California judges barred from work with Boy Scouts

[Michie]

Catholic World News - January 28, 2015

California judges barred from work with Boy Scouts : News Headlines - Catholic Culture

The California Supreme Court has voted to bar state judges from joining nonprofit youth organizations that discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation.
“Although the court's unanimous decision did not explicitly mention the Boy Scouts of America, there was little doubt that it was the intended target,” the Los Angeles Times reported.

State high court's vote affecting Scout affiliation stirs debate anew (Los Angeles Times)

 

[billvelek]

Oh, the irony!

Telling people that they can't be leaders within an organization ...

... BECAUSE some other people are ... drum-roll ...

Telling people that they can't be leaders within an organization.

Aren't they the exact same thing? What hypocrites! But they're too blind to see it that way. No hope for them. God help us.

In 2001 I was a judge here in Arkansas, but I also had a 'Second Amendment' website that stated that I was a judge in order to add some credibility to my opinion regarding the Constitution and the Second Amendment; but my website went beyond discussion of the Constitution by providing links to gun laws in all 50 states and U.S. territories, including laws for 'hunting', 'possession', and 'concealed carry'. A liberal lawyer in Philadelphia didn't like it, so he filed a formal complaint against me with the Arkansas Judicial Discipline and Disability Commission contending that my website had the appearance of impropriety. My response was that under Arkansas Regulations (at that time), Canon 4B, Avocational Activities, provided that “A judge may speak, write, lecture, teach on and participate in other extra-judicial activities concerning the law, the legal system, ...”, etc., and pointed to the language of the 'Commentary' to that section which recognized “As a judicial officer and person specially learned in the law, a judge is in a unique position to contribute to the improvement of the law, the legal system, ...”, etc., and “To the extent that time permits, a judge is encouraged to do so, either independently or through a bar association ...”.

IMPORTANT TO CHRISTIANS: During the course of the hearing and our discussion of different examples of what might be construed as ethical conflicts, we eventually came around to the example that I had marched in the Right to Life march every year. An immediate response came from several on the commission that a judge is not permitted to do that, until finally one of the members interrupted and said that "we are not going to go there". After the hearing, we both got on the same elevator and he said "see you at the march on Sunday". Anyway, the result of the hearing was a settlement, offered by the committee, in which they dropped the matter without taking any disciplinary action at all (not even a formal 'caution') in exchange for my removal of my website (... so much for freedom of speech). Yes, I caved in, but I had no choice what with my family to support. Most people are powerless to fight the state, and it is clearly getting worse all the time. However, I did receive one concession from them that gave me much satisfaction: because there were significant links to my website from other gun-related sites, they agreed to allow me to replace the content on my website with the following statement (I still have it), which I kept on that site for a very long time:

WHAT HAPPENED TO JUDGE VELEK'S PRO-GUN WEBSITE?

Pro-Gun and Second Amendment material originally available on this website was removed on 3/12/01 pursuant to an agreement between Judge William J. Velek and the Arkansas Judicial Discipline and Disability Commission. After consultation with legal counsel with the National Rifle Association and a free-speech advocate in Chicago, it was decided that the free speech position of a judge, under the circumstances, was unclear. Therefore, rather than to proceed with a hearing on a complaint filed by a lawyer in another state which alleged that the content of the website by a Judge "gave the appearance of impropriety", Judge Velek accepted the offer of the Commission to drop the matter in exchange for his removal of the pro-gun material.

Later, as a private attorney, William Velek filed a class-action suit against the State of Arkansas which challenged the constitutionality of the State's license fee for a concealed carry permit for handguns; the lawsuit contended that the amount of the fee imposed is unnecessary and unreasonable, and that the State is therefore 'selling' or 'taxing' a right which is already guaranteed under the Second Amendment. The suit was dismissed by the Pulaski County Circuit Court, which found that the suit failed to allege a Constitutional violation; that decision was not appealed by Velek due to other circumstances.

This page is maintained on this site because of its former popularity and the substantial number of links from other websites which, even to this date (10/26/03), are still cropping up. Thank you.​

So this (the OP article) is not the first time that Judges have come under attack by liberals because of their so-called conservative speech or activities.

Your brother in Christ,

Bill Velek

 

[billvelek]

Coincidentally I came upon this related article: "Will Christians be allowed to serve as judges in California?", which includes the following statement:

"The Los Angeles Times article concludes with this ominous note:

The only remaining exception to the anti-discrimination rule is membership in a religious organization.
​

In other words, the Court knows that it has a standard that churches and other religious organizations violate. That is why they grant them an exception. But on what basis would they continue such an exception? If they really view churches as discriminatory without rational basis, there would be no reason for the exception to stand. That would effectively preclude Christians and other people of faith from serving as state judges in California."
​

On another more pleasant note, here's a picture of two of my editors -- they proof-read everything before I post.

They will often ask me whether some of you folks in this forum 'are for real'?! They usually side with me on most issues, but sometimes they get into terrible arguments between themselves. I try to stay out of it.

Your brother in Christ,

Bill Velek

 

[Michie]

Coincidentally I came upon this related article: "Will Christians be allowed to serve as judges in California?", which includes the following statement:

"The Los Angeles Times article concludes with this ominous note:

The only remaining exception to the anti-discrimination rule is membership in a religious organization.
​

In other words, the Court knows that it has a standard that churches and other religious organizations violate. That is why they grant them an exception. But on what basis would they continue such an exception? If they really view churches as discriminatory without rational basis, there would be no reason for the exception to stand. That would effectively preclude Christians and other people of faith from serving as state judges in California."
​

On another more pleasant note, here's a picture of two of my editors -- they proof-read everything before I post.

They will often ask me whether some of you folks in this forum 'are for real'?! They usually side with me on most issues, but sometimes they get into terrible arguments between themselves. I try to stay out of it.

Your brother in Christ,

Bill Velek

Awww!

 

[Maynard Keenan]

These sorts of policies are widespread. Almost all states, in the interest of judicial impartiality, ban judges from being members of discriminatory organizations. I think it's 48 states that ban judges from belonging to an organization that discriminates on gender or race. About half the states extend this to organizations that discriminate on sexual orientation.