Posted on 04/22/2014 1:14:35 PM PDT by walford
A move is under way in the California court system to ban judges from belonging to the Boys Scouts of America because the youth organization discriminates against homosexuals.
A proposed rule change by the Supreme Court Advisory Committee on The Code of Judicial Ethics would make the BSA no longer “excepted from the category of organizations that practice ‘invidious discrimination’ on the basis of sexual orientation.”
Last May, the BSA’s National Council voted to allow acknowledged homosexuals to be in the program but not in leadership. It’s the ban on “gay” leaders that has prompted the California courts’ action.
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
Let us remember that this full-court press against the BSA [I was a Cub Scout and Boy Scout] is not about suddenly changing its policy to disallow homosexuals being put in charge of children whose parents might not share their views of their sexuality.
This sanction is for NOT changing to what Our Betters have now decided is the 'correct' policy. It is punishment for non-conformance with what is first and foremost a personal value system. That certainly applies as to what is deemed appropriate behavior around other people's children.
If some people decide to found a homosexual-friendly childrens’ group, I am quite sure the BSA and their supporters would not utter a word of objection, much less try to obstruct them from associating as they see fit according to their personal values.
Why cannot those who do not want their children taught [that homosexuality is what the elites say it is] have that same choice, if we are supposed to be pro-choice. Are Americans entitled to raise their children according to their own values or is this now subject to the approval of the Collective as proclaimed by an arrogant elite?
No it means that the California bench is unworthy to have those judges serve on it.
So that whole deal about gay marriage and that amendment was just a farce?
these judges need some tar and feathers
Boys Scouts of America meet Ben Dover or else
“No Religious test will be given.”
I don’t care what side you are on, this is unconstitutional. I don’t care if it gets a 100% vote support, any law that would mandate what private groups an individual can belong to is illegal. I’m not a Boy Scouts fan after all the caving they have done, but this can’t stand.
Supreme Court Advisory Committee on The Code of Judicial Ethics
do they have THAT TITLE of thier business cards?
BTW rumor has it that former winemaker Stu Pidaso is charing the commitee
We knew they wouldn’t be satisfied with the scouts’ acceptance of gay scouts, and that they would go for the leaders next.
Another once-great American institution bites the dust.
This is a religious test and Liberal Orthodoxy is the state religion. Off to the Gulag with you!
Judges should be banned from being members of the demonrat party, since it is a traitorous and terror-by-abortion promoting racketeering organization.
The US constitution guarantees freedom of religion and freedom of association.The government has no business regulating thought. It is absolutely bizarre that an official sworn to uphold that constitution is expected to surrender those rights if he is to hold public office as a judge. This is really an attempt by the Left to encode their bizarre politically correct thought as a prerequisite to holding public office.
Even after they let them have the Sudetenland?
My God, they’re vicious!
Brian Singer approves!
1st amendment Fags!!!!!
Freedom of association
Freedom of thought
Freedom of Spression
Freedom O religion
Sumpin likey that
I would care if the Boy Scouts didn’t cave in. They caved expecting love from the left...they choose poorly.
Boy Scouts have every rights the Gay Mafia has....the G.M. doesn't like straight boys so why should the B.S.of A. have to bow down to people who criticize their values.
Always the appeal was to "fairness." But in a free society, people dealing with their own property always have a right to favor those whom they choose to favor. It is not about taking anything away from any body. It is simply a right to favor whomever you wish, so long as you are simply dealing with your own property, or associations.
What avowed homosexuals are now claiming is outrageous, but it is really only a slight extension of the half-century old denial of the right of individuals to favor those who shared their religious beliefs. Because of the offensive public antics of some of the proponents, it seems more extreme; but the right to be guided by one's own moral outlook, has already been taken away in the name of "fairness."
William Flax
A better metaphor would be the “Gay Brown shirts.” The Mafia really was never into forcing a completely utilitarian monolithic totalitarian rule over a people. That idea fits far better what Ernst Rohm was about in controlling the streets of German cities during Hitler’s rise to power.
“Brian Singer approves!”
I posted on this earlier. The unmasking of a gay Hollywood culture built on child rape should be the biggest news story of the year, but it’s not.
Where are the so-called conservative blogs on this? Nowhere to be found. Silent. Remember how the New York Times and other mainstream outlets used the catholic priest scandals day after day as a hammer to attempt to discredit the entire Church (if not all of Christianity). Well, the same tactics could be employed by our side here, to discredit the gay agenda. Until we learn to use the Alinsky tactics against the Left, we will continue to lose ground.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.