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.
Commentary by walford
Does this mean that judges whose religious beliefs [e.g. observant Christians, Jews, Muslims] do not comport with Secular Humanist orthodoxy are by definition unfit to serve on the bench?
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?