Starting in 2016, judges in California will be forced to hang up their scoutmaster hats or lose their jobs. The California Supreme Court decided last week to amend its code of ethical conduct which prohibits judges from belonging to organizations that bar members because of race, sex, gender, religion, national origin, ethnicity or sexual orientation. Until the recent decision, the so-called “ethics code” made exceptions for youth organizations and religious organizations.

The court decided last week to remove the exception for youth organizations, a move clearly targeting the Boy Scouts of America, which still does not permit adult homosexuals to take little boys camping. The exception for religious organizations remains intact, though its life expectancy is short. If religion is no excuse for “bigotry” then of course that one will have to go as well.

The absurdity of the decision however, is only an extension of the absurdity of a philosophy that considers discrimination to be among the most egregious of all offenses. All organizations that have membership requirements discriminate, which includes nearly every organization that I can think of.

In 2000, the Supreme Court upheld the right of the Boy Scouts, and every private club, not to be forced by government to accept members that it doesn’t want. Liberals didn’t like that decision and have spent the ensuing fifteen years trying to formulate alternative strategies to pressure the Boy Scouts to change, all the while pretending that they respect the right of the Boy Scouts as a private organization to freely associate. Which they don’t. They merely lost their case in the highest court and had to resort to plan B—ostracizing.

Their newest tactic is to tell judges what they’re allowed to do when off the clock. Oh no! A judge might be teaching youth the importance of trustworthiness, courtesy, and thrift, to name just three of the Scouts’ values.

An emergent pattern here is the arbitrary enforcement of this “nondiscrimination” code. If it were actually followed to the letter, the code would produce results that most people would find ridiculous and overreaching, but of course it isn’t. Organizations that remain in liberals’ good graces are given a pass to discriminate as they see fit.

If the ethics code were interpreted to mean what it clearly says it would also prohibit membership in the Girl Scouts of America. The GSA discriminates against both boys and adult men who want to become leaders. A troop in Colorado made an exception for a boy who “identifies” as a girl though the decision was a one-time policy exception made at the local level. In any case, the troop didn’t decide that they would allow this boy to join because they’re now hip to boys, they decided to participate in the boy’s delusion that he’s actually a girl. So in their minds the new member was a girl…who happened to be a boy.

This stuff gets really confusing.

And then there’s still the issue of banning adult men from being Girl Scout leaders. It’s a perfectly sensible policy, mind you, but it’s a policy that nonetheless runs afoul of California’s judicial code of ethical behavior. The code doesn’t make an exception for clubs that think they have a “good reason” to discriminate based on the aforementioned protected categories. Every club that discriminates thinks that their reason for doing so is valid. The code nonetheless stipulates that California judges may not belong to that club. No one in their right mind, however, truly believes that the code will be enforced fairly and equally. BSA bad, GSA good.

Why is the GSA good? For starters, they allow homosexual leaders. They have also shed most of their religious identity, and now inculcate girls with feminist values. God is out, lesbianism and abortion are in.

That the Girl Scouts’ policy of not allowing men to take little girls camping is considered judicious, while the Boy Scouts’ policy of not allowing homosexuals to take boys camping is considered rank discrimination on par with segregated lunch counters, is proof positive that our society has truly lost its dang fool mind.

The two policies are both rooted in the same concern for children’s safety. Neither club wants adults diddling kids. The classic comeback to that argument, in the context of the Boy Scouts’ policy, is that “not all gay men are child molesters, you know!” Thank you, Captain Obvious. Unfortunately, a disproportionate number of them are. Nearly all child molesters are men, and about one third of the victims are boys. (That figure may be low. Boys are less likely to report.) Logically, that means that the small subset of the male population that is homosexual (about three percent) is raping more than their fair share of kids—about eleven times more.

But even if “gay” men molested children at the same rate as “straight” men—and they don’t, by the way—there should at least be equal concern with either group being in intimate situations with children. There is not equal concern. The Girls Scouts essentially treat all adult men like child molesters waiting to happen. No one has a problem with this, not even adult men like me. Yet when the Boy Scouts do the same to guys who like having anal sex with guys, people flip their lids. That’s discrimination!

The list of groups that California judges may not belong to is really quite long, when you think about it. Membership in a race-based (usually black) professional organization is clearly a no-no. If a female judge belonged to a local women’s club, she would also be barred from the bench. How about a “gay” softball league? Recall the Great Seattle Gay Softball Controversy of 2008, in which “gay” players became enraged when other teams were including players who weren’t “gay” enough for their tastes. The complainants accused the opposing team of bringing in heterosexual ringers, while the alleged ringers claimed to be bisexual and thus gay enough. Whether they were lying just so they could play was never quite clear, but the point is that heterosexual guys were not allowed. California judges therefore may not belong to that softball league.

The irony of a nondiscrimination policy being enforced in a discriminatory manner is palpable. California’s policy is stupid, and everyone knows it’s stupid too, which is why no one will actually follow it, much the same way no one actually follows the vaunted Civil Rights Act of 1964. The utility of such laws/codes is to have a handy weapon around with which to bludgeon people liberals don’t like. Today that group is the Boy Scouts but who knows who it will be tomorrow?