Quantcast
U.S. & World

Calif. bill aimed at Scouts' gay ban passes hurdle

Comments

Return To Article
  • Chris B Salt Lake City, UT
    April 10, 2013 3:44 p.m.

    This is about scout safety folks. I dont think a guy should be taking my young nieces on campouts with him.

    similarly, a man who might be attracted to little boys shouldnt take them camping.

    common sense people.

  • Liberal Ted Salt Lake City, UT
    April 10, 2013 3:49 p.m.

    Wow. Now a private non-profit organization is not allowed to have it's own rules. I guess all black colleges are going to have to start allowing other races in. All girl schools will need to allow boys to attend. Boy scouts and girls scouts will need to allow both genders to choose which organization to attend.

    The funny thing is, gays are allowed to be in scouts. They're asked to be scouts and follow the scout rules if they want to participate. However, preaching and becoming a scout to shove their own personal views down all of the scouts throats isn't part of the program.

    What we need to pass is getting rid of tax breaks for unions, movie makers and other tax breaks given to the elite in -$176.6 Billion california. Why can the state discriminate with the tax breaks for their wealthy?

    I think the scouts should just become a for profit organization. Keep the gays from openly being gay in scouts. Then be a political force and fund candidates and delve into politics. Time to play the liberal game.

  • JimmyJackJohnJones Jonestown, TX
    April 10, 2013 3:55 p.m.

    It does indeed punish them for their beliefs. When those beliefs are bigoted and illegal it only seems reasonable that there might be consequences. The boy scouts aren't a religious organization, after all, despite what Utahns might think.

  • Liberal Ted Salt Lake City, UT
    April 10, 2013 3:58 p.m.

    In case California hasn't heard. The Supreme Court upheld the Boy Scouts of America in that they do not have to admit gays into their organization. They have a constitutional right to run their organziation as they see fit.

    Then again, California is soo backwards they actually believe their $176 Billion of debt is wealth. They believe they can tax their way out of a spending problem (like a drunk can drink his way to sobriety).

    One more reason California is nuts. They keep reelecting Nancy Pelosi. Actually, believing that "we need to pass the bills to find out what's in it" mentality.

    As long as they get their welfare Californians are happy giving their wealth to movie stars and liberals. Maybe they need a few more earthquakes to wake them up.

  • Counter Intelligence Salt Lake City, UT
    April 10, 2013 4:12 p.m.

    The entire concept of tolerance is that you must respect decisions by people who have different opinions than you: If an organization protected by the right to freedom of association and speech is punished because they don’t have politically correct views – then by all means also punish the HRC, NOW, PP, MOVEON – because I find their extremism deplorable (even though they hate and discriminate for all the fashionable reasons). Controlling thought via tax code is the ultimate Orwellian anti-speech cowardice.

    If California does not have to be tolerant of diverse opinions – then why should anyone be held to a different standard? And why should I respect those who advocate tolerance – but are loathe to actually practice it?

    My experience with gay fundamentalism is that they are even more rigid than those they claim to oppose - which is why - even though I am homosexual - I cringe at the label of "gay"

  • Spider Rico Greeley, CO
    April 10, 2013 4:22 p.m.

    There is no way this bill would pass Constitutional scrutiny

  • Cats Somewhere in Time, UT
    April 10, 2013 4:34 p.m.

    Man...If I lived in California, I would be getting out as soon as possible.

    in California it is now illegal for those with same sex attraction to even receive counseling or therapy that might help them become attracted to the opposite sex. There is no evidence that such therapy causes any harm whatsoever to anyone, but it's not politically correct. So, even if someone really wants it, that option is not available to him/her because it's not politically correct.

    Now California is trying to punish private organizations if they don't have the politically correct point of view.

    Based on the current trend, I don't know how much time is left for our society, but I would get out of California as fast as I could.

  • Bob A. Bohey Marlborough, MA
    April 10, 2013 5:10 p.m.

    The intent of the bill is not to force the Boy Scouts to admit gay people. The aim of the bill is to remove non-profit tax breaks the orginization receives due to their prejudicial policies. This appears to be in perfect alignment with what the founding fathers had in mind when this great and secular nation was created. People with religious beliefs ought to stand on their roof tops to applaud this measure as it is in line with protecting the religious freedoms they so enjoy in this great democratic secular republic.

  • Belching Cow Sandy, UT
    April 10, 2013 5:14 p.m.

    I wouldn't mind my boys spending the night in the woods with gay scouts and/or leaders. What could possibly go wrong?

  • Hunt Spanish Fork, UT
    April 10, 2013 5:26 p.m.

    "If California does not have to be tolerant of diverse opinions – then why should anyone be held to a different standard? And why should I respect those who advocate tolerance – but are loathe to actually practice it?"

    Amen!

    To seek to punish a specific organization for believing something different than you is the epitome of closed mindedness.

    I grew up in California and, in my youth, loved the diverse and openminded nature the state represented. It is so sad to see the shell of a state it has become under the insanity of liberal, socialistic, and progressive leadership.

  • Bleed Crimson Sandy, Utah
    April 10, 2013 5:30 p.m.

    Looks like California is once again proving their bigotry towards Christians who embrace morality.

    Economically how is California doing? hahaha. I guess all those tax increases don't work!

  • A Scientist Provo, UT
    April 10, 2013 5:34 p.m.

    Tax exempt status SHOULD be removed from organizations that cannot serve the entire tax-paying population.

    Makes perfect sense to me.

  • DHan Syracuse, UT
    April 10, 2013 5:55 p.m.

    California needs more taxes?

  • the truth Holladay, UT
    April 10, 2013 5:58 p.m.

    @Bob A. Bohey
    @A Scientist

    I belive the point of PRIVATE organization is they are PRIVATE,

    The point of givng tax exempt status to organzations is the fact they are NON-PROFIT.

    This bill is hightly unconstitutional, and assault anyone that has a voice or conscience differnet than the government's, some loudly complaing minorty.

    The founding fathers did not have this mind when founded this nation built on freedom of the people, and that government answers to the people not vice versa.

    BTW we are not secular any more than we are non secular, but this nation is whatever The People decide it is,

    but that the constitution would be wholly inadequate for any but a religious and moral people.

    For any other you ccould never make enough laws to control and force everyone to be good or least how government defines 'good'.

  • Getting it Right Sunnyvale, CA
    April 10, 2013 6:03 p.m.

    @A Scientist

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

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    April 10, 2013 6:07 p.m.

    This doesn't even make sense from the political point they're trying to make about the Boy Scouts and discrimination since it would also remove the status from the more inclusive Girl Scouts as well.

    @Cats
    "There is no evidence that such therapy causes any harm whatsoever to anyone"

    There absolutely is. The suicide rate of people in those programs is sky high.

  • Billy Bob Salt Lake City, UT
    April 10, 2013 6:19 p.m.

    This is scary. If this passes, it could help pave the way for a bill that would remove the tax exempt status of a religious organization for the same reason, which would be yet another very bad road for America to go down. Of course, those that know the constitution know that this would be unconstitutional. But since when do liberals care about the constitution? To them it is an obstacle in their way, and they have already shown that they are not adverse to trampling all over it to get the horrible policies of theirs through. These are scary times we live in, when the very principles this nation was founded on are mocked and the moral values that made it great are scorned by many.

  • The Rock Federal Way, WA
    April 10, 2013 6:39 p.m.

    And they shall call good evil and evil good.

    Now they want to punish people for being good.

  • one vote Salt Lake City, UT
    April 10, 2013 6:44 p.m.

    The BSA can run a private for profit organization any way they want.

  • KJB1 Eugene, OR
    April 10, 2013 7:10 p.m.

    Conservatives love stories like this. It gives them another excuse to whine and play the victim.

    If you want to discriminate, don't expect tax breaks. What's so hard about that to understand?

  • G L W8 SPRINGVILLE, UT
    April 10, 2013 7:28 p.m.

    JimmyJackJohnJones: if you don't know that scouting is a religious organization, you need to check out why Lord Baden Powell founded it in the first place, and why "Duty to God" is the first point of the Scout Oath. It's not just Utahns that know this; many of the chartered organizations are religions outside the LDS Church that sponsor scout troops. Scouting from the beginning has been designed to be a support to organizations with similar ideals as the scout oath and law, which are ethical if not religious in nature.

  • Gfallsbyucoug ,
    April 10, 2013 7:45 p.m.

    Mr. Bohey's comment previously couldn't be farther from the truth on this matter. This type of law sets a precedent that the government can be preferential towards any non-profit based on its definition of morality. When this is applied to any church that discriminates towards gays in any way you've suddenly created a situation in which the the first amendment is violated. You can't treat one religion different than another based on their morality.

  • samhill Salt Lake City, UT
    April 10, 2013 8:05 p.m.

    As some others have pointed out, the liberalism is completely non-liberal when it comes to any ideals that clash with its own. In this case, the ideal of freedom of assembly and association as explicitly outlined in the 1st Amendment.

    Folks, the warfare over freedom has never and will never be over. There always have been and always will be forces attempting to abridge or abolish each and every freedom that has been fought for and, so far, maintained in our country. But, are no guarantees. If you want them, you've got to fight for them. Just like it's always been.

  • Chachi Charlottesville, VA
    April 10, 2013 8:08 p.m.

    Bad idea. If the BSA admits gays, they will do so because they feel like they have made the decision on their own. Trying to strongarm them into doing what the California legislature wants will more likely backfire. Nobody likes to be coerced.

  • Twin Lights Louisville, KY
    April 10, 2013 8:09 p.m.

    A Scientist,

    Wouldn't that mean every religious organization would be unable to qualify as tax exempt?

    Could organizations providing support services to (only) the disabled qualify?

    What about low income housing limited to elderly residents?

    Many charitable organizations would not qualify under your criteria.

  • Fred Vader Oklahoma City, OK
    April 10, 2013 8:30 p.m.

    As I have said, If you are a "gay marriage supporter" and you are not against this act of the Cali legislature, then you can no longer use the excuse that "gay marriage" won't be forced on churches. This is exactly why the churches are fighting it.

    The "gay marriage" movement is not about "equal" marriage rights, it's about forcing everyone in America to accept their lifestyle, and then to punish those who, like churches, teach that their behavior is sin. Freedom of Religion is a clearly spelled outright in the Constitution.. "Gay marriage" is not.

    This so called "tax" legislation is exactly why churches campaigned for Prop 8, and the anti-prop 8 folks called their campaigns "lies".

    Who was it that actually wasn't telling the truth, hmmmm?

  • ksampow Farr West, Utah
    April 10, 2013 8:31 p.m.

    One more attempt to limit the freedom of those who hold traditional values, while protecting the extremists. The atheists and amoralists are making it harder to follow the religious and moral principles upon which our nation was founded.

  • Phillip M Hotchkiss Malta, Mt
    April 10, 2013 9:09 p.m.

    @ Jjjj have you ever read to boy scouts oath ?If so how can you say it's not a religious group . Unless it has changed since I was a kid. Don't it say something about duty to God an country. What part of God is not religious? Taxing the boy scouts for standing u p to their beliefs. Is just the beginning. We will all need to stand up to our faith.Stand for something or sit through it all. The chooses we make dictates the lives that we live.

  • HS Fan Salt Lake City, UT
    April 10, 2013 9:08 p.m.

    BSA continues to lose thousands of members with declines year over year. THAT'S A FACT. Leave them alone, let them be, they're rotting well enough on there own.

  • UtahBlueDevil Durham, NC
    April 10, 2013 9:14 p.m.

    There is a doctrine that laws can not be written to isolate or impact a singular class of people. This same measure to pass constitutionality would need to apply to all like organizations - such as churches as well. All private organizations would not be allowed to limit or discriminate in their membership. Women could sue religions for not ordaining women priest using this a precedent.

    While I do believe things like gay marriage will ultimately be granted by the Supreme Court.... there is a lot of precedent that the supreme court holds very carefully the right of religions to operate without interference from the government. While gay marriage may become the law of the land - the courts will not force religions to perform gay marriages.

    This will likely be the same precedent here. Boy Scouts is a private religious organization. No group should be discriminated for their beliefs. Jehovah's witnesses have been granted great latitude by the courts. Like wise, scouts should be given the same latitude to follow beliefs.

  • OnlyInUtah Cottonwood Heights, UT
    April 10, 2013 9:30 p.m.

    Another of many reasons why I choose to live outside of California and why I refuse to even visit it.

  • bandersen Saint George, UT
    April 10, 2013 9:42 p.m.

    Scientist: The U.S.S.R. was dissolved years ago. I'm sorry your aspirations for such are somewhat limited here. However, look at it this way. You are allowed to express your opinion here.

  • lds4gaymarriage Salt Lake City, UT
    April 10, 2013 10:08 p.m.

    Californians should still be able to donate to their churches and have them support the BSA. Most United Way branches still support the BSA so Californians can donate to them specifying that their donation support the BSA. United Way donations will be deductable on their state taxes.

  • Henry Drummond San Jose, CA
    April 10, 2013 10:17 p.m.

    I wouldn't worry about this becoming law folks. The California Legislature is remarkably similar to the Utah Legislature in that they often waste time and money on unconstitutional message bills that have no chance of getting past the most idiotic of federal judges. I think if the politicians on both sides of this issue just back off, the BSA, parents, and the boys themselves will make decisions that will be more inclusive and make more sense than anything pandering politicians come up with.

  • Jonathan Eddy Payson, UT
    April 10, 2013 10:33 p.m.

    This legislation will pass because it is California and voters there are too ignorant to recognize bad, immoral and unconstitutional law.

    The good news is that lawlessness is reaching a crescendo and lines in the sand are being drawn.

    The real question is, will the forces of reason and common sense be strong enough to overpower the forces of ridiculousness, ushering in an era of sanity?

  • The Rock Federal Way, WA
    April 10, 2013 11:00 p.m.

    Strange. It is illegal to discriminate on the basis of religion and sexual orientation. So when a religion follows centuries old tenants that run counter to what the Gay community desires they retaliate by discriminating against the religion.

    An illegal act.

    As Frederick Bastiat, author of "The Law" stated in the opening paragraph:

    "The law perverted! And the police powers of the state per-
    verted along with it! The law, I say, not only turned from its
    proper purpose but made to follow an entirely contrary purpose!
    The law become the weapon of every kind of greed! Instead of
    checking crime, the law itself guilty of the evils it is supposed to
    punish!"

  • Truthseeker SLO, CA
    April 10, 2013 11:16 p.m.

    My guess is this won't go anywhere since the application can be broadly applied, and i don't know why they wouldn't just wait to see what the BSA decides.

    There is no shortage of stupid ideas in state legislatures across the country. Like a bill proposed in TN which would cut aid to families based on their children's grades. Or UT, passing an open carry firearm law.

    That said,
    Nobody should have to lie or cover-up their identity. Love one another, love our neighbors as ourselves.

  • ParkCityAggie Park City, Ut
    April 11, 2013 12:14 a.m.

    I think the boy scouts has more to worry about than this. For example, my son just informed my wife that he wishes to no longer attend any boy scout functions or associate with them because "they discriminate against gays and those who choose not to believe in God" - he didn't hear that from us. I think the first one will be an issue sooner than later, most young adults and those in the coming generations will have a hard time with any organization that discriminates in this way. For example, recent polls show that 81% of young adults ages 18–29 years old support the rights of gay couples to marry. The age groups of those who are against gay marriage have the highest mortality rate in the country if that tells you anything. My point is that if the boy scouts wants to retain and attract new members, they had better be willing to "evolve" to some point on this issue, that or face extinction.

  • Arizona Rocks Phoenix, AZ
    April 11, 2013 2:59 a.m.

    Boy Scouts of America should be allowed to stay the course and remain steadfast to the principals in which this organization was founded. For a state to put restrictions on them and try to force the BSA by removing their non profit tax status is extortion.

  • TA1 Alexandria, VA
    April 11, 2013 5:35 a.m.

    Fortunately the 1950s are over and organizations - which declare themselves to be private – (although the Boy Scouts hardly seem like a private organization), will face more and more scrutiny in the public place (as they should). If the LDS Church lets gay people in and allows them to hold callings (with specific conditions) is the Boy Scouts any different - as someone before me once said "what would Lord Baden-Powell think?"
    I doubt the movement’s founder would have much sympathy for any non-inclusive policies.

  • UtahBlueDevil Durham, NC
    April 11, 2013 5:48 a.m.

    VST - from BSA directly we have,

    ""Declaration of Religious Principle. The Boy Scouts of America maintains that no member can grow into the best kind of citizen without recognizing an obligation to God. In the first part of the Scout Oath or Promise the member declares, ‘On my honour I will do my best to do my duty to God and my country and to obey the Scout Law.’ The recognition of God as the ruling and leading power in the universe and the grateful acknowledgment of his favours and blessings are necessary to the best type of citizenship and are wholesome precepts in the education of the growing members."

    So no, it is not a religion....but its foundation is based on religious principles, like the original YMCA. Boy Scouts has morphed to accommodate other faiths other that christianity, but "spirituality" is still a fundamental part of scouting.

  • Liberal Ted Salt Lake City, UT
    April 11, 2013 8:04 a.m.

    @KJB1

    Right back at ya. Let's cut the tax breaks for PBS, Unions, Gay organizations, NAACP, Movie makers etc.

    If you want to discriminate and take away other peoples liberties, then don't expect tax breaks. What's so hard about that to understand? Take away tax funds for abortions. If you want to protect childrens lives with gun control, then protect children that haven't been born yet. What's soo hard to understand about that?

    Personally it could be a good thing to remove the tax break and let these organizations pay taxes. Then they have the full right and capapbility to fund political movements and activities. Gays can pay scout fees and dues, then that money could be used to fund politicians that will restore freedom of religions, seperation of church and state.

  • lds4gaymarriage Salt Lake City, UT
    April 11, 2013 8:12 a.m.

    For all of you in a panic saying that this will force churches to person gay marriages, relax. All churches have to do is to simply quit performing LEGALLY binding marriages. Let the members get married at City Hall and then have a religious ceremony in the church that is not legally binding. it a church doesn't perform marriages for straights, it can't be force to perform them for gays.

    Also, tax exempt status is not a right. It is a reward for orgs that do good and if an org's practices are deemed to not be good, they lose their exemption. If the LDS church loses CA tax exemption, the Church could tell the members in CA to pay their tithing to Deseret Industries or BYU or other church entity. The corporate church would simply fund those entities less and would have money to fund mintaining CA buildings, etc...

  • firefly Salt Lake City, UT
    April 11, 2013 8:53 a.m.

    Thanks, Obama!

  • bikeboy Boise, ID
    April 11, 2013 8:56 a.m.

    California will be so much better off without the Boy Scouts!
    (That's sarcasm, by the way...)

  • Jambo Dave SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    April 11, 2013 9:40 a.m.

    This is far more reaching than intended. I can see the LDS church not being allowed non-profit status because they don't allow women the Priesthood.

  • A Guy With A Brain Enid, OK
    April 11, 2013 10:56 a.m.

    California: a state a bazillion dollars in debt, with a border as strong as Kleenex, overturns a LEGALLY-approved/MAJORITY-approved law against homosexual "marriage", currently in the process of passing laws pressuring private organizations to accept individuals against their creed (homosexuals) and, the whole state is run by liberals.

    Nope, I don't see any connection there at all.....

  • fish8 Vernal, UT
    April 11, 2013 11:22 a.m.

    So the boy scouts will have to let girls join also? Will schools have to let boys play on a girls sports team? Will women organizations now have to open their doors to male members? What about a church that doesn't allow women to be ordained ministers? Sometimes the cure is worse than the problem. Bottom line: You'll tolerate my ideas and values as long as they agree with yours.

  • Fred Vader Oklahoma City, OK
    April 11, 2013 11:50 a.m.

    @lds4gaymarriage: "Also, tax exempt status is not a right."

    Do you know what else isn't a right? Gay marriage.

    But what is a right, clearly spelled out in the Constitution, is Freedom of Association, and Freedom of Religion. This means that things like "denial of tax exempt status" cannot be used as a bully club against the BSA and churches to force them to associate or not associate, or to force them to start providing "gay marriages" or removing their "performance of LEGALLY approved marriages."

    "Gay marriage supporters" such as yourself have said over and over again that if "gay marriage" is allowed, nothing would happen to the churches. This legislation, and your justification of it, proves otherwise.

    This is why the LDS and other churches are against "gay marriage."

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    April 11, 2013 11:56 a.m.

    To "KJB1" then the Unions should lose their tax exempt status. They discriminate against those who don't want to join the unions.

    You will also have to remove the tax exempt status for the Democrats since they discriminate against Conservatives. Republicans in California can keep their status because they have liberals and conservatives in their organization.

    All charitable organizations will have to lose their tax exempt status because they discriminate against people who have jobs and earn sufficient money for their needs.

    The Catholic church will have to lose its tax breaks because they don't let married LDS women become Nuns.

    The point is, name one charitable organization that does not discriminate to some degree.

  • RBN Salt Lake City, UT
    April 11, 2013 12:00 p.m.

    Hmmm... and weren't Prop 8 proponents predicting exactly this type of legislation and attacks on churches? They predicted attacks on the ability of churches to be non-profits. This would also affect the income tax deductibility of contributions to these churches.

  • lds4gaymarriage Salt Lake City, UT
    April 11, 2013 12:40 p.m.

    FV
    "Gay marriage supporters" such as yourself have said over and over again that if "gay marriage" is allowed, nothing would happen to the churches. This legislation, and your justification of it, proves otherwise.
    LDS4
    No government would dare threaten churches tax exempt status over not performing gay marriages. Most supporting CIVIL marriage for gays believe that churches should be free to not perform them. Any politician would easily be voted out. A constitutional amendment securing that would FLY through passage. The sky isn't falling.

    FV
    Do you know what else isn't a right? Gay marriage.

    But what is a right ...is Freedom of Association, and Freedom of Religion. This means that things like "denial of tax exempt status" cannot be used as a bully club against the BSA and churches to force them ...to start providing "gay marriages"..
    LDS4
    Instead of denying tax exempt status, I can foresee governments having churches perform gay marriages if government is to recognize their heterosexual marriages. No religious rights are infringed. "Equal Protection" and the Romer decision demand Prop. 8's rejection. Simply denying the word "marriage" is based on animus toward a group. That's not constitutional. Prop. 8 violates scripture.

  • Contrarius Lebanon, TN
    April 11, 2013 12:57 p.m.

    @Red --

    "then the Unions should lose their tax exempt status. They discriminate against those who don't want to join the unions."

    from the Compact OED: "the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people, especially on the grounds of race, age, or sex"

    People who don't want to join unions have made their own personal choice to not join. They are not being discriminated against.

    "Democrats since they discriminate against Conservatives."

    Disagreement is not the same thing as discrimination. **Anyone** can join the Democratic Party -- most conservatives just don't WANT to. And even so, there ARE conservative Democrats -- as any Southerner can tell you. :-)

    It appears that you don't truly understand the meaning of the word "discrimination". You can find quite a few helpful definitions at onelook.com, a combined dictionary search site, to help you out of your confusion.

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    April 11, 2013 1:51 p.m.

    To "Contrarius" do you understand the word Sarcasism?

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

    Using that correct definition, all of those groups discriminate. You are arguing the qualifiers, when "KJB1" did not indicate any qualifiers for discrimination.

    Using the dictionary definition of discriminate, since Democrats distinguish themselves against Conservatives, they are engaged in discrimination. The same with unions, and all of the other things that I listed.

    Maybe you should just to to merrium-webster and look up the definition yourself.

  • GZE SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    April 11, 2013 1:58 p.m.

    Almost the very first thing I read is "I guess all black colleges are going to have to start allowing other races in."

    There is no such thing as an all-black college. There are "historically black" colleges, which were founded because black students were not allowed to attend "regular" colleges. Many of those colleges still have predominantly black student bodies, but none of them take only black students.

    I know that's off topic ...

  • GZE SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    April 11, 2013 2:05 p.m.

    Then I read:
    So the boy scouts will have to let girls join also? Will schools have to let boys play on a girls sports team? Will women organizations now have to open their doors to male members? What about a church that doesn't allow women to be ordained ministers? Sometimes the cure is worse than the problem. Bottom line: You'll tolerate my ideas and values as long as they agree with yours.

    Boy Scouts already have to let girls in if there is no comparable organization for girls in the area. Almost all women's organizations allow men to be members. (I was going to say all because I've never heard of an exception, but there probably is one.)

  • Flashback Kearns, UT
    April 11, 2013 2:24 p.m.

    Next groups that the high and mighty CA legislature will target? Churches. Specifically the Catholic Church and the LDS Church.

    Bob, this country was not set up by the founding fathers to be a secular country. It was set up to tolerate all kinds of views. What they did to is not to establish a state church. Unlike England and many other countries. They realized that the person often refered to as the Supreme Being, needed to have a place in this country. Hence the First Amendment. BTW, find me in the Constitution where the words "wall of separation between church and government" is found.

  • Lane Myer Salt Lake City, UT
    April 11, 2013 3:17 p.m.

    RBN
    Salt Lake City, UT
    Hmmm... and weren't Prop 8 proponents predicting exactly this type of legislation and attacks on churches? They predicted attacks on the ability of churches to be non-profits. This would also affect the income tax deductibility of contributions to these churches.

    -------

    Um RBN, Prop 8 passed and is still in effect today - There is no gay marriage in California! I'm afraid your theory actually proved that these type of things could come EVEN though California did away with same sex marriage.

  • Contrarius Lebanon, TN
    April 11, 2013 3:58 p.m.

    @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!

  • UtahBlueDevil Durham, NC
    April 11, 2013 4:01 p.m.

    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.

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    April 11, 2013 4:22 p.m.

    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.

  • Contrarius Lebanon, TN
    April 11, 2013 5:36 p.m.

    @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!

  • BCA Murrieta, CA
    April 11, 2013 6:08 p.m.

    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
    April 11, 2013 6:15 p.m.

    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?"

    Yes.

    Absolutely.

  • 4601 Salt Lake City, UT
    April 11, 2013 6:15 p.m.

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

  • UtahBlueDevil Durham, NC
    April 11, 2013 7:14 p.m.

    VST - my bad....

  • G L W8 SPRINGVILLE, UT
    April 11, 2013 9:35 p.m.

    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
    April 12, 2013 11:06 a.m.

    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?

  • A Scientist Provo, UT
    April 12, 2013 5:53 p.m.

    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"...?

  • ulvegaard Medical Lake, Washington
    April 12, 2013 7:39 p.m.

    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?

  • Furry1993 Ogden, UT
    April 13, 2013 6:15 a.m.

    @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
    April 13, 2013 11:25 a.m.

    RetiredEngineer,

    No problem.

    Then they forego public support through tax exemption.

    Simple.

  • jskains Orem, UT
    April 20, 2013 6:57 a.m.

    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.