...the California Supreme Court voted last week to prohibit state judges from belonging to nonprofit youth organizations that practice discrimination."Yeah, so?" you ask. The story is focuses on Julia Kelety, a Superior Court judge. She has begun disconnecting from her commitments to the Boy Scouts of America because it bans homosexual adults from leadership roles and, thus, is classified as one of the "nonprofit youth organizations that practice discrimination." Originally California included an exemption for judges taking part in nonprofit youth organizations (such as the Boy Scouts), but the court decided this exception was "anomalous and inconsistent" with the court's decisions to overturn the Defense of Marriage Act and strike down Prop 8. Despite hundreds of protests ("The proposal creates an unconstitutional test for public office," one wrote), the California Supreme Court opted to delete that exception to their rule.
Okay, the summary, then. If you want to serve as a judge in California, you are not allowed to be associated with any group that California deems "discriminatory". Currently the sole exception to that ban is religious groups. However, the rationale for this position is "The Supreme Court struck down the Defense of Marriage Act and the California Supreme Court struck down Prop 8." Thus, it would be foolish to expect anything but the deletion of that last exception as "anomalous and inconsistent." And, having gone thus far with what I can't see can be avoided to the next step, how long until "Are you now or have you ever been associated with Christianity?" becomes a question you'll have to face to get or keep a job? If being connected to the Boy Scouts of America makes you unreliable, how would being connected to a church or a Christian organization make you less unreliable? Why would a connection to any organization deemed by the State as "discriminatory" not get you banned? How long until your livelihood depends on the generosity of the gay-rights groups?
Pastor Louie Giglio was kept from the President's inauguration for his position on homosexual sin. Brendan Eich, CEO of Mozilla, lost his job because of his position on homosexual sin. Kelvin Cochran, Fire Chief of Atlanta, was fired for his position on homosexual sin. Jesus said the world would hate us as it hated Him, and Paul assured us, "It has been granted to you that for the sake of Christ you should not only believe in Him but also suffer for His sake." (Phil 1:29) Am I really reaching here? Or is it the logical next step?
5 comments:
Very creepy.
Me or the situation? :)
That was my first thought when I read the article yesterday - when are they not allowed to be Christians?
The complaint is that the group is "discriminatory," but isn't what they are doing now "discriminatory"?
That's the problem, isn't it? They're intolerant and complain about intolerance. They're judgmental and complain about being judgmental. They're exclusive and tout their inclusiveness. They're discriminatory against what they classify as discriminators. It hurts to think about.
That this enforcement of a fictitious "right" will inevitably and definitely conflict with an already enumerated and (at least on paper) Constitutionally protected right could ever have been dismissed as alarmist simply confirms how easily and willingly the agenda proponents set aside reality.
Post a Comment