California Proposes Ban On Judges Linked To Boy Scouts

You know, because tolerance. But, in Liberal World tolerance is a one way street, and you will be made to care. And comply. Free association and free thought are Not Allowed

(Daily Caller) California is proposing to ban members of the Boy Scouts of America (BSA) from serving as judges because the Boy Scouts do not allow gay troop leaders, The Daily Caller has learned.

In a move with major legal implications, The California Supreme Court Advisory Committee on The Code of Judicial Ethics has proposed to classify the Boy Scouts as practicing “invidious discrimination” against gays, which would end the group’s exemption to anti-discriminatory ethics rules and would prohibit judges from being affiliated with the group.

The committee is, in fact, a government entity, and is essentially determining that the Boy Scouts are a “hate group” for refusing to allow inclusion of gay men, as that lifestyle goes against what the BSA stands for. Furthermore, there is always the concern, fair or not, about gay pedophiles spending lots of time with young boys, especially on camping trips.

“This proposed amendment has as its overtly-stated purpose the branding of the BSA as an organization whose members must be assumed to be biased and thus unfit for the bench. The Committee states that ‘eliminating the exemption… would enhance public confidence in the impartiality of the judiciary,’” Catherine Short of the pro-life group Life Legal Defense Foundation said.

“On the contrary, by promoting a hierarchy of politically-favored ‘victim’ status through pointlessly impugning the integrity of members of a venerable American institution, the proposed Amendment will communicate to the public that judges are being told by the California Supreme Court what to think, whom they may associate with, and what are permissible opinions to hold, and that only those who toe the line will be allowed to sit on the bench. The public can hardly expect impartiality from the judiciary in such a climate of intolerance,” Short wrote.

Progressives do not care about free thought, freedom of association, Belief, or anything else if it offends them, if it goes against Progressive ideology. Anything offensive is banned.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

6 Responses to “California Proposes Ban On Judges Linked To Boy Scouts”

  1. Jeffery says:

    Not exactly. California does not allow judges to be members of organizations that practice frank discrimination.

    http://www.courthousenews.com/2014/02/07/65198.htm

    “The state’s code of judicial ethics prohibits judges from holding memberships in organizations that practice “invidious discrimination on the basis of race, sex, gender, religion, national origin, ethnicity or sexual orientation,” according to the advisory committee’s Wednesday report. The policy contains exceptions for religious, military and nonprofit youth organizations.”

    Even though the Daily Caller hackery suggests that former Boy Scouts cannot become judges in CA, that is not the case. The current discussion proposes that the special exception granted to association with the BSA be rescinded, since the BSA clearly discriminates against gays. Judges would no longer be able to have concurrent membership in the BSA. The BSA can keep its discriminatory policies against gays or have CA judges associated with the organization – just not both.

    If one belongs to a country club that only allows Caucasian Christian males one cannot be a judge in CA.

    If one is currently a Kleagle in the KKK one cannot be a judge in CA.

    You can still belong to the golf club or the KKK, you just cannot be a state judge.

    There should be some standards for judges, don’t you agree?

  2. gitarcarver says:

    There should be some standards for judges, don’t you agree?

    Yes. The question is whether organizational affiliations should be a part of those standards.

    For example, would you be for banning a judge because he has been a part of the NAACP? Of CAIR?

    A person’s ability to do a job should be tied to their demonstrated ability to do that job.

    Even though the Daily Caller hackery suggests that former Boy Scouts cannot become judges in CA, that is not the case.

    Once again Jeffery shows he cannot read.

    Here is what the Daily Caller said:

    California is proposing to ban members of the Boy Scouts of America (BSA) from serving as judges because the Boy Scouts do not allow gay troop leaders, The Daily Caller has learned.

    In a move with major legal implications, The California Supreme Court Advisory Committee on The Code of Judicial Ethics has proposed to classify the Boy Scouts as practicing “invidious discrimination” against gays, which would end the group’s exemption to anti-discriminatory ethics rules and would prohibit judges from being affiliated with the group.

    In what he thinks will show the bias of the Daily Caller, Jeffery cites Courthouse News which offers the same idea:

    California judges should be barred from Boy Scouts membership because the organization discriminates against the gay community, an advisory panel of the California Supreme Court has said.
    The state’s code of judicial ethics prohibits judges from holding memberships in organizations that practice “invidious discrimination on the basis of race, sex, gender, religion, national origin, ethnicity or sexual orientation,” according to the advisory committee’s Wednesday report

    Ignorance can be cured, Jeffery.

  3. Jeffery says:

    “Ignorance can be cured, Jeffery.”

    And yet you refuse the cure…

  4. david7134 says:

    Jeff,
    Guitar has the point, you lose.

  5. gitarcarver says:

    And yet you refuse the cure…

    Of course that is an accusation without foundation which leads one to suspect that a good portion of your responses are without foundation.

    And of course you didn’t answer any of the points because? Well, because you cannot.

    Unlike you, I have actually thought about what you have said and its implications.

    You have said in the past that you are an atheist so please tell me why your employees should not expect you of bias towards those who are religious? (Or maybe they do.)

    Giving you the benefit of the doubt, let us assume that you won’t look at people differently because of their religious views because 1) it is the law and 2) a person’s views outside of their job does not automatically assume an influence on the job.

    Yet without any evidence or basis of bias, you want to exclude someone from being a judge because they chose to belong to a group that you personally disagree with.

    Why would that be? It can only be because you yourself and people of your ilk would engage in the behavior of ruling against people from the bench not on the law, but because of their beliefs and associations.

    Would you support a candidate that was a member of the NAACP? Of course you would.

    Would you support a candidate that was a member of NOW? Of course you would.

    Would you support a candidate that sat on the board of Planned Parenthoood? Of course you would.

    Would you support a candidate that was a member of GLAAD? Of course you would.

    Yet all of those groups are discriminatory.

    Every.

    Single.

    One .

    Of.

    Them.

    The point is that you aren’t interested in making “standards,” but rather appointing judges that agree with your agenda of hatred and discrimination. You don’t really care about discrimination. You only care that the people you hate and the ideas that are contrary to yours are squashed and made “illegal.”

    Not only are you ignorant and cannot read, you have no morals and hate the idea of freedom.

Bad Behavior has blocked 5107 access attempts in the last 7 days.