[Looking for Diogenes]

How can the Bar Association prohibit the private activities of judges, or of its members?

It appears that the judges decided to impose this on themselves, following the Bar's resolution.

In response to a resolution in January from the local bar association, San Francisco Superior Court judges and commissioners adopted a policy July 11 saying they would not take part in any organization that "discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation by excluding members on the grounds that their sexual orientation renders them 'unclean,' 'immoral' or 'unfit.' "

[harpseal]

Since a number of religions deem practicing homosexuals sinners and therefor without repentance and a resolve to sin no more unfit for heaven and good standing in the religous group this is a religous test for public office. As such it is specifically banned in the US Constitution.

Stay well - Stay safe - Stay armed - Yorktown

[Polybius]

San Francisco Superior Court judges and commissioners adopted a policy July 11 saying they would not take part in any organization that "discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation by excluding members on the grounds that their sexual orientation renders them 'unclean,' 'immoral' or 'unfit.' "

O.K. I promise not to say that homosexuals are 'unclean,' 'immoral' or 'unfit.'

Can I simply point that they are more likely to try to sexually molest my son?

Can I simply point out that if the Catholic Church's problem was celibacy and not too many homosexual priests, the newspaper headlines would be that Catholic priest were trying to seduce our wives and daughters rather than our sons?