Jeff Iorg Blog


Tolerance Wins Again

Jan 26 2015

Last week, the California Supreme Court voted unanimously to prohibit judges from belonging to the Boy Scouts because the group discriminates against homosexuals. The Boy Scouts prohibit homosexuals from serving in their leadership. Now, any California judge who intends to remain on the bench must end his relationship with the Boy Scouts by January 2016. It’s good to see the court system responding with such tolerance on this issue. As the leading initiators (not legislatures, where laws once originated – but that’s another blog) of so many new rules and regulations assuring tolerance for all, the court system has shown us again what their definition of tolerance looks like. It’s still legal to be a Boy Scout – just not politically correct. The assumption, it seems, is judges who are members of the Boy Scouts just cannot be trusted to make “morally straight” (sound familiar, it’s part of the Boy Scout oath) decisions. Their perspective cannot be tolerated by today’s tolerance thought-leaders. A judge can be part of any political party, a member of any religion (or no religion), or a member of any almost any exclusive (and by definition discriminatory) private club - but not the dreaded Boy Scouts. Lesson learned: run afoul of the homosexual lobby at your own risk. It cost the Fire Chief in Atlanta his job and it looks like some judges in California will soon join him on the unemployment line.

 

Tolerance Wins Again

Jan 26 2015

Last week, the California Supreme Court voted unanimously to prohibit judges from belonging to the Boy Scouts because the group discriminates against homosexuals. The Boy Scouts prohibit homosexuals from serving in their leadership. Now, any California judge who intends to remain on the bench must end his relationship with the Boy Scouts by January 2016. It’s good to see the court system responding with such tolerance on this issue. As the leading initiators (not legislatures, where laws once originated – but that’s another blog) of so many new rules and regulations assuring tolerance for all, the court system has shown us again what their definition of tolerance looks like. It’s still legal to be a Boy Scout – just not politically correct. The assumption, it seems, is judges who are members of the Boy Scouts just cannot be trusted to make “morally straight” (sound familiar, it’s part of the Boy Scout oath) decisions. Their perspective cannot be tolerated by today’s tolerance thought-leaders. A judge can be part of any political party, a member of any religion (or no religion), or a member of any almost any exclusive (and by definition discriminatory) private club - but not the dreaded Boy Scouts. Lesson learned: run afoul of the homosexual lobby at your own risk. It cost the Fire Chief in Atlanta his job and it looks like some judges in California will soon join him on the unemployment line.

 

Tolerance Wins Again

Jan 26 2015

Last week, the California Supreme Court voted unanimously to prohibit judges from belonging to the Boy Scouts because the group discriminates against homosexuals. The Boy Scouts prohibit homosexuals from serving in their leadership. Now, any California judge who intends to remain on the bench must end his relationship with the Boy Scouts by January 2016. It’s good to see the court system responding with such tolerance on this issue. As the leading initiators (not legislatures, where laws once originated – but that’s another blog) of so many new rules and regulations assuring tolerance for all, the court system has shown us again what their definition of tolerance looks like. It’s still legal to be a Boy Scout – just not politically correct. The assumption, it seems, is judges who are members of the Boy Scouts just cannot be trusted to make “morally straight” (sound familiar, it’s part of the Boy Scout oath) decisions. Their perspective cannot be tolerated by today’s tolerance thought-leaders. A judge can be part of any political party, a member of any religion (or no religion), or a member of any almost any exclusive (and by definition discriminatory) private club - but not the dreaded Boy Scouts. Lesson learned: run afoul of the homosexual lobby at your own risk. It cost the Fire Chief in Atlanta his job and it looks like some judges in California will soon join him on the unemployment line.

 

Tolerance Wins Again

Jan 26 2015

Last week, the California Supreme Court voted unanimously to prohibit judges from belonging to the Boy Scouts because the group discriminates against homosexuals. The Boy Scouts prohibit homosexuals from serving in their leadership. Now, any California judge who intends to remain on the bench must end his relationship with the Boy Scouts by January 2016. It’s good to see the court system responding with such tolerance on this issue. As the leading initiators (not legislatures, where laws once originated – but that’s another blog) of so many new rules and regulations assuring tolerance for all, the court system has shown us again what their definition of tolerance looks like. It’s still legal to be a Boy Scout – just not politically correct. The assumption, it seems, is judges who are members of the Boy Scouts just cannot be trusted to make “morally straight” (sound familiar, it’s part of the Boy Scout oath) decisions. Their perspective cannot be tolerated by today’s tolerance thought-leaders. A judge can be part of any political party, a member of any religion (or no religion), or a member of any almost any exclusive (and by definition discriminatory) private club - but not the dreaded Boy Scouts. Lesson learned: run afoul of the homosexual lobby at your own risk. It cost the Fire Chief in Atlanta his job and it looks like some judges in California will soon join him on the unemployment line.

 




president