Have a Protego spell ready at all times

It appears I have set off a libertarian. I was prepared,
standing back I waved my wand casting my strongest Protego spell.

Click here for my full response to
Patronus who readily points out our differences
on the
Lesbian invasion of the Knights of Columbus;

Save time and read my concise summary, Patronus said,

1. I am not just against human rights expansion, I have reason to be against human rights "expansion"
2. Patronus is classically conservative liberally dunked in libertarian speak.

Apparently Patronus received some web traffic from Queer
Thoughts and were thankful. I was pleased to
point them out to others. Enjoy!

Some background!

Protego - a Shield Charm that deflects
curses and spells. Protego comes from Latin and it means "to defend or protect".

Patronus Rationis has a spell too: Patronus
Charm/Expecto Patronum
(Spell) - used to protect one from a Dementor, or in rare circumstances, a Lethifold, this charm conjures up a "patronus", a
figure (which has some personal meaning to the creator) produced from silvery
magic. In Latin, "Expecto" is "to await" or "look for" and "Patronum" means
patron saint. The translation is "Waiting for (or looking for
or seeking) the patron saint."


ROC said...


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.


Rick Barnes said...


I have not said I agree with the folks that rented the hall taking the action they have. Still they have a right to seek a remedy if they felt harmed. And they were harmed.

The two individuals that rented it have rights as well.

Taking this forward as a charter case is a good idea. It will clear the air. I am of the opinion the Charter will say if a Hall is availible to the public, you can not as a basis of your refusal use your religion.

I accept using religion to discriminate if it were the actual church.

Freedom of regligion in this case is a ruse. The hall is used by many in the community for all kinds of purposes. The Hall this KoC run is a business. Like the business down the street, they should not be able to reserve service because you are gay.

The K of C use the hall to raise funds for their activities. If they use it for church only ok, I say let them decide who can rent it. If they open to the public, they can not (cherry) pick on the basis of your sexual orientation any more than you can if the renters were black or disabled.

As to the rights of the LGBTQ communities, they have too often been rejected. You can expect there will continue to be cases like this around as redress is sought.

As to your post, It is not reasonable for you to to suggest the renters had other motives. This looks like two women needed a hall for their wedding celebration and it is the KoC who are cherry picking.

BC's HRT is there to assist people in addressing issues when they assert they have been discriminated against and I support it.

Those who feel wronged by a decision of the BCHRT can always take the matter to court. Given the Catholic Bishops recent outragous statements on Same-sex marriage and other applications of human rights, I expect this one will be in the courts later.

ROC said...


Rick says: "Freedom of regligion in this case is a ruse. The hall is used by many in the community for all kinds of purposes. The Hall this KoC run is a business. Like the business down the street, they should not be able to reserve service because you are gay."

Free religion in this case is *not* a ruse; it is the reason why the proprietors felt it necessary to prevent the couple from using the facilities for their engagement.

Contractually, it appears that the K of C may have been in violation of its obligations. If the couple had sued for breach of contract, the court made have ordered the K of C to comply with its obligation and permit them to hold their reception at the hall after all, or at least awarded damages such that the couple could have a reception at an alternate facility.

Going to the BCHRT was stupid--it will prolong the issue and any ruling adverse to the K of C will likely be challenged--with probable success--through the court process. Contrary to your assertion, a simple tribunal ruling--with authority deriving from a provincial statute--likely would not be able to withstand Charter scrutiny if it so blatently violated freedom of religion, which it would do if the BCHRT ruled against the K of C.