More Lovely Tolerance From The Left...

[Sparko]

The rest of the article. Specifically the rationale for the ban.

It says that only 21 states have included sexual orientation as a protected class for such discrimination.

[Psychic Missile]

Where do you get that from?

The rest of the article. Specifically the rationale for the ban.

[KingsGambit]

What form of discrimination are we referring to? Because going literally on that, the Boy Scouts have always discriminated - they don't allow girls.

[Sparko]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it appears that it is general practice for states to forbid judges from being members of discriminatory organizations. The issue here is that there was an explicit exception for youth organizations, and this ruling removes the exception.

If this is the case, the decision seems pretty uncontroversial. It's just a case of consistency. The problem people might have should be with the rules governing judges period, not this specific ruling.

Where do you get that from?

[Psychic Missile]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it appears that it is general practice for states to forbid judges from being members of discriminatory organizations. The issue here is that there was an explicit exception for youth organizations, and this ruling removes the exception.

If this is the case, the decision seems pretty uncontroversial. It's just a case of consistency. The problem people might have should be with the rules governing judges period, not this specific ruling.

[Teallaura]

I actually think it's poor form for judges to be attending political rallies, though I don't think it should be illegal.

I agree with this - but elected judges don't seem to have much of a choice.

[KingsGambit]

Nothing - and it could go further - why should judges be allowed to go to political rallies when they are to be neutral (so the logic would go).

Crappy law.

I actually think it's poor form for judges to be attending political rallies, though I don't think it should be illegal.

[Bill the Cat]

Nothing - and it could go further - why should judges be allowed to go to political rallies when they are to be neutral (so the logic would go).

Crappy law.

Even better, the Justices are discriminating against groups they think are discriminatory, so the judges could then not be involved in the California Supreme Court.

[Teallaura]

Logically speaking, what would prevent this precedent from being used to disallow a judge from attending a non-mainline church?

Nothing - and it could go further - why should judges be allowed to go to political rallies when they are to be neutral (so the logic would go).

Crappy law.

[KingsGambit]

Logically speaking, what would prevent this precedent from being used to disallow a judge from attending a non-mainline church?

[Bill the Cat]

The SCOTUS will toss that like a salad. Freedom of association can't be blocked like that.

[seer]

Really, who do these people think they are? To prevent a Judge from being a part of the Boy Scouts in their off time? I mean really, if you liberals don't see the totalitarian nature of these kind of rulings then you are either blind or ethically sick.

When the California Supreme Court voted last week to prohibit state judges from belonging to nonprofit youth organizations that practice discrimination, Julia Kelety was not surprised.

The issue, which had been roiling through the legal community for the last year, had triggered vigorous debate, giving Kelety, a Superior Court judge in San Diego County, time to prepare.

Committee chair for Boy Scout Troop 24, she has already begun to consider a successor before she begins dialing back her commitment to the 30 boys in her troop.

Although the court's unanimous decision did not explicitly mention the Boy Scouts of America, there was little doubt that it was the intended target. The organization, which lifted its ban on openly gay boys younger than 18, still prohibits gay and lesbian adults from serving as staff or voluntary leaders.

http://www.latimes.com/local/califor...ry.html#page=1