[VRWCmember]

Surely most of the people who work at Catholic schools are Catholic as are most of the pupils. If this is not the case, then they are really no longer Catholic. In which case, the Church should dispense with them. Otherwise, they deserve the exemption.

Under the version approved, the state exempts employers only if their primary function is religious, most of the people they serve share that religion, and most of the people they employ also share that religion. As a result, the exemption does not apply to Catholic hospitals or schools.

It would be easy to argue (and difficult to disprove) that the primary function of a Catholic school is education rather than religious, and even easier to argue that the primary function of a Catholic hospital is medicine rather than religion. Therefore, the law was written to unfairly deny these institutions the exemption.

[Alberta's Child]

It would be easy to argue (and difficult to disprove) that the primary function of a Catholic school is education rather than religious, and even easier to argue that the primary function of a Catholic hospital is medicine rather than religion. Therefore, the law was written to unfairly deny these institutions the exemption.

It would be very easy to prove beyond any shred of a doubt that the primary function of a Catholic school is religious -- the legal landscape is littered with "separation of church and state" cases in which courts on all levels have ruled that public funds cannot be used for Catholic schools. In every case, the court's ruling is based on the rationale that religious schools cannot receive public assistance because -- get this -- THEIR PRIMARY FUNCTION IS RELIGIOUS INSTRUCTION.