Skip to main content

    As in "Throw's Out". That's right, the Boy Scouts of America are saying "No Gay - No Way" to Cub Scouts' Cruz [Tyrrell]  mother Jennifer Tyrrell (I assume the child's last name). Their logic is absurd, being that Jennifer Tyrrell (one of Cruz's parents) spent a year as an openly known gay Den mother of the Cub Scout's. Young Cub Scout Cruz does not like what is happening and, according to his parent Jennifer, Cruz wrote this sign

                              I love my two gay moms
     Seems absolutely bizarre, to permit Jennifer Tyyrell to be a Den leader for a year and then "all of sudden" - change your mind. Jennifer did not keep her preference a secret and the other troop parents were actually supportive. The Boy Scouts remarked t their new policy is that she doesn't "meet the high standards of membership that the Boy Scouts of America seek".  All of a sudden a massive policy change in the Boy Scouts of America - where Gay is Verboten. Does anyone really believe it is because the Boy Scouts' discovered that Gay issues are bad for our youths? Or is there something more sinister afoot?

       Jennifer's case has gathered some national attention and she has a Petition on Change.org. Previously, we here at DailyKos got involved in the early stages of the Trayvon Martin case and his mother's Change.Org Petition; helping send that from 35,000 to over 2 million in short order. Please help get the word out about this petition to the Boy Scouts of America by Jennifer Tyyrell and let's see if we can bounce the count from 158,000 to 200,000 by Monday?

Change.org Petition here;

Boy Scouts of America: Reinstate Cub Scout leader who was removed for being gay

"Outing" of Jennifer Tyyrell May be a Criminal Conspiracy Hate Crime"




       As always, homophobia has a root reason and this case is no exception. Like the Boy Scout pedophile case apparently psychically apropos of yesterday - as a precursor of today. Via the Diary ("Romney's Vandersloot Bullies Bloggers --"). Where there was a tyrannical campaign to destroy investigative journalist's like Peter Zuckerman and Jody May-Chang - to stymie their reporting. Especially upon the pedophile child abuse case of the Boy Scout's; which had a Mormon Bishop seeking to cover it all up (see PBS documentary (here).

    Mitt Romney's campaign Co-Chair Frank Vandersloot appears to be vastly homophobic.  His assault upon Gay's is now nationally significant, because he is a billionaire who has already given $1 million to get Mitt Romney in the White House.

      Vandersloot stooped super low and assaulted upon those whom reported on his issues and beating up on the reporter who denoted the cover up by the Mormon Bishop on pedophile child abuse. Vandersloot took out a full page ad to "Out" Zuckerman. Giving me great concern of Frank Vandersloot's true motives and more reason to despise Mitt Romney. Any person who would seek to assist cover up of a child abuse story by such evil tactics is a damnation bent evil Lord. A POTUS wannabe with such a henchman as his Co-Chair on campaign financing is great cause for concern.

     This Diary is about the hope that we can make a difference, by signing Jennifer Tyyrell's petition and openly discussing the case. As well as denoting the fact that a crime upon a crime may be taking place. They seek to stymie the whistle blowing by Jennifer Tyyrell - of nefarious money handling. Thus it would seem, that Jennifer was not despised as a Gay person - until she was voted in as Treasurer of her troops. This is what Jennifer's petition says;

The revocation of my membership came shortly after I was elected treasurer of my pack and uncovered some inconsistencies in the pack's finances. Within a week of reporting these findings to the council, I received notice that my membership had been revoked, based on my sexual orientation, citing that because I'm gay, I did "not meet the high standards of membership that the BSA seeks."
     If you snatch the evidence, the Books of Accounting, away from the Treasurer, than there is no ability for the whistle blower to get more proof of bad faith acts. Being that Jennifer was "voted" in as Treasurer; the nefarious parties had to find a Red Herring way to obfuscate the issues. Thus make a new policy "No Gay No Way" in the Boy Scouts. Whether by being dupped or being duplicit, the Boy Scouts of America just elevated an accounting issue to a national assault upon Gay's. In order to cover up bad faith efforts.

            A Conspiracy Upon Innocents For the Sake of Cover Up ???

Conclusion

       There is so much more to say, but where to begin. We do not have the whole facts of Jennifer's delve into the accounting irregularities. We just have 1 issue of national significance apparently transpiring because of money. To stop the investigation into the money, a page from the GOP play book is being used by The Boy Scouts of America to Cover Up bad faith by assaulting an entire group of people. This is hate and abuse in a pyscological warfare manner and it is intolerable.

      I leave you to comment below, by ending with Jennifer's petition comments from her significant other - Alicia Burns - who states;

I would like to start by saying I am Jennifer's partner, and as parents it has been our hope to shield our four children from this kind of bigotry and hatred. For that reason, we were hestitant to join BSA. We have been open about our family from the very beginning and were delighted to find an atmosphere of acceptance in our local chapter. It is our understanding that the very person who told us they would "stand hand-in-hand to defend (us) against intolerance" was the person who called for Jennifer's removal in light of a scandal. While I'm hurt and saddened that my family and our fellow scouting families have been faced with this discrimination, I'm offended that Jennifer's sexuality has been exploited to mask deeper problems within the organization. The silver lining of this senseless situation is that it has given us the opportunity to affect change. Together, we CAN be heard, and it is now our hope to shape the future with not only the 12 Core Values of Scouting, but with acceptance as well. Thank you all for your support.

Please sign Jennifer Tyyrell's Change.org Petition here;

Boy Scouts of America: Reinstate Cub Scout leader who was removed for being gay


UPDATE



Arguments on definition of Hate Crime

       There appears to be a presumption that Hate Crime is only defined as "Violence". This is not entirely true. Though violent crimes toward Gays, Race etc - is extensively heinous and egregious; they get to feel they can get away with such due to progression.

Wikipedia defines Hate Crimes (here) on many levels - including;

Hate crime" generally refers to criminal acts that are seen to have been motivated by bias against one or more of the types above, or of their derivatives. Incidents may involve physical assault, damage to property, bullying, harassment, verbal abuse or insults, or offensive graffiti or letters (hate mail).[3]
      It is arbitrary & capricious to make someone's (known) sexual preference an issue "after" they were voted in as Treasurer and raised questions about accounting irregularities.

       If Jennifer's lifestyle had been a secret - then it could be plausible - that she was dimissed because she was Gay. The facts speak for themselves. She was not only openly Gay - she had parents support - AND - the very person who dismissed her was the person who (purportedly) shook her hand and stated tolerance is a good value.

       There needs to be litigation of this matter - to stop the Anti Gay in its tracks.

       And

       There needs to be an Investigation into the whole scheme of the firing.

      Even if, arguendo, you give the Boy Scouts of America some verity on the contention that the dismissal had nothing to do with the accounting issue whistle blowing by Jennifer Tyyrell; the fact of the matter is - she was dimissed "AFTER" she was elected Treasurer an "openly" gay.

      If "graffiti" is a level of hate crime - what do you calling firing a person for such?

                                              If not Hate!.

Poll

Is using Anti Gay issues to cover up bad faith - a Crime?

73%11 votes
20%3 votes
6%1 votes
0%0 votes

| 15 votes | Vote | Results

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (12+ / 0-)

    PLEASE ☺ - Help Stop Mitt the Pitts Romney from Stealing ☻ the POTUS

    by laserhaas on Thu Apr 26, 2012 at 09:41:50 AM PDT

  •  As despicable as this may be (4+ / 0-)

    The BSA very likely committed no criminal or even civil infraction by doing this.

    BSA is a private organization and various court cases have shown that their action vis a vis gays, are protected under the 1st Amendment.

    'Outing' someone as gay is not a criminal action in this country - civil perhaps- but not criminal.

    Additionally, hate crime laws in this country are a added aspect to actual committed crimes - see the killings in Tulsa.

    Unfortunately, being fired for being gay is generally not something protected under federal law.

    Of course, state laws may differ but it still isn't a criminal action.

    Power-Worshipping Fascist

    by campionrules on Thu Apr 26, 2012 at 10:07:30 AM PDT

    •  Au contraire - campion--. If the sole reason is (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      campionrules, a2nite

      because she is Gay - then your denote would have validity. However, the very fact that she questioned accouting, combined with the fact of her being known as Gay and a Den mom for 1 full year;

      speaks to the contrary of it being "solely" a Gay issue.

      It needs an independent investigation.

      PLEASE ☺ - Help Stop Mitt the Pitts Romney from Stealing ☻ the POTUS

      by laserhaas on Thu Apr 26, 2012 at 10:12:21 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Agreed (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        laserhaas

        As long as the termination doesn't violate EEO regulation(In which, unfortunately, sexual or gender identity is not included) then the employer, BSA, in this case can fire anyone for any reason.

        If you say it's whistleblowing then she's probably not much better off, due to the inconsistent regulations and rules for reporting on private sector employers.

        So I don't have an issue about that part of the diary - I do have an issue about the Hate Crime Conspiracy bit.

        It she is a whistle blower it's still only a civil infraction by BSA and therefore cannot be a hate crime.

        Power-Worshipping Fascist

        by campionrules on Thu Apr 26, 2012 at 10:20:31 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I Think You Are Confusing... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          laserhaas

          employee and member.  EEOC rules deal with employees not membership.  A Den Mother is not an employee.  The closest position that would be an actual employee of BSA is a District Executive.

          •  Convoluted "in the Trees" - she was voted in as (0+ / 0-)

            a Treasurer.

            PLEASE ☺ - Help Stop Mitt the Pitts Romney from Stealing ☻ the POTUS

            by laserhaas on Thu Apr 26, 2012 at 10:58:01 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Unless BSA Has Drastically Changed Since... (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              laserhaas

              I was a Scoutmaster, her position was as a member (volunteer) of BSA and not a paid employee.  Just because someone is "voted" into a position doesn't mean that they are being hired as an employee.

              Thousands of "Class Treasurers" are elected to volunteer positions each year as well.

              It is fair to criticize BSA for their position on banning Gay or atheist members, but why bring in EEOC on a non-employment issue.  It doesn't fit here.

              •  I did not say EEOC. I think she should sue on many (0+ / 0-)

                grounds.

                1 - emotional distress. She admitted being Gay, was accepted and so was her son for a year. They violated their own policy and changed their mind. You can't let one woman play in the Master's Golf tourney 1 year and then in the following - seek to enforce the No Women rule.

                2.  Elected, paid or volunteer. She had a fiduciary duty to report the accounting irregularites. It was after that reporting that she was dismissed. The cause and effect issue is a matter for trial. Especially the (all of sudden) now we shall enforce the Anti Gay rule - after her whistle blow.

                3   Our military has changed. So can everyone else. Including one of the grooming organizations that claim to raise our future leaders, military, political and otherwise.

                Finally, we had laws that non-whites were 2/3 persons, women couldn't vote etc. They changed because common sense did not relent in the face of oppressive ways. We are losing our control (Wisc - Occupy etc) and diligence, good values and fighting for them is the only way that assault upon our rights will stop.

                PLEASE ☺ - Help Stop Mitt the Pitts Romney from Stealing ☻ the POTUS

                by laserhaas on Fri Apr 27, 2012 at 03:43:14 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

        •  I do not concur. The statute may need to be (0+ / 0-)

          re-written; if what you say is true.

          When you seek to obfuscate bad faith by then concocting a Gay issue - you have cross some boundaries.

          It is, at the barest of minimums, collusion/ conspiracy.

          That is then "compounded" by concocting a Policy to divert attention away from the bad faith issue.

          IF they "did" conspire & collude to beguile any further investigation into the accounting irregularities - by firing her as Gay under pretense. Then they have indeed, perpetrated a Hate Crime.

          Which is defined (here) by Wikipedia as;

          Hate crime" generally refers to criminal acts that are seen to have been motivated by bias against one or more of the types above, or of their derivatives. Incidents may involve physical assault, damage to property, bullying, harassment, verbal abuse or insults, or offensive graffiti or letters (hate mail).[3]

          PLEASE ☺ - Help Stop Mitt the Pitts Romney from Stealing ☻ the POTUS

          by laserhaas on Thu Apr 26, 2012 at 11:05:50 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  I think (and said so when I signed her Petition) (0+ / 0-)

    that she should sue the Boy Scouts.

    They canNot allow an investigation into the accounting to transpire - but - have forced one to be the central issue at hand.

    As a matter of legality - it has to be civil - as you cannot do a criminal allegation to affect civil outcomes.

    PLEASE ☺ - Help Stop Mitt the Pitts Romney from Stealing ☻ the POTUS

    by laserhaas on Thu Apr 26, 2012 at 10:14:36 AM PDT

  •  Not a crime. Not a recently discovered position. (7+ / 0-)

    Take a look at Boy Scouts of America v. Dale, from 2000.  The BSA is a private organization, and has a First Amendment right to set whatever rules it wants, and promote whatever values it wants, regardless of whether you or I think those values are right or wrong.

    This case was very highly publicized when it came down.  Frankly, I would be very surprised if this woman did not know that the BSA had that policy and did not know that SCOTUS had held that the policy was within the First Amendment rights of the BSA.  

    The BSA has a First Amendment right to do what it wants in accord with the values/principles it wants to set.  People who disagree with that have every right not to associate with that organization.  But it's not a crime to "reveal" something that is true, and not a secret in the first place, and it was pretty clear long before this what the BSA policy was on having openly gay adults as leaders.  

    •  I think there's two distinct areas in this diary (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      BlackSheep1, laserhaas

      As Laserhaas was discussing above.

      1.) That BSA claimed they fired her for being gay - which is their right to do so.

      2.) That the Den leader in question was actually fired for being a whistleblower and the BSA used the gay excuse to terminate her.

      With regard to the second, I agree with the diarist that there may be more to that scenario - but evidence is somewhat lacking.

      I do object to the 'hate crime' language in the rest of the diary because it's clearly not - the whistleblowing is a separate issue, let's not confuse the two.

      Power-Worshipping Fascist

      by campionrules on Thu Apr 26, 2012 at 10:23:56 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Unlikely it was the whistle blowing (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        laserhaas, campionrules

        She flew under the radar with her little local pack, but came to the attention of those higher up the food chain when she raised up the financial questions. Once they "knew" she was there they had to enforce the policy.

        from a bright young conservative: “I’m watching my first GOP debate…and WE SOUND LIKE CRAZY PEOPLE!!!!”

        by Catte Nappe on Thu Apr 26, 2012 at 10:51:16 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  You Cannot "Fire" Someone... (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        laserhaas, coffeetalk, VClib

        who is not an employee.

      •  I'm a Boy Scout volunteer (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        laserhaas, coffeetalk, VClib

        ...and the two issues may be unrelated.  BSA units are really franchises to the individual chartering organization.  That organization originally approved Jennifer Tyrrell's application, and the council then ran criminal background checks on her (as on all other new leaders) a year ago, when she first became a leader.  

        The unit finances also "belong" to the chartering organization, and not to the local council.  When she discovered irregularities and reported them to the council, and not the chartering organization, the council became aware of the situation, and invoked the "no gay leader" policy.  They would only look at the finances if the chartering organization couldn't handle the problem, and their likely response would be to kick out whoever was responsible for the irregularities.  

        The Scout Law (trustworthy, loyal, helpful...) is a GREAT liberal manifesto.

        by DaytonMike on Thu Apr 26, 2012 at 11:27:25 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  I say again: BSA clearly publicizes (3+ / 0-)

    its stance against homosexuality.

    It has that right.
    This is not "new" to Scouts or Scouters -- but it isn't widely touted in the "civilian" world. The policy became much more anti-gay after the national headquarters moved to Dallas, and the policy also became much less tolerant toward religions not "acceptable" in the eyes of the evangelical Xtians who are now at the forefront of the national organization.

    They are on a mission to stamp out agnostics, atheists, and other "non Christian" Scouts and Scouters, as well as homosexuals.

    LBJ & Lady Bird, Sully Sullenberger, Molly Ivins, Barbara Jordan, Ann Richards, Drew Brees: Texas is No Bush League! -7.50,-5.59

    by BlackSheep1 on Thu Apr 26, 2012 at 10:40:50 AM PDT

  •  Boy Scouts are the worst organization. (4+ / 0-)

    Girl Scouts, on the other hand, are actually a positive influence as an overall organization.

    Samish theme and name, totally different origins and philosophy.

  •  You All make my case for me. She was OPENLY (0+ / 0-)

    known to be Gay and accepted.

    The fact that her bring the accounting irregularity also brought to "their" higher ups the issue of a Gay within the ranks is not dispositive - granting their right to dismiss.

    To the contrary - once they learned of the accounting irregularities and the fact that she is Gay at the national level (if that presumption is true/ correct) -
    they had a greater fiduciary duty to be prudent on the issues.

    PLEASE ☺ - Help Stop Mitt the Pitts Romney from Stealing ☻ the POTUS

    by laserhaas on Thu Apr 26, 2012 at 11:09:43 AM PDT

    •  This comment is all kinds of wrong. (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      erush1345, laserhaas, EdMass, VClib

      First, they had no "fiduciary" duty to her of any kind.

      Second, she was not an employee of any kind -- she was elected treasurer of a pack, which is a volunteer thing, sort of like being elected treasurer of your local garden club.  They owed no "duty" to her at all.  They have no "duty" to her to keep her as an adult representative of the BSA.  

      Third, even if she had been an employee (which she was not), the whole "whistleblower" thing means that you can't fire her FROM A PAYING JOB for blowing the whistle on something.  The BSA has a clear, long-standing policy of not having gay adults in a position overseeing kids -- a policy that the SCOTUS in 2000 said was absolutely their First Amendment right.

      I completely understand the disagreement with the policy of the BSA with respect to gay adults in positions of leadership. And if you want to disagree with that, fine.  The best course of action is not to have anything to do with that private organization.   They have a constitutional right to have rules and values that you or I think are wrong.  People who disagree with those rules and values should not associate themselves with that private organization.  

      •  Puhlease. Your talking to a Class 1 whistle blower (0+ / 0-)

        you have that definition incorrect as well.

        Wikipedia correctly states (here) - that;

        A whistleblower (whistle-blower or whistle blower)[1] is a person who tells the public or someone in authority about alleged dishonest or illegal activities (misconduct) occurring in a government department, a public or private organization, or a company.

        PLEASE ☺ - Help Stop Mitt the Pitts Romney from Stealing ☻ the POTUS

        by laserhaas on Thu Apr 26, 2012 at 11:42:10 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  The Ohio whistleblower law protects employees (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          campionrules, laserhaas, VClib

          It's a workplace law.  See, for example, here and here.  The federal whistleblower act protects federal employees.  See here.

          The laws say the employer can't do something that costs you money -- demote you, fire you, give you less desireable working conditions -- for whistleblowing.   If she were an EMPLOYEE of this private organization (and they do have some employees) the whistleblower laws might apply.   There's no whistleblower law that I know that prohibits a private organization from revoking membership in that private organization for a member who thinks she is blowing the whistle on that private organization. That is because you have some rights in your employment situation, but you don't have any "right" to belong to a private organization run by somebody else.  

          Even if the whistleblower law protected volunteers, you'd have a really, really, really hard time proving that revoking her memberships was NOT based on the fact that she was gay.  The BSA famously has a policy of doing that -- which surely she was aware of when she joined that organization.  

          Again, I understand that you find their policy despicable. But it's not a criminal matter, and it's probably not even a civil matter.  It's a matter of a private organization not liking this person in a position of leadership because she is openly gay, and kicking her out, as they have a right to do under the First Amendment, even if you think it's abhorrent.  

          •  As an attorney, you KNOW what "Color of Law" (0+ / 0-)

            means.

            It does not matter "IF" the Law or those adjudicating upon such - Rule that what Jennifer did is not to be considered whistle blowing.

            She was voted in and did not join the "good ole boys" network (if that term ever applied it surely does here)

            Immediately - Jennifer did her "fiduciary" responsibility and reported irregularities. After which - she was dismissed.

            To me - a Class 1 whistle blower - I consider her Class 1 as well. She has paid a different price than I have - but paid a price for doing the right thing - nonetheless.

            No matter what the arguments on the absolute value of the letter [T] in truth may do

            Jennifer is now a whistle blower, championing a cause and has my support.

            And - if there is justice in this country - Romney & Bain will be fully exposed for who they are - I will get my monies back and Jennifer will get financial support as well.

            (though that is much more far likely NOT to happen - then for Jennifer to sue and get a settlement)

            PLEASE ☺ - Help Stop Mitt the Pitts Romney from Stealing ☻ the POTUS

            by laserhaas on Thu Apr 26, 2012 at 12:25:41 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Um, it doesn't matter what "you consider" her (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              VClib

              to be.  If she is not a whistleblower under the law, she has no claim against the BSA under whistleblower laws.

              Find me some law that gives her a claim against the BSA, and they we'll talk about what legal rights she has.

              And The Supreme Court of the United States has said the BSA has every right to dismiss someone from their organization for being gay.  They said that is the First Amendment right of the BSA.

              You certainly can petition the BSA to change their mind.  That is your First Amendment right.  And she can certainly speak out about this.  That is her First Amendment right.   But I don't see what law makes this a criminal or civil action.

              •  Incongruous counselor. Bait n switching . Nice Try (0+ / 0-)

                But, if they did fire her after her reporting the accouting irregularities and utilized the Gay issue as the way to mitigate such. The question that can be litigated 1st - is "what was the irregularity"? and "How did they handle it after her dismissla"?

                It is a Trial by Jury issue.

                SarOx was designed as a Law to handle "non-employee" whistle blower issues. I give you one great website (and I also suggest you/ your firm adopt the marketing tool extra ordinary they have when you go to their site)

                http://www.employmentlawgroup.net/...

                PLEASE ☺ - Help Stop Mitt the Pitts Romney from Stealing ☻ the POTUS

                by laserhaas on Thu Apr 26, 2012 at 01:03:59 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

      •  It is also totally incongruous with the term (0+ / 0-)

        fiduciary responsibilty to infer that - upon learning a person is blowing the whistle on bad faith/ who is Gay - that there was no need to be prudent.

        Jennifer most certainly had a fiduciary responsibility to  report the accounting irregularities and has obviously paid a price for it.

        You argue that "they" had a fiduciary responsibility to their codes/ conduct to dimiss a Gay

        But - that they had NO fiduciary responsibility to mitigate the issue - given the fact she was there for 1 year (Openly Gay) and reported a bad faith eact.

        That is as arbitrary & caprious a reasoning as a judge seeking to rule under "Color of Law"

        Wiki defines Fiduciary (here) in part as

        A fiduciary is someone who has undertaken to act for and on behalf of another in a particular matter in circumstances which give rise to a relationship of trust and confidence.

        PLEASE ☺ - Help Stop Mitt the Pitts Romney from Stealing ☻ the POTUS

        by laserhaas on Thu Apr 26, 2012 at 11:53:03 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I'm a lawyer. I understand the term "fiduciary." (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          laserhaas, VClib

          And I never said they had a fiduciary duty to revoke her membership -- to "dismiss a gay," as you put it.  

          What I said is they had no fiduciary duty to her.  A fiduciary is someone who is bound to act in your best interests.  If I were your lawyer, I would be a fiduciary to you -- bound to act in your best interests.  There are very very few instances under the law where someone is a fiduciary.  The officers of an organization have a fiduciary obligation to the organization.  A Company has no fiduciary obligation to its employees -- it simply has to treat employees in accordance with the terms of the law and the employment agreement.  A private organization does not have a fiduciary obligation to its members.  Certainly, the BSA has no fiduciary obligation to all of the volunteer officers of each pack.  A fiduciary obligation would mean that the BSA was obligated to act in her best interests rather than their own.  That just isn't the law here.  

          What I said is that, as the SCOTUS has ruled, the BSA is a private organization and has the First Amendment right to dismiss someone from a position of leadership in their organization for reasons that you or I completely disagree with.

          •  I disagree counselor. They dismissed her for being (0+ / 0-)

            Gay - (purportedly) - because of their fiduciary responsibility to their "private organization" policy.

            You make my case in great part - by your "finding of fact" that they (officers) have a fiduciary obligation to the organization.

            I would argue with you that they Breached their Fiduciary duty by escalating a mole hill into a mountain - by dismissing her once they found out a Gay elected Treasurer was reporting accounting irregularities.

            You cannot state - congruously - that any competent GC would say fire here immediately; without taking into consideration the ramifications of doing so.

            It is a "major" policy decision to dimiss someone who was known for a full year to be openly Gay - get elected - and then dismiss her when that elected person (who's sexual preference became a Greater known only because of blowing the whistle on an accounting irregularity).

            IF - you are their GC and she sues - are you going to face the reality that your client has exposure to a jury trial?

            Or will you hope solely for demure and go all in - refusing to compromise a settlement?

            That is when an attorney's fiduciary duty will force a reality check and thorough review of all applicable statutes (exposure) to exposure for failing to understand that this was handled wrong.

            PLEASE ☺ - Help Stop Mitt the Pitts Romney from Stealing ☻ the POTUS

            by laserhaas on Thu Apr 26, 2012 at 12:15:05 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  All you are doing is throwing out legal terms (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              laserhaas, VClib, sordiddetails

              with little understanding of what they mean.  

              Did you even read the United States Supreme Court case I linked you to?   Did you even look at the whistleblower laws I linked to ?

              Do some reading, and then we'll talk.  

              •  I luv how attorneys at Law always state layman (0+ / 0-)

                are idiots.

                Color of Law and Fiduciary duty and the other terms I provided you links.

                I proffered facts in evidence by expert "s[c]ites"

                All you do is address me with haughtier.

                When you review the eToys case and tell me the truth.

                I'll do your reading request.

                PLEASE ☺ - Help Stop Mitt the Pitts Romney from Stealing ☻ the POTUS

                by laserhaas on Thu Apr 26, 2012 at 01:06:16 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

  •  For those that might not be familiar with BSA (0+ / 0-)
    Boy Scout Oath, Law,
    Motto and Slogan
    and the
    Outdoor Code

    Boy Scout Oath or Promise

    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.

    Note that the Boy Scout Oath has traditionally been considered to have three promises. Those three promises are delineated by the semicolons in the Oath, which divide it into three clauses. The three promises of the Scout Oath are, therefore:

    Duty to God and country,
    Duty to other people, and
    Duty to self
    DUTY TO GOD AND COUNTRY: Your family and religious leaders teach you to know and serve God. By following these teachings, you do your duty to God.

    Men and women of the past worked to make America great, and many gave their lives for their country. By being a good family member and a good citizen, by working for your country's good and obeying its laws, you do your duty to your country. Obeying the Scout Law means living by its 12 points.

    DUTY TO OTHER PEOPLE: Many people need help. A cheery smile and a helping hand make life easier for others. By doing a Good Turn daily and helping when you're needed, you prove yourself a Scout and do your part to make this a better world.

    DUTY TO SELF: Keeping yourself physically strong means taking care of your body. Eat the right foods and build your strength. Staying mentally awake means learn all you can, be curious, and ask questions. Being morally straight means to live your life with honesty, to be clean in your speech and actions, and to be a person of strong character.

    Boy Scout Law

    A Scout is:

    Trustworthy,
    Loyal,
    Helpful,
    Friendly,
    Courteous,
    Kind,
    Obedient,
    Cheerful,
    Thrifty,
    Brave,
    Clean,
    and Reverent.

    Boy Scout Motto

    Be Prepared!

    Boy Scout Slogan

    Do a Good Turn Daily!

    The Outdoor Code

    As an American, I will do my best to -

    Be clean in my outdoor manners
    Be careful with fire
    Be considerate in the outdoors, and
    Be conservation minded.

    This is evil?  This is not how to guide our young men?  

    As others have commented above the BSA is a private organization,  regardless of ones opinion concerning homosexuality and adult leaders it is not applicable here.  If the sons had wished to join the BSA, no problem.  The BSA just cannot accept adult leaders that do not adhere to their standards and rules.  

    As coffeetalk said above:

    I completely understand the disagreement with the policy of the BSA with respect to gay adults in positions of leadership. And if you want to disagree with that, fine.  The best course of action is not to have anything to do with that private organization.   They have a constitutional right to have rules and values that you or I think are wrong.  People who disagree with those rules and values should not associate themselves with that private organization.
    It's really just that simple...

    Listen, strange women lyin' in ponds distributin' swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony.

    by EdMass on Thu Apr 26, 2012 at 12:10:36 PM PDT

    •  "It's really just that simple" EdMass - that your (0+ / 0-)

      sig line denotes being out of touch

      "Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses"
      We are all about to learn a very hard lesson, that who gets the most votes is not who gets the MOST.

      PLEASE ☺ - Help Stop Mitt the Pitts Romney from Stealing ☻ the POTUS

      by laserhaas on Thu Apr 26, 2012 at 12:20:01 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  My sons are both Eagle Scouts (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        laserhaas

        have contributed to the community and are excellent citizens.  

        You conflate your angst with the system in general to deride any that disagree imho.  One could debate which is "out of touch", but then again, no.

        Listen, strange women lyin' in ponds distributin' swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony.

        by EdMass on Thu Apr 26, 2012 at 12:29:09 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  You are biased - by the very (after the fact) (0+ / 0-)

          disclosure that you have 2 Eagle Scout sons.

          As for my "out of touch"

          I've been warning people for a decade - that Mitt the pitts is coming and have provided proof and forewarn that he will Steal the POTUS.

          The problem is - your grasp on reality - means Laser will be scorned more come November.

          However,
          If my view holds true (and it has thus far) - then we ALL will pay the price.

          Your biased views are not dispositive and in great bad faith (denoting 2 sons as the basis for your logic - AFTER the fact).

          PLEASE ☺ - Help Stop Mitt the Pitts Romney from Stealing ☻ the POTUS

          by laserhaas on Thu Apr 26, 2012 at 01:10:08 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  asdf (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            laserhaas

            Listen, strange women lyin' in ponds distributin' swords is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony.

            by EdMass on Thu Apr 26, 2012 at 02:17:45 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site