Skip to comments.Lesbian couple winds [sic] claim against Knights of Columbus
Posted on 11/30/2005 7:41:53 AM PST by george wythe
VANCOUVER, British Columbia Two lesbians are entitled to damages from the Knights of Columbus, which canceled their reservation of the group's hall for their wedding reception, a panel has ruled.
The Roman Catholic men's group was entitled to refuse to rent the hall on the basis of religious belief but caused undue hardship to the couple, Tracey Smith and Deborah Chymyshyn, the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal ruled Tuesday.
"The Knights could have taken steps such as meeting with the complainants to explain the situation, formally apologizing, immediately offering to reimburse the complainants for any expenses they had incurred and, perhaps, offering assistance in finding another solution," the tribunal said in a written decision. "There may have been other options they could have considered without infringing their core religious beliefs."
(Excerpt) Read more at oregonlive.com ...
Why did the gays even plan their wedding reception at the Knights of Columbus hall when they know that the KOC are Catholic?
To be a bother. That's why. To get in everyone's faces and be a bother.
At least in Canada, it seems that the Knights of Columbus have the 'right to refuse' but must pay damages.
Btw, the Knights of Columbus were accommodating:
Smith and Chymyshyn made no secret of the fact that the rental was for their wedding reception, but it didn't occur to the person who showed them the hall that they were marrying each other, officials said.
George Macintosh, a lawyer for the Knights of Columbus, disputed the finding that the group failed to accommodate the couple reasonably.
"The complainants located another hall the next morning, so that was taken care of," Macintosh said. "The Knights, when they found out about the misunderstanding, apologized to the complainants for the misunderstanding and offered to refund the hall rental.
"We certainly didn't go looking for this problem," she said. "We would never have booked the hall if we had known who the Knights of Columbus are, because we wouldn't want any hassle on our special day."
Don't know who the K of C are? I guess they don't get out much.
What would the reaction be if the RNC wanted to rent out meeting space in a hall that had a lesbian meeting across the way?
I think she is misstating what really happened to put herself in a positive light.
Hey, Yer Highness, couldn't the same be said of the lesbos? Couldn't they have found another hall? Maybe a bus station bathroom, or a four-stall outhouse at the local state park ... You know, someplace fit for the occasion.
That would be a 'provocation.'
At any rate, the conservative values of Christian organizations will continue to be attacked using these misguided souls.
IMHO, these liberal judges are just using the lesbian couple to punish Christians who refuse to accept the liberal dogmas.
If a Mosque however, canceled a reservation for a pig roast, that would be o.k.
Christians have to take back thier societies or face extinction as a faith.
You are right on the money
I'm surprised the Knights of Columbus are allowed to operate in Canada. After all, Columbus was guilty of genocide against the First Nations. Knights are warriors who fight on horseback--warfare is so un-Canadian (at least since 1945), and no one should ride a horse without getting the horse's consent. Where's PETA?
This sounds like a set-up.More publicity for the msm/homosexual activists.I can see the headline,"Homosexuals Discriminated Against".What really s@cks is they will most likely win damages.
More posts here from a Canadian newspaper. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1531151/posts If you go to the Globa and Mail article, they also have a discussion forum and the gays are really in a tiff of anything supportive of the K of C. It was also posted there that the lesbians booked the hall sight unseen and that under Canadian law, if a venue cancels after a booking, they are legally required to pay for the costs for an alternate venue. The bishop even offered to provide, at CHurch expense, an alternative site, but the dykes refused. The lesbians are also appealing the ruling because it did not say they were discriminated against based on sexual orientation. This was a homosexual activist set up from the start.
They did win damages. The hall was aquitted of discrimination, but guilty of contract violation under Canadian law. The lesbians are appealing the ruling even though they won damages because the ruling was for, in their opinion, the wrong reason.
Who would want to stink up a perfectly good outhouse with such degeneracy?
"They did win damages" Not only that,but they'll get lots of sympathetic ink/coverage from the msm.I can't speak for anyone else,but i'm really sick and tired of homosexuals crying discrimination.I think at some point activist activity by homosexuals is going to backfire.
""The Knights could have taken steps such as meeting with the complainants to explain the situation, formally apologizing, immediately offering to reimburse the complainants for any expenses they had incurred and, perhaps, offering assistance in finding another solution," the tribunal said in a written decision. "There may have been other options they could have considered without infringing their core religious beliefs."
Oh huh - and they could have called the two pervs "Sisters" and made like some queer laden Protestant sects, or the "Deformed 'Sin'agogue" on South Beach.
Anything to please the Human Rights chappies - musn't get their nappies in a knot, you know.
Knights of Columbus Forced to Pay Damages to Lesbians for Refusing to Rent Hall for Wedding Reception
By Terry Vanderheyden
VANCOUVER, November 30, 2005 (LifeSiteNews.com) The British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal has demanded that a Roman Catholic mens fraternity, the Knights of Columbus, award a lesbian couple damages for refusing to rent them a hall for their same-sex wedding.
The Tribunal said the Knights, however, had the right, as a religious group, to refuse the facility to the women, but that the women should be compensated for the undue hardship that cancelling the event had on them.
The Knights could have taken steps such as meeting with the complainants to explain the situation, formally apologizing, immediately offering to reimburse the complainants for any expenses they had incurred and, perhaps, offering assistance in finding another solution, the tribunals written decision stated.
In 2003, Deborah Chymyshyn and Tracey Smith rented the hall in Port Coquitlam. When the Knights became aware that it was to be for a homosexual couple, they cancelled the booking. The Tribunal heard the case in January and the ruling was handed down yesterday.
The Knights, faithful to church teaching against homosexual marriage, cancelled the rental contract that had been signed, returned the couples deposit and paid for the rental of a new hall and the reprinting of wedding invitations. That still didnt satisfy the two lesbians who went to the Human Rights Commission.
The Knights lawyer, George Macintosh, told the CP that it is untrue that the Knights did not try to accommodate the women. The complainants located another hall the next morning, so that was taken care of, he said. The Knights, when they found out about the misunderstanding, apologized to the complainants for the misunderstanding and offered to refund the hall rental. The communication just broke down when the Knights asked for a release to be signed before refunding the hall rental and the cost of printing the invitations, and that led to the hearing.
See the full BCHRT decision:
See related LifeSiteNews.com coverage:
Knights of Columbus Challenged by Canadian Lesbians for Refusing to Rent Hall for Wedding Reception
The good news is that the hall was aquitted of discrimination.
Liberals don't understand that the right to free assembly includes the right to exclude - the same way that the freedom of religion includes the right not to be a part of a religion
Refuse to pay.
The Gaystapo government... Coming to a country near you.
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.