Talk:Barnes-Wallace v. Boy Scouts of America

Expand
The article is not very informative as it currently stands and needs some fleshing out. What are the names of the families involved? Since they are suing the city, why does the case name say "v. Boy Scouts of America"? Which is the District Court that ruled on this? Please expand a little. Thanks! --Splitpeasoup 23:08, 1 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I did that a while ago. Originally the suit was against both the city and BSA, but the city caved in 2005 and paid the ACLU. BSA is appealing and the US Department of Justice Civil Rights Division has filed an amicus brief on BSA's behalf. GCW50 13:54, 13 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Although the City of San Diego effectively dropped out of its appeal, its name still appears in the caption in the Ninth Circuit's December 18, 2006, order, certifying questions to the California Supreme Court. Following standard practice, that published order would be cited as Barnes-Wallace v. City of San Diego, 471 F.3d 1038 (9th Cir. 2006).  However, considering the fact that the BSA is the real party in interest, I see no harm in the current encyclopedia entry's reference to the BSA rather than the City.  The Wiki caption arguably is more accurate than the official Ninth Circuit caption.  Eric Alan Isaacson 21:22, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Scouting does not prohibit atheists from joining, it was simply stated by Baden Powell that they would not be as successful. This page's article states otherwise. --75.68.36.81 21:47, 4 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The BSA does, in fact, prohibit atheists and agnostics from joining. Current membership applications indicate that no one is entitled to a certificate of membership unless they are willing to subscribe to a Declaration of Religious Principle stating that only people who recognize a duty to God are capable of becoming "the best kind of citizen."  Eric Alan Isaacson 20:56, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Scouting does not prohibit gays from joining. Previous lawsuits, such as Dale, only allowed the BSA to prohibit allowing gays to serve as adult leaders within the organization. This page's article states otherwise.66.162.50.18 (talk) 19:09, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

New (December 2006) Developments in Barnes-Wallace
The Ninth Circuit on December 18, 2006, issued an opinion finding that the plaintiffs had standing to sue, and certifying questions of state constitutional law to the California Supreme Court. Here's a link to the December 18, 2006, opinion:

http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/coa/newopinions.nsf/FFD0CB543718A429882572480051DDAF/$file/0455732o.pdf?openelement

On December 26, 2006, the Ninth Circuit issued a further order summarized on the docket thusly:

12/26/06 Filed order ( William C. CANBY, Andrew J. KLEINFELD, Marsha S. BERZON, ): On 12/18/06 we certified questions in this case to the Supreme Court of California. Our certification order and the briefs of the parties were dispatched to the    Court on the same day, On 12/21/06 a judge of this ct filed a notice that may lead to an en banc review of our certification order. In light of that fact, we request the Calif Supreme Court to delay consideration of our certification order until we notify it of the conclusion of any potential en banc activity affecting the certification order. The clerk of our ct will immediately notify the Calif Supreme Ct of this order, and promptly dispatch to that ct a copy of this order. [04-55732, 04-56167] (gar) [04-55732 04-56167]

This effectively puts the case "on hold" while the Ninth Circuit's active judges decide whether to rehear the case en banc (perhaps to reconsider the holding on standing from which Judge Kleinfeld dissented). If the case does not "go en banc," then the California Supreme Court will have to decide whether it wants to take the certified questions and - - if it does - - there probably will be a new round of briefing on those questions before the California Supreme Court.

I would be happy to update the encyclopedia entry to reflect the new orders, but as I am counsel for certain amici curiae in the case, it might be better if someone else posted the update.

Eric Alan Isaacson 21:07, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Dale
Boy Scouts of America v. Dale does not indicate that the BSA states that they are a religious organization. There have been a few bloggers talking about a 1992 case in Kansas where the BSA did apparently make that statement, but there are not enough details to figure out what it was about. I have done a diligent search, but can't find anything on that case. ---— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk 12:05, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Barnes-Wallace v. Boy Scouts of America. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070715134828/http://beta.bsalegal.org/downloads/bsa_pdfs/BWPDFS/Amicus_Brief_United_States.pdf to http://beta.bsalegal.org/downloads/bsa_pdfs/BWPDFS/Amicus_Brief_United_States.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 01:03, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Barnes-Wallace v. Boy Scouts of America. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070715134828/http://beta.bsalegal.org/downloads/bsa_pdfs/BWPDFS/Amicus_Brief_United_States.pdf to http://beta.bsalegal.org/downloads/bsa_pdfs/BWPDFS/Amicus_Brief_United_States.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:39, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 one external links on Barnes-Wallace v. Boy Scouts of America. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081011140632/http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/religdisc/boyscouts.pdf to http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/religdisc/boyscouts.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060304043504/http://news.findlaw.com:80/andrews/bf/gov/20050510/20050510barnes.html to http://news.findlaw.com/andrews/bf/gov/20050510/20050510barnes.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090330004947/http://www.bsalegal.org:80/bsa-legal-blawg-200.asp?i=124 to http://www.bsalegal.org/bsa-legal-blawg-200.asp?i=124
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110525205640/http://www.gaylesbiantimes.com/?id=2866&issue=861 to http://www.gaylesbiantimes.com/?id=2866&issue=861
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://genesis.sannet.gov/infospc/templates/attorney/caseys_column.jsp
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060212002811/http://www.bsalegal.org:80/downloads/bsa_pdfs/BWPDFS/BSA_Reply_Brief_04212005.pdf to http://www.bsalegal.org/downloads/bsa_pdfs/BWPDFS/BSA_Reply_Brief_04212005.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 11:35, 27 October 2016 (UTC)