimed (somewhat weakly IMHO) that exclusion of homosexual members was a core tenet of the organization, so the Supreme Court supported the Boy Scouts' freedom of association rights to refuse to admit homosexual members.  It's the same freedom of association that allows the Boy Scouts to exclude girls.  I've never researched this, but I suppose this same logic would allow the KKK to exclude black people from membership, or maybe to permit the "He-Man Woman Haters Club" to exclude women (even though they let Darla join!).  So when you point to the Boy Scouts ruling to claim the Supreme Court confirmed the right to discriminate against homosexual citizens, or to claim the Supreme Court upheld the importance of religious beliefs, you're misinformed.

An interesting side note - In 2014, the Boy Scouts voted to change their policies and admit openly homosexual youth.  It sounds like there is also a lot of support for permitting gay scout leaders, but that proposal did not get a majority vote yet.  Nevertheless, I suspect the Supreme Court might rule differently if faced with another gay scout leader case today, because the Boy Scouts can no longer claim excluding gays is a core belief of the organization.  [/quote]

YES, You are correct. BSA was permitted to reject Dale, a homosexual scout leader, based on the US' Freedom of Association laws. However, this law permits associations to discriminate homosexuals if it is in the furtherance of the group's expression of social, religious, or cultural values. Here, religion was clearly the foundation for WHY they did not want homosexuals in their association, based on their mission statement and scout law:

"To do my duty to [b]God [/b]and my country "and to obey the Scout Law;

"To keep myself physically strong, "mentally awake, and [b]morally straight.[/b][b]

BSA was asked by the Supreme Court what it meant by "morally straight" and they clearly said for their group it meant NOT being homosexual. BSA was founded on Christian principles. Because it's an association, the decision to reject Dale was upheld on freedom of association principles. If they  were a religious entity, it would have been upheld on freedom of religion.

As for why the BSA is admitting homosexual youth now - it's because of pressure from WITHIN, not from the Supreme Court or from US laws, which is relatively meaningless to my point. My point is that the US law upholds the right of religious entities and associations to reject homosexuals. That just the way it is.[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics