I really do prefer it when news sites post their sources.

By
I really do prefer it when news sites post their sources. For example, I'd like to know why exactly, in the judge's own words, he made this decision. Was it based on the sexual orientation of the foster parents or did he use some legal hoop jumping to make his moral decision fit the law.

Regardless, this is BS. If the local welfare authorities had no qualms, why should the judge? Who even brought this to the courts in the first place if everyone was happy?
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/nov/12/utah-judge-orders-baby-taken-away-from-lesbian-foster-parents

Comments

Kaoru Shimitsu (The Heretic of Ethics) said…
It's also possible that the judge had a completely unrelated reason for removing the child that has nothing to do with their sexual orientation.
November 12, 2015 at 3:44 AM
Jason ON said…
Which is why we need the reasoning, as I posited in my original commentary.
November 12, 2015 at 11:00 AM
Jason ON said…
Update: http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/nov/12/utah-governor-baffled-judge-baby-lesbian-foster-parents

This judge sounds like a compete and total jackass. How he became a judge is baffling.
November 12, 2015 at 9:05 PM
Lee Grupsmith-Pedersen said…
It is my understanding that the judge is LDS, and his decisions are colored by his religion--at least that's what my husband says.
November 12, 2015 at 9:07 PM
Jason ON said…
Then he truly is a jackass judge. Jurists are supposed to make their decisions based on the law, not their religious/personal beliefs. We do have a separation of church and state, after all.
November 13, 2015 at 9:51 AM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

So, I asked Andrew Tamm, who filled my Stream with a hundred (sarcasm there) animated gifs and cat pictures to...

By
So, I asked Andrew Tamm, who filled my Stream with a hundred (sarcasm there) animated gifs and cat pictures to remove me from whatever Circle he has me in where he posts the animated gifs and cat pictures. It was either that or unfollow him and I didn't see any reason to unfollow him. Me asking https://plus.google.com/112885755521259735422/posts/78dwnvvgh4p <==edited to add the correct link Then he plusses me onto Public posts of animated cat gifs : https://plus.google.com/u/0/112885755521259735422/posts/EuuR1tnU3vJ https://plus.google.com/u/0/112885755521259735422/posts/8r6Grcm2Jpj https://plus.google.com/u/0/112885755521259735422/posts/74PgSu6iL2s Then one of his friends (or Circlers) starts plussing me into posts of animated cat gifs : https://plus.google.com/u/0/107120198886093172821/posts/gRW9JhWLs5T Don't get me wrong, I'm all about sarcasm and messing with people, but this seems sort of childish to me. Am I the only one who thinks so? So far I have only blocked
Read more

I'm shutting down Google+ for the night and quite possibly for the weekend.

By
I'm shutting down Google+ for the night and quite possibly for the weekend. Why? This stupid #gifwars thing people are so proud of. This Adam Black guy said he doesn't like gifs and now everyone is mass trolling him. Having been mass trolled like this I can relate to him easily enough. Have an opinion and the collective might of Google+'s lower class denizens jump on a bandwagon. I just saw a post where someone wanted to jump on board and had to get clarification she was tagging the proper Adam Black. She wasn't even connected to him ! Nor was she a part of the original discussion. She just wanted to follow the herd. When I called her out of it she claimed, "one gif doesn't make a troll." Perhaps not, but she's contributing to a larger troll effort. One straw doesn't break the camel's back, but thousands will. So, tonight, Google+ disgusts me. It probably will tomorrow as well. And possibly Sunday. I gave up Google+ for two months this spring
Read more