I suppose I could stay a bit longer...
Posted on 02/02/2005 12:17:07 PM PST by NYer
Deborah Chymyshyn and Tracey Smith found just the hall they wanted to rent for their wedding reception. It was located behind a church in the Vancouver suburb of Port Coquitlam and managed by the Knights of Columbus, an organization they thought was the same as the Elks.
That mistake -- confusing the Elks with the Knights -- has taken them into the epicentre of the national debate on same-sex marriage, with Stephen Harper and the federal Conservatives citing the couple as Exhibit A in the Tories' declaration that government legislation unveiled yesterday permitting homosexuals to marry will result in severe assaults on Canadians' freedom of religion.
Prime Minister Paul Martin defended the bill, insisting that no religious organization will be forced to perform homosexual marriages if their teaching is opposed to them. But he also said that "Canada is a country where minorities are protected" -- a claim the Tories sought to turn against him by saying the debate on same-sex marriage will be all about protecting Canadians' religious freedoms.
The B.C. Human Rights Tribunal has just finished hearing Ms. Chymyshyn and Ms. Smith's claim that the Knights, a Roman Catholic men's fraternal and philanthropic society, discriminated against the couple by refusing to rent the hall to them after learning it was for a same-sex wedding reception.
The Knights, adhering to church teaching, which is against homosexual marriage, cancelled a rental contract that had been signed, returned the couple's deposit and paid for both the rental of a new hall and the reprinting of wedding invitations after Ms. Chymyshyn and Ms. Smith complained that invitations listing the hall's address for their reception had been mailed.
That was in September, 2003. In October, the couple complained to the Human Rights Tribunal, which heard the case last week. A decision is not expected for months.
Their case points to what many legal scholars and religious leaders say is a murky area between protection of freedom of religion and protection against discrimination. They say it could lead to religious organizations and individuals by the phalanx heading to courts and rights tribunals once the same-sex marriage legislation becomes law.
"It's going to be endless," said University of Toronto law professor Brenda Cossman, a specialist in freedom of expression and legal regulation of adult relationships.
The B.C. Knights of Columbus case focuses on whether a church-related organization is the same as a church and whether freedom of religion extends beyond refusing to perform a same-sex marriage to refusing to celebrate one.
Provincial governments, which license civil commissioners to perform marriages, are wrestling with allowing them to follow their conscience and religious belief when it comes to same-sex marriages or, as Manitoba has done, ordering them to surrender their licences and find another line of work.
Yesterday, the Tories produced a list of seven cases to illustrate the freedom of religion and anti-discrimination protections. All the cases had previously received considerable publicity -- such as the gay student in a Catholic high school in Oshawa, Ont., who secured a Superior Court injunction against the school board's order that he not bring a male date to the school prom -- and none touched directly on same-sex marriage.
In contrast, the case of the Knights and Ms. Chymyshyn and Ms. Smith is destined to become a textbook model.
The hall has a sign outside saying simply that it was for rent and listing a telephone number.
B.C.'s Human Rights Code says "a person must not, without a bona fide and reasonable justification, discriminate against a person or class of persons regarding any accommodation, service or facility customarily available to the public."
Both sides agreed that freedom of religion could be a "bona fide and reasonable justification to discriminate" but lawyer barbara findlay, representing Ms. Chymyshyn and Ms. Smith, says it wasn't operable in this case.
Ms. findlay, who does not use capital letters in the spelling of her name, said the religious freedom of the Roman Catholic Church to refuse to marry same-sex couples could not be equated to religious freedom for a lay organization of Catholics to refuse to rent premises for the celebration of a same-sex marriage -- not if the premises were generally offered to the public.
She also likened the Knights' refusal to rent their hall to Ms. Chymyshyn and Ms. Smith as being comparable to a hypothetical case in which, if the Knights ran a daycare, they refused to accept the children of a lesbian couple.
Knights' lawyer George Macintosh said the Catholic Church owns the hall, and membership in the Knights is limited to practising Catholics.
"If it's lawful to say no to [performing] a same-sex marriage, it's lawful to say no to celebrating the event. To celebrate an event against your religious belief is the same as conducting the event yourself."
Mr. Macintosh said the sign in front of the Knights' hall did not have to state that it would not be rented to people who acted against Catholic teachings because that was covered by the "bona fide and reasonable justification to discriminate" provision of the Human Rights Code.
Ms. findlay said the sign has since been taken down and the Knights now rent the hall only to members of the adjacent Catholic church.
Fourth Bruce: Rule Six, there is NO ... Rule Six. Rule Seven,
Everybruce: No Poofters!!
If the Knights of Columbus lose this, then they may eventually be forced to open up their membership to Gays and Lesbians.
People who push for "gay rights" only further alienate gay people from mainstream society. Especially when no actual "rights" are denied to gay people, and what "gay rights" activists are really pushing for is an invasion of privileges, not civil rights.
That was in September, 2003. In October, the couple complained to the Human Rights Tribunal, which heard the case last week. A decision is not expected for months.
The K of C went out of their way to help these 'womyn' out after they cancelled the contract and they run to the government?? They are just pushing their agenda on the K of C.
If they get a settlement they're going to build their own reception spot, the Nights of Clamidia Hall.
I suppose I could stay a bit longer...
Do lesbians qualify as "poofters"?
They were looking for a good lawsuit, & they found one. They already got a free reception out of the deal.
Who is the redneck in this story?
This is a false comparison, since the children would presumably be doing nothing at the daycare offensive to the Knights' religious beliefs.
Yeah, but all you're doing is offering to be his new master.
He's is answerable to god for his prejudices and other failings.
"The B.C. Human Rights Tribunal has just finished hearing Ms. Chymyshyn and Ms. Smith's claim that the Knights, a Roman Catholic men's fraternal and philanthropic society, discriminated against the couple by refusing to rent the hall to them after learning it was for a same-sex wedding reception."
"Ms. Chymyshyn and Ms. Smith complained that invitations listing the hall's address for their reception had been mailed."
Question: How did this lesbian couple present themselves to the Knights when the first meeting occurred to rent the hall? Did they tell the Knight's that they were a lesbian couple? Or did they just say it was for a wedding reception and allowed the Knights' to assume it was for a heterosexual couple?
Is that a real Court in Canada, or one of these pseudo-Courts like you find in the Hague or in a back-room at the Kennedy Center?
What is that about?
Jim!
Hey Jim!!!!
Jim Crow, is that you?
Calling people a 'minority group' because they do evil deeds while the vast majority of people do not do evil deeds is a slap in the face of legitimate minorities.
BINGO!! Behavior does not a "minority group" make!! Not smokers, not drinkers, not hunters, not HOMOSEXUALS!! What do you say we lobby for it to be removed!! (fat chance it might be reversed!)
My name is spelled without capital letters. People make many assumptions about why that is. Here is the story. I have always signed my name without capital letters. When I was taking a graduate studies program in law in 1990, I had letterhead designed and my name was in lower case. I liked it, so I continued it when I went back into private practice. What an uproar! Lawyers called me up to say that they had a vote in their firm about why I chose that spelling; a court once rejected an Order because ‘my name was not properly spelled’ the local queer newspaper refused for years to spell my name without capitals; etc. etc. I realized that I had a perfect illustration of how we react when someone moves even a tiny bit away from the norm, and even with respect to something that impacts no one else at all. So I have kept that spelling, and I tell this story in unlearning oppression workshops.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.