1.27.2005

Christian Conservative Canadian Cloggers Create Churlish Clattering Class Chokers


CC
CCCC
CC
Canadian Christian Conservative Class Chase Charter Crusade

CBC

Striving Against Opposition

Those who worry about the Gay Lobby taking a Run at the Church - they already are: a deliberate ploy being undertaken to assault religious groups whom are not onside with gay marriage. Furthermore, it also makes Paul Martin and Irwin Cotler's assurances that "no church will be forced to perform same sex marriages" ring rather hollow, considering if church groups are being dragged into court over this now - It would seem those with an agenda won't extend the same courtesy.

What it takes to win

And so it begins.... Why protecting religious freedom is so hard to do in this country... The Knights of Columbus Hall forgot to ask if Tracey was a Male or a Female. I suspect their lawyer wants a ruling, a precedent to be set, and compensation.

Polspy likes Chattel over Lesbians:

Gays need to remember that they ARE a minority. While they may have the sympathy of a goodly number of straight Canadians, pulling crap like this is not going to maintain that goodwill. It will be a cold day in Hell before I put gay rights before property rights and the citizen’s right of non-interference by the state (good little devotee of Ayn Rand that I am). Thus, my advice to gays is this: Don’t make me choose

Pro Libertate Veritateque

...Because you not letting me use your hall violates my "human rights"
Quickly, though, the motivation of the couple involved seems somewhat suspect, at least given the facts that the CBC reports. Instead of making this a human-rights issue, wouldn't it make much more sense for the couple to sue the hall for breach of contract, if the proprietors were inappropriately reneging on the contract to provide the facilities? But no, this is Canada in 2005. Instead of turning to the courts to adjudicate private disputes, we turn to the courts to label others "violators of human rights".


Angry in the Great White North

The thin end of the wedge, people, the thin end of the wedge. In BC, the likelihood is that the Knights will lose and a dangerous precedent is set. Makes a five year delay to reconsider sound like a good idea right now.

Political Staples
Slip sliding away...

That didn't take very long did it? ... but to me it smells of professional trouble making ....The head of the Knights of Columbus in Port Coquitlam, Elemer Lazar, declined a CBC News request for an interview. But he has said in the past that he doesn't understand why a same-sex couple would want to book a Catholic facility. Because they out to take away your religious rights, sir. We will see how the courts deal with this one and if the KoC are denied their religious rights, procted by the Charter, whether PM Martin will call a snap election to protect their constitutional rights.

Back to you Upper Canadian

5 comments:

Chris said...

Actually, the sort of petty tactics that are being resorted to by the gay lobby are being criticized by many of us whom aren't religious or social conservatives.

Its simply a matter of calling something underhanded when it is. Booking a wedding at the hall of a religious organization you should know opposes the activity you wish to perform, and sueing when they discover they've been mislead is petty and underhanded. It simply displays a lack of respect for the beliefs of those whose hall it is.

ROC said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ROC said...

Rick,

Give me a break. If you took the time a) to read my post and b) to read the predisposition of my blog you'd discover the following things:

a) I oppose the expanse of human rights statutes *not because I support arbitrary discrimination* but because they can be used, as in this instance, to force private organisations operating private facilities to provide services *irrespective of their religious values*.

And yes, the motivation of this case is somewhat suspect, *especially since* the couple had a clear opportunity to sue for breach of contract and receive a much higher settlement than any which would be awarded by a human rights tribunal. Given that activist lawyer Barbara Findley is involved, this is nothing more than a case to see how far HR tribunals will go to override individuals' Charter rights freedom of religion.

b) Our blog, and our respective ideological predispositions, are decidedly classically liberal. For lay individuals like yourself, that means that we favour a smaller state, with *no* involvement in private lives and diminished involvement in the economy. We likely accord with 90% of the social values that you espouse.

Next time, before you launch into an alliterative fit, you might want to use some of those rudimentary background research skills that they teach you in advance of the submission of your grade 3 class projects.

Another thing too: thanks for all the extra traffic you directed to our site on Thursday and today!

-Patronus
pro-libertate.blogspot.com

Rick Barnes said...

Now Patronus readily points out our differences on the Lesbian invasion of the Knights of Columbus;

Let me get this right. You oppose the expanse of rights because someone might misuse them in your opinion. A slippery slope argument, I get it! Now it's perhaps even more clear why we disagree.


Right that's clear now, Patronus is a conservative in a classically liberal libertarian way, everything can and should be resolved with money as long as you do it gracefully and I mean that in the nicest way!

Patronus, its barbara findley, QC, no ordinary lawyer. Shouldn't the Charter also protect rights of those discriminated against by a religion?

I am pleased you are decidedly something. I am a "lay individual" and you are classically liberal. ummm. Do you support government funded child care because I do, and do you support Public Private partnerships, because I don't, what do you think of aboriginal rights? Who should log our forests and how?

So in summary, Patronus said

1. I have reason to be against human rights "expansion"
2. Patronus is classically conservative liberally dunked in libertarian speak.

ROC said...

Rick,

You can't cherrypick which rights should be upheld and which shouldn't. Why don't you defend individuals' freedom of religion with the same fervour with which you defend "the right of individuals to force a private business to cater to their needs" (cloaked, of course, in the language of "human rights")?

You also note that "...shouldn't the Charter also protect rights of those discriminated against by a religion?"

However, the Charter isn't the issue here--since this is a dispute among private actors--it's simply about a human rights statute and its alleged violation by the Knight of Columbus. I'll concede that the BC HR Tribunal will likely rule against the K of C for violating section 8.1.b of the BC Human Rights Code.

But the K of C would (and should) launch a Charter challenge against the inevitable HR Tribunal ruling for violating freedom of religion, a challenge which would likely be successful. This would obviously overturn any restitution that the couple would receive at the tribunal, rendering this exercise entirely pointless, while upholding the freedom of religion you ironically abhor.

-Patronus
pro-libertate.blogspot.com