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.
Yes you're right. And I would care for a lesbian couple's children with no problem. But I would not hide my beliefs from the kids, so I doubt they would find ME acceptable. I'm not saying I would set out to insult the children's legal guardians, but when I care for children, I see it as my responsibility to teach them about right and wrong. I also read books and provide other Christian based material for them. I suppose it would be easier to avoid if they were the only children I cared for (still it would come up), but I certainly wouldn't sacrifice the proper training of other children for the sake of the immoral "moms." They wouldn't want me as a babysitter, but I wouldn't mind doing it.
Most recently, I have been honoured by being granted an Award of Merit by the new Sexual Diversity Studies Department at the University of Toronto, in recognition of my advocacy on behalf of queer communities in Canada.
Surprise, surprise ...
As hard as it might be for your to get your mind around this, I'm not white.
This is about the freedom of people to associate with anyone they choose, I don't want to tell anyone else who they can and cannot assoicate with, and I would appreciate the same from them.
Oh, and I thought I didn't capitalize my name most of the time because I was lazy. Instead I'm making a statement. Cool!
sundero
Likewise I certainly wouldn't want them to babysit my child.
exactly, the article said it was a hall behind a church-"what is the name of the church?"
I'm sure it was obvious it was a Catholic Church.
They're not Bruces (although some of them want to be).
They're sure no Sheilas (I've seen some of them).
That leaves Poofters.
funny how the rights of homos are becoming more important that the rights of straight people* it is like our rights are a lesser right*
i do not like using periods*
It's so "I'm a rebel, look at me!!" ish it's not even funny.
I know exactly what she means: I like to leave the zipper down on my pants...
'I realized that I had a perfect illustration of how we react when someone moves even a tiny bit away from the norm,'
'I know exactly what she means: I like to leave the zipper down on my pants...'
Well, my son already does this. He gets your attention quick.
GALAHAD: Well, look, I-I-uh--
ZOOT: What is your name, handsome knight?
GALAHAD: Sir Galahad... the Chaste.
ZOOT: Mine is Zoot... just Zoot.
ATTENTION CANADIAN PROVINCES WITH SOME NOTION OF SANITY:
ABANDON CANADA TO ITS SELF IMPOSED DOOM AND JOIN THE USA AS A STATE:
http://www.unitednorthamerica.org
END YOUR CANAIDAN HUMILIATION!
The point I was making (attempting to make) had nothing to do with your particular ethnicity.
No, your simply assumed that any one who's against anti-discrimination laws must be a white-supremacist.
Oh, I get it. They weren't thinking!
They were thinking of dollars and notoriety.
Maybe this could be solved by just informing the lesbian couple that the children will be taught Judeo/Christian moral values.
HAS THE 'MARRIAGE' ALREADY TAKEN PLACE??
If not, someone contact the Knights and suggest they 'decorate' the hall with religious posters, paintings, statues, etc. Then see how happy the 'couple' is to broadcast their great sin under the eyes of Mary and the Saints and a few Popes.
The sexual alternativists need to back down and rethink their strategies and behavior. The in-your-face maneuver is getting a bit silly.
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.