UPDATED - 'Judge facing firestorm of criticism for removing infant from home of lesbian couple' & other Fri midday news briefs

Regarding the case in Utah of the judge removing an infant from the care of foster parents simply because the couple is gay, it would seem that the community, including Utah's governor, is rallying on behalf of the couple. This is a wonderful thing which demonstrates how people aren't as easily fooled by anti-gay propaganda when it comes to the ability of lgbt couples to raise children:

Utah challenging judge's order to remove baby from lesbian foster parents

UPDATE: Utah Governor 'Puzzled' by Judge Who Ordered Baby from Lesbians

Utah Judge May Have Violated Ethics Code in Blocking Same-Sex Adoption

 UPDATE - The judge has reversed his order because of the massive negative outcry.  Score a HUGE victory for the good guys!!

In other news:

Protesters Confront Caitlyn Jenner: 'You're An Insult To Trans People'- I don't believe that one person should be "chosen" as a representative of all people in one group and I don't believe that it's anyone else's right to anoint themselves as the guardian of how anyone in any group should act. I said this from personal experience because I've been verbally attacked by heterosexual African-Americans for my sexual orientation. That being said, the protesters did make excellent points and it was to Jenner's credit that she listened and talked with them. Life is a learning experience and no one is perfect in their beliefs.

 Christian UN staff in Kenya refuse aid to gay men fleeing persecution - THIS SITUATION RIGHT HERE is an insult to the body of Christ. 

Christians Are Leaving Homophobia Behind - Will Journalists Keep Up? - But not all Christians are like those above and journalists should explore the diversity instead of falling for the gay vs. Christian narrative. 

 What Reporters Should Know About Dallas' Updated LGBT Ordinance - Because you just KNOW that lie about "men in women's restrooms" will be pushed in Dallas.

Family Research Council seeks legislation which could bar states from protecting lgbt families, community

The SPLC-designated hate group The Family Research Council (so named because of its tendency to vilify the lgbt community via distortions and falsehoods) has announced that it wants to push statewide legislation which would supposedly "protect" those who "support natural marriage."

The group calls it the Government Nondiscrimination Act and claims:

The Government Nondiscrimination Act prohibits the state government from penalizing individuals and entities for their moral or religious beliefs that marriage is the union of one man and one woman. It also protects individuals and entities who believe that sexual relationships are properly reserved for such marriages—such as a religious school requiring students to refrain from engaging in any sexual activity outside of marriage. GNDA also protects individuals and entities from being penalized for believing that “man” and “woman” are biologically based. States should not be in the business of forcing individuals and entities to affirm same-sex marriage or other sexual conduct against their beliefs.

 . . .  The Government Nondiscrimination Act is focused on preventing government discrimination. Our government should never discriminate against, punish, or penalize people based on their sincerely held belief that marriage is the union of one man and one woman. Like the First Amendment Defense Act at the federal level, states need to pass legislation now to protect individuals and entities from state discrimination on the basis of their beliefs in natural marriage.

This act appears to be so deliberately broad  that it could potentially prevent government entities from protecting married gay couples and lgbts (including families) in general from discrimination in housing, employment, and public accommodations. It also sounds like this act would prevent government entities from fairly keeping tax dollars away from entities which would discriminate against lgbts, such as Catholic adoption agencies.

And in light of the recent controversy involving a Utah judge who removed an infant from the home of its foster parents simply because the couple was lesbian, what potential effect would FRC's Government Nondiscrimination Act have in possible future situations involving officials who may cite their religious beliefs to keep gays from adopting children?

In a nutshell, the Government Nondiscrimination Act seems to be carrying "freedom of religion" a bit too far. You certainly should have freedom to worship. But no one should have the freedom to discriminate while exploiting their religion or "conscience" as an excuse to do so.