Skip to comments.Photos of Port Coquitlam, B.C. Knights of Columbus Hall Dispute Lesbians’ Claims (Liar Alert!)
Posted on 12/09/2005 7:29:58 AM PST by NYer
PORT COQUITLAM, BC, December 7, 2005 (LifeSiteNews.com) Two lesbians awarded damages from a BC Human Rights Tribunal for being denied a Knights of Columbus hall rental for their same-sex wedding claimed they were completely unaware that the hall was affiliated with the Catholic Church.
Pictures of the hall obtained by LifeSiteNews.com reveal its undeniable inclusion in a complex that included Our Lady of the Assumption Catholic Church and Our Lady of the Assumption Catholic School. Not only do the pictures reveal that the hall is part of the same three-acre parcel of land, but the walls of the buildings are all identical in colour.
Hall on left, with K of C crest above door and Our Lady of The Assumption Catholic Church prominent to right
The pictures also clearly reveal the Knights coat of arms prominently displayed, as are pictures obviously relating to the Catholic faith, such as the picture in the announcement board of a young priest with the caption, One good priest can make a difference . . . Vocations are everybodys business.
Our Lady of The Assumption Catholic School located immediately to the left of the K of C Hall
David Hauser, who managed the hall at the time, told LifeSiteNews.com that Theres a large cross on that Church. He added, Theres a picture of the Pope in the hall . . . theres no way they didnt know we were connected to the Church.
More significantly, Hauser revealed to LifeSiteNews.com this week that Tracey Smith, one of the two women who rented the hall, was a co-worker of his who, along with a number of other openly gay co-workers at the Costco warehouse, very well knew of his involvement with the Catholic mens organization and his connection with the hall prior to the controversial visit two years ago. As well, the tribunal decision noted that both Smith and Chymyshyn "knew the Catholic Church's view on same-sex marriage" and "had they known who the Knights were, they would not have rented the hall."
The door through which the two women entered hall - note prominent K of C crest and announcement board
The Tribunal decision reported that Both parties spent considerable time describing the hall and the placement within it of the crucifix, a picture of the ascension [sic] (should have read assumption) of the Virgin Mary, a picture of the Pope and pictures of the leaders of the Knights. Amazingly, the Tribunal Panel admitted that "There is no question that these items were displayed in the Hall," and yet nevertheless stated it "accepts the evidence of the complainants", who knew of the Catholic Church's vews on same-sex 'marriage', "that they did not take notice of these items."
Large crucifix prominent over one end of hall
The tribunal then acknowledged, Even if the complainants had noticed those items, the Panel is not persuaded that they would have made the connection between them, the Knights, and the fact that the Hall was a building with religious significance that may have had restrictions as to the types of events that could take place there.
Announcement board with clearly Catholic notices and priest Photo that was there 2 years ago
The Tribunal accepts that the complainants did not know who the Knights were or their affiliation with the Catholic Church, they concluded.
Picture of Pope John Paul II the most prominent photo at top centre of photos of Knight officers in hall
In 2003, Smith and Deborah Chymyshyn rented the hall in Port Coquitlam. When the Knights became aware that it was to be for a homosexual couple, which would be in violation of Knights and Catholic principles, they cancelled the booking. The Tribunal heard the case in January and the ruling was handed down this past Nov. 30th.
See prior LifeSiteNews.com coverage:
Knights of Columbus Forced to Pay Damages to Lesbians for Refusing to Rent Hall for Wedding Reception
Lesbians Want More Than Just Fine for Knights of Columbus: Launch Appeal
Read the Humans Rights Tribunal decision:
Maybe they used the "love is blind" defense.
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...
Makes you go hmmmmm....perhaps the couple knew all along they would get denied and saw the chance for a money grab. Otherwise, why would you refuse to sign the release and get back all of the money you put into the deal?
Another Sherlock Holmes moment.
You can't expect honesty from people struggling with such a severe disorder. What I wonder is why the KofC took their money in the first place.
Amen. Homosexuality = mental disorder. These poor ladies should seek treatment.
"I would like to invite them come over here to FR, but I'd get banned."
Yes, they should, but with a huge cheering section telling them they are better than "breeders," it's not likely.
"You can't expect honesty from people struggling with such a severe disorder."
Yes, they should, but with a huge cheering section telling them that they are superior to "breeders," that's not likely.
Sorry for the goof.
LOL! I was wondering where I had invited a bunch of Canadian lesbians to visit us here at FR...egads!
"I was wondering where I had invited a bunch of Canadian lesbians to visit us here at FR."
That was right after your fifth Long Island Iced tea.
Actually, it's my eyes. I bought this stupid black keyboard, and I can't see the keys worth a darn. I keep thinking I'm pressing control c to copy, and I'm pressing something else. Then I hit control v, and copy in whatever was on the clipboard before.
Oh, well, if you got a chuckle, it wasn't a total loss.
Jeez, now I see that when I went back to fix it, I goofed again.
Time for beddy bye.
OK... where's my new keyboard???
Please FReepmail me if you'd like to be added to or removed from the KofC ping list.
I don't see the logic to that defense anyway. Even if they did not know, this is private property owned by a religious organization. Once the Knights knew that immoral activity would be taking place, they cancelled the booking and gave back the deposit. Maybe it's something to do with the Canadian way of looking at it, but I don't see why they are entitled to any "damages" at all. It seems to me this was a set-up, one look at that hall and lesbians are going to know a fuss will be created by their "wedding". Doesn't the "gay agenda" include deliberately creating scenarios like this to get them publicity and sympathy?