Linda Valdez really. You hate discrimination? What you call discrimination most people call making good choices and protecting your children. A 1st Amendment Right of association.
I believe discrimination based on sex, race, age, religion, creed, disability, or national origin unacceptable and immoral. And reject the unConstitutional preferences, quotas, and set-asides that discriminate against merit. Never should we allow race based quota or gender based quota, but one simply based on hard work and merit.
In a free society, the primary role of government is to protect the God-given, inalienable, inherent rights of its citizens, including the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (property).
Under the Constitution we believe policies and positions must respect the right of every American to follow his or her beliefs and underscore our reverence for the religious freedom envisioned by the Founding Fathers.
Linda Valdez's comments on the Boy Scouts are disgusting. So she thinks it is ok to have predators be leaders of young boys. Linda lashes out on Mom's and Dad's who have a moral compass who want a safe environment for their little boys, Linda calls it discrimination. I call it common sense and my obligation to protect my children. I can tell you Linda, if some pervert molests one of my children or grandchildren it will force me to give serious consideration to my 2nd Amendment rights.
I guess we could change the name to Scouting for Boys seeing how they want to turn the Boy Scouts of America into a recruitment center for Gays.
What is this world coming to, no sense of right or wrong? I guess it is discrimination when we choose not to see R rated movies, or eat certain foods or choose the friends we hang out with or even choose what Political Party. I guess we discriminate when we don't let our children see pornographic material. Yep, discrimination is so bad … well at least Linda thinks so. At least Linda is consistent. She supports gay marriage, she supports illegal aliens, she believes perverts should have the right of association with our children and so not too surprising on her views on Boy Scouts. Tolerance is not acceptance.
Linda, you certainly have a right to speak out in favor of whatever perverted view you want. The 1st Amendment guarantees all Americans the right of association. So I choose not to donate or support The Boy Scouts of America ever again.
The liberal 9th Circuit Court and the liberal Supreme Court who think they are the supreme law of the land will probably support you Linda. The ACLU who has never backed away from supporting criminals and pervertion certainly will be on your side. However, most Americans are NOT.
A serious threat to our country's constitutional order, perhaps even more dangerous than our current Presidential malfeasance, is an activist judiciary, in which some judges usurp the powers reserved to other branches of government and a clear example of discrimination is a recent court decision all in violation of the Constitution and the 1st Amendment and a blatant example has been the court-ordered redefinition of marriage in several States. This is more than a matter of warring legal concepts and ideals.
This entire moral decay is an assault on the foundations of our society, challenging the very moral fiber of this nation. Marriage is no longer sacred union between a man and a woman the very institution which, for thousands of years in virtually every civilization, has been entrusted with the rearing of children and the transmission of cultural values.
I guess we can take down the 10 Commandments, as they are under attack by the media and the courts. I guess killing innocent babies and selling of their body parts is ok according to Planned Parenthood. When do we stand for what is right and tell the PC anti God crowd to go fly a kite? When do we stop funding pervertion and remove immoral and UnConstitutional adhereing Judges?
We abhor the UnConstitutional ruling by the liberal members of the U.S. Supreme Court. In the dissent Justice Roberts wrote that the court had taken an "extraordinary step" in deciding not to allow states to decide the issuer for themselves, saying the Constitution does NOT define marriage. Justice Scalia wrote the Court's "highly unrepresentative panel of nine" had violated "a principle even more fundamental than taxation without representation."