Is Catholicism A Hate Crime In Canada?
Sound of Trumpet
Catholicism - A Hate Crime in Canada?
Catholic Exchange ^ | June 4th, 2008 | Pete Vere
Posted on Wednesday, June 04, 2008 16:22:08 by Petrosius
“If one, because of one’s sincerely held moral beliefs, whether it be
Jew, Muslim, Christian, Catholic, opposes the idea of same-sex
marriage in Canada, is that considered ‘hate’?”
The question was not rhetorical. Nor was it theoretical. Fr. Alphonse
de Valk, a Basilian priest and pro-life activist known throughout
Canada for his orthodoxy, is currently being investigated by the
Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC) — a quasi-judicial
investigative body with the power of the Canadian government behind
it. The CHRC is using section 13 of Canada’s Human Rights Act to
investigate the priest. This is a section under which no defendant has
ever won once the allegation has gone to tribunal — the next stage of
the process.
Most defendants end up paying thousands of dollars in fines and
compensation. This is in addition to various court costs. Moreover,
defendants are responsible for their own legal defense. In contrast,
the commission provides free legal assistance to the complainant.
What was Father de Valk’s alleged ‘hate act’?
Father defended the Church’s teaching on marriage during Canada’s same-
sex ‘marriage’ debate, quoting extensively from the Bible, the
Catechism of the Catholic Church, and Pope John Paul II’s encyclicals.
Each of these documents contains official Catholic teaching. And like
millions of other people throughout the world and the ages - many of
who are non-Catholics and non-Christians — Father believes that
marriage is an exclusive union between a man and a woman.
The response from Mark van Dusen, a media consultant and spokesperson
for CHRC, shocked me. I have interviewed van Dusen in the past and he
has always struck me as an honest person willing to field tough
questions on behalf of the commission. If he feels an accusation
against the commission is hogwash, he states so plainly. If he feels
the CHRC and its personnel are being unfairly tainted, he states so
boldly.
Yet van Dusen did not dismiss the question out-of-hand as I thought he
would. “We investigate complaints, Mr. Vere,” he said, “we don’t set
public policy or moral standards. We investigate complaints based on
the circumstances and the details outlined in the complaint. And …if…
upon investigation, deem that there is sufficient evidence, then we
may forward the complaint to the tribunal, but the hate is defined in
the Human Rights Act under section 13-1.”
In other words, individual Jews, Muslims, Catholics and other
Christians who, for reasons of conscience, hold to their faith’s
traditional teaching concerning marriage, could very well be guilty of
promoting hate in Canada. The same is true of any faith community in
Canada that does not embrace this modern redefinition of one of the
world’s oldest institutions — a redefinition that even the highly-
secularist France rejects.
“Our job is to look at it, compare it to the act, to accumulated case
law, tribunal and court decisions that have reflected on hate and
decide whether to advance the complaint, dismiss it or whether there
is room for a settlement between parties,” van Dusen continued. The
truth of the CHRC considering adherence to Catholicism or Islam a
possible hate crime was made real by van Dusen’s implicit admission
that the commission could dismiss the complaint against Fr. De Valk.
Over six months have passed since the commission first notified Father
of the complaint. There has been no hint of the commission dropping
the complaint.
Father de Valk publishes Catholic Insight, a Canadian magazine that
“bases itself on the Church’s teaching and applies it to various
circumstances in our time.” He is being accused by a homosexual
activist of promoting “extreme hatred and contempt” against
homosexuals.
Yet following the example of Popes John Paul II and Benedict XV,
Father has stated on several occasions that we must love homosexuals
and treat them with the dignity due every human person. “The basic
view of the Church is that homosexual acts are a sin, but we love the
sinner,” Father told me during an interview. “Opposing same-sex
marriage is not the same as rejecting homosexuals as persons.” This is
the deeply-held belief of orthodox Christians that is now considered a
possible hate act warranting state intervention. This is what happens
when government agencies broadly define homophobia as opposition to
any homosexual act.
Yet the complaint against Father de Valk is just one of several in
recent years that has been pursued against Christians by Canada’s
human rights commissions. In 2005, the British Columbia Human Rights
Tribunal fined a Knights of Columbus council over $1,000 dollars for
declining to rent their hall to a couple for a lesbian marriage
ceremony.
Five years previous, the Ontario Human Rights Commission fined
Protestant printer Scott Brockie $5,000 for declining to print
homosexual-themed stationary. The Saskatchewan Human Rights Tribunal
fined Hugh Owens thousands of dollars for quoting a couple of Bible
verses in a letter to the local newspaper. And Mayor Diane Haskett in
London, Ontario, was fined $10,000 plus interest for declining to
proclaim a gay pride day.
Nor have Canada’s bishops been spared. Bishop Fred Henry, one of
Canada’s most outspoken defenders of the sanctity of life and
marriage, was brought before a human rights commission for upholding
Catholic moral teaching. While the complaint was ultimately withdrawn
— not by the commission, but by the individual who originally filed
the complaint — Bishop Henry incurred thousands of dollars of legal
costs.
Thus Bishop Henry sympathizes with Father de Valk, who the bishop
praises as a model of Catholic orthodoxy and fidelity to Christian
teaching. “The social climate right now is that we’re into a new form
of censorship and thought control, and the commissions are being used
as thought police,” His Excellency states.
Additionally, a message posted to a popular Catholic internet forum
has reportedly made its way before the British Columbia Human Rights
Tribunal. The alleged poster, who is an American writing from America,
was commenting on an article written by Mark Steyn - a Canadian author
who now lives in New Hampshire. The tribunal accepted this posting as
evidence that Steyn promoted “hatred”. While the website is never
mentioned by name in news reports - referred to only as “a Catholic
website” — a source at the tribunal told me, off-the-record, that the
website was Catholic Answers.
While the claim is unconfirmed as of this writing, the controversial
Mark Steyn article, over which the British Columbia hearing is being
held, was posted to the Catholic Answers message forum. Moreoever,
popular Jewish-Canadian blogger Ezra Levant, who is blogging live from
the hearing, and who is the subject of his own human rights commission
complaint, published a description of the unnamed Catholic forum.
Several details match, including the screen names of two participants
to the Catholic Answers forum discussion of Steyn’s article.
Imagine that! Canada’s human rights tribunals are now attempting to
prosecute a case against an American resident, based upon what an
American citizen allegedly posted to a mainstream American Catholic
website. What passes for mainstream Catholic discussion in America is
now the basis for a hate complaint in Canada.
Moreover, Christians in America are not immune from what is happening
to their co-religionists across the border. This past April, the New
Mexico Human Rights Commission ordered Elaine Huguenin, a self-
employed Christian photographer, to pay a lesbian couple $6,600 for
having declined to photograph their same-sex commitment ceremony. This
fine and stress from the legal proceedings come at a time when
Huguenin and her husband are expecting their first child.
The New Mexico commission ignored the fact that photography is a form
of artistic expression. The state commission ignored the fact that the
First Amendment protects individuals from compelled speech — that is,
coercion from the state to give artistic expression that violates
one’s most deeply held beliefs. The commission’s one-page ruling
simply stated that Huguenin had “discriminated against [the lesbian
complainant] because of sexual orientation.” As this New Mexico Human
Rights Commission ruling shows, Americans are in grave danger of
having their religious liberty ripped away from them by Canadian-style
human rights commissions.
4095 Dead
<soundof...@mailhaven.com> wrote:
>http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2025796/posts
>
>
>Catholicism - A Hate Crime in Canada?
Apparently this kook doesn't understand that nearly half of Canada --
including nearly all of Quebec--is Catholic.
--
What do you call a Republican with a conscience?
An ex-Republican.
http://www.balloon-juice.com/?p=8827 (From Yang, AthD (h.c)
"Prosperity and peace are in the balance," -- Putsch, not admitting that he's against both
Putsch: leading America to asymetric warfare since 2001
Not dead, in jail, or a slave? Thank a liberal!
Pay your taxes so the rich don't have to.
For the finest in liberal/leftist commentary,
http://www.zeppscommentaries.com
For news feed (free, 10-20 articles a day)
Zepps_News...@yahoogroups.com
For essays (donations accepted, 2 articles/week)
Zepps_essay...@yahoogroups.com
a.a. #2211 -- Bryan Zepp Jamieson
Jama
Whether the actions of an individual or organization are to be
considered a "hate crime" should be addressed on a case by case
basis. However, one thing is clear: the declaration that said hate
crimes are justified because of ancient religious writings, teachings
by biased religious organizations, or claims by individual religious
leaders (whatever the religion) is obviously wrong.
The definition of a hate crime is defined by law. You may argue that
the behavior is not a hate crime. Fine - get a lawyer. But to claim,
as you are, that acknowledged hate crimes should be considered
acceptable simply because *your* religion says that a particular group
deserves persecution is, quite frankly, obviously wrong, out-dated,
and pathetic.
Jama
Craig Chilton -- Help to make the USA Bigotry-FREE!
Sound of Trumpet <soundof...@mailhaven.com> wrote:
> Catholicism - A Hate Crime in Canada?
If so, good for the Canadians! They just keep getting better
and smarter!
(The Catholic Church is the world's largest CULT.)
-- Craig Chilton <xana...@mchsi.com>
{ In case the archivers screw it up, as Google usually does,
that e-mail address, above is: xanadu222 AT mchsi.com }
Enkidu
> Catholicism - A Hate Crime in Canada?
Only if you *act* on your hate is it a crime.
--
Enkidu AA#2165
EAC Chaplain and ordained minister,
ULC, Modesto, CA
Most people are bothered by those passages of Scripture they do not
understand, but the passages that bother me are those I do understand.
-- Mark Twain
No One
> http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2025796/posts
>
>
> Catholicism - A Hate Crime in Canada?
>
> Catholic Exchange ^ | June 4th, 2008 | Pete Vere
>
> Posted on Wednesday, June 04, 2008 16:22:08 by Petrosius
>
> ⌠If one, because of one▓s sincerely held moral beliefs, whether it be
> Jew, Muslim, Christian, Catholic, opposes the idea of same-sex
> marriage in Canada, is that considered ▒hate▓?■
>
> The question was not rhetorical. Nor was it theoretical. Fr. Alphonse
> de Valk, a Basilian priest and pro-life activist known throughout
> Canada for his orthodoxy, is currently being investigated by the
> Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC) ≈ a quasi-judicial
> investigative body with the power of the Canadian government behind
> it. The CHRC is using section 13 of Canada▓s Human Rights Act to
> investigate the priest. This is a section under which no defendant has
> ever won once the allegation has gone to tribunal ≈ the next stage of
> the process.
<snip>
<http://www.ccrl.ca/index.php?id=4961&content=Human+rights+complaint+costing+Catholic+Insight>
states the following:
In February 2007, the magazine received a letter from Canadian
Human Rights Commission (CHRC) investigator Sandy Kozak that
said the magazine was "being investigated for hate
literature." Rob Wells, an Edmonton resident, had complained
of material hateful against homosexuals. Included in the
letter were "three long sheets with endless quotes that Rob
Wells has culled from our articles."
De Valk said the complaint contained no sources for the
out-of-context quotes. Their lawyer advised them to go over
every one of the more than 100 articles the magazine had
posted on line. They asked the CHRC to provide the articles
containing the offending quotes. "That took four or five
months," de Valk said. Eventually they received 16 articles
that provided the context for the complaint. De Valk admitted
"there is vigorous language in some of them," and "strong
words" about homosexual behaviour, but pointed out each
article contained counterbalancing commentary in the Catholic
tradition. The articles opposed the agenda of homosexual
activists, but "weren't attacking any individual persons," he
said.
In other words, somone filed a complaint with the CHRC (Canadian
Human Rights Commission" and the commission did its job and investigated
the complaints. I couldn't find any post giving the results (if there
are any at this point) of this investigation. Maybe if the religious
people wouldn't rant so much, it would be easier to find.
anonymous
>
> http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2025796/posts
>
> Catholicism - A Hate Crime in Canada?
>
> Catholic Exchange ^ | June 4th, 2008 | Pete Vere
>
> Posted on Wednesday, June 04, 2008 16:22:08 by Petrosius
>
> “If one, because of one’s sincerely held moral beliefs, whether it be
> Jew, Muslim, Christian, Catholic, opposes the idea of same-sex
> marriage in Canada, is that considered ‘hate’?”
>
Catholic or religious
to say you hate the thought of same sex marriage or taxes or most
anything. Yes, you and everyone else is allowed to hate. What you
can't do is wish harm to other people. For example it may fall within
the hate crime guidelines if you said you hated for any reason Martians
or the people of the planet Mars. Most hate legisation is about
preventing peopel from saying the hate and want harm to come to a
particular group of people. You cat say I don't think Martians should be
entitle to same sex marriage but you can't say that homosexual Martians
should suffer any harm or death, etc. That would probably fall within
the hate legisation defintion.
> The question was not rhetorical. Nor was it theoretical. Fr. Alphonse
> de Valk, a Basilian priest and pro-life activist known throughout
> Canada for his orthodoxy, is currently being investigated by the
> Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC) — a quasi-judicial
> investigative body with the power of the Canadian government behind
> it. The CHRC is using section 13 of Canada’s Human Rights Act to
> investigate the priest. This is a section under which no defendant has
> ever won once the allegation has gone to tribunal — the next stage of
> the process.
>
Before you move on to the next paragraph, the reason for the
investigation is probably that the priest
wrote something or said something. If you quoted what was said or
written, it would end the mystery.
> Most defendants end up paying thousands of dollars in fines and
> compensation. This is in addition to various court costs. Moreover,
> defendants are responsible for their own legal defense. In contrast,
> the commission provides free legal assistance to the complainant.
>
Seems totally reasonable, that he would lose and not remotely have our
support because you as
a poster failed to quote what he said. Very sad. Very sad, indeed
> What was Father de Valk’s alleged ‘hate act’?
>
I am guessing because you, the poster, failed up to this point to quote
accurately what the pirest said.
> Father defended the Church’s teaching on marriage during Canada’s same-
> sex ‘marriage’ debate, quoting extensively from the Bible, the
> Catechism of the Catholic Church, and Pope John Paul II’s encyclicals.
None of this refers to homosexuality or same sex marriage, but nice
reading nontheless. None of it
suggest either that harm should come to anybody so it is unlikely that
such quoted text would be of interest
to anyone including any hate commission.
Let me remind you.
You have failed to quote the passages from the Bible.
You have failed to quote the documents referenced above.
You have failed to quote from the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
You have failed to quote from Pope John Paul II's encyclicals.
> Each of these documents contains official Catholic teaching. And like
> millions of other people throughout the world and the ages - many of
> who are non-Catholics and non-Christians — Father believes that
> marriage is an exclusive union between a man and a woman.
I think the Catholic church believes that masturbation is an exclusive
right of no one.'
I think the Catholic church believes that pregnancy in a mentally
handicapped woman because of rape has no
right of divorce.
I think the Catholic church believes that birth control is not an
exclusive right of anybody.
I think the Catholic church believes that divorce is an exclusive of
nobody.
>
> The response from Mark van Dusen, a media consultant and spokesperson
> for CHRC, shocked me. I have interviewed van Dusen in the past and he
> has always struck me as an honest person willing to field tough
> questions on behalf of the commission. If he feels an accusation
> against the commission is hogwash, he states so plainly. If he feels
> the CHRC and its personnel are being unfairly tainted, he states so
> boldly.
>
> Yet van Dusen did not dismiss the question out-of-hand as I thought he
> would. “We investigate complaints, Mr. Vere,” he said, “we don’t set
> public policy or moral standards. We investigate complaints based on
> the circumstances and the details outlined in the complaint. And …if…
> upon investigation, deem that there is sufficient evidence, then we
> may forward the complaint to the tribunal, but the hate is defined in
> the Human Rights Act under section 13-1.”
>
> In other words, individual Jews, Muslims, Catholics and other
> Christians who, for reasons of conscience, hold to their faith’s
> traditional teaching concerning marriage, could very well be guilty of
> promoting hate in Canada.
Note remotely so. Sadly, again I remind you that you failed to quote
any material. Very sad.
The same is true of any faith community in
> Canada that does not embrace this modern redefinition of one of the
> world’s oldest institutions — a redefinition that even the highly-
> secularist France rejects.
Society, religous or not doesn't care what religious people do or say.
Free speech is very, very healthy in Canada.
>
> “Our job is to look at it, compare it to the act, to accumulated case
> law, tribunal and court decisions that have reflected on hate and
> decide whether to advance the complaint, dismiss it or whether there
> is room for a settlement between parties,” van Dusen continued. The
> truth of the CHRC considering adherence to Catholicism or Islam a
> possible hate crime was made real by van Dusen’s implicit admission
> that the commission could dismiss the complaint against Fr. De Valk.
> Over six months have passed since the commission first notified Father
> of the complaint. There has been no hint of the commission dropping
> the complaint.
>
> Father de Valk publishes Catholic Insight, a Canadian magazine that
> “bases itself on the Church’s teaching and applies it to various
> circumstances in our time.” He is being accused by a homosexual
> activist of promoting “extreme hatred and contempt” against
> homosexuals.
You are not helping your position, Mr. Poster, if you fail to quote the
material
in question.
>
> Yet following the example of Popes John Paul II and Benedict XV,
> Father has stated on several occasions that we must love homosexuals
> and treat them with the dignity due every human person.
The world would love anyone who says they love homosexuals.
> “The basic
> view of the Church is that homosexual acts are a sin, but we love the
> sinner,” Father told me during an interview.
The would at large would love anyone who says that homosexual acts are a
sin but they love the sinner.
> “Opposing same-sex
> marriage is not the same as rejecting homosexuals as persons.”
Many, many Catholic priests embrace homosexual acts, homosexuality, and
homosexual persons but rejct outright homosexual marriage. Lots of
religious and non-religious segments of society reject same sex
marriage.
That is not remotely a hate crime.
> This is
> the deeply-held belief of orthodox Christians that is now considered a
> possible hate act warranting state intervention. This is what happens
> when government agencies broadly define homophobia as opposition to
> any homosexual act.
>
Again, you fail to quote anything the Father in question has written or
said.
> Yet the complaint against Father de Valk is just one of several in
> recent years that has been pursued against Christians by Canada’s
> human rights commissions.
Before you leave the subject of the Father and move on to something in
2005, I remind you. Mr. Poster,
if you are an honest person of faith, it would seem reasonable for you
to qutoe from the Father.
In 2005, the British Columbia Human Rights
> Tribunal fined a Knights of Columbus council over $1,000 dollars for
> declining to rent their hall to a couple for a lesbian marriage
> ceremony.
If I remember correctly, halls often have liquor licences or operational
licences issued by the province or a specified city and as such the hall
or the people operating the hall have to abide by the same rules as
non-religious businesses. Also the Catholic church is a non-profit
organization and as such is bound by such guildelines and tax exemptions
federally and provincially and while they may operate freely under the
law, being granted such exemptions may require compliance with local and
provinial laws and bylaws.
>
> Five years previous, the Ontario Human Rights Commission fined
> Protestant printer Scott Brockie $5,000 for declining to print
> homosexual-themed stationary.
Again, Mr. Poster, the facts of that case are?
? The Saskatchewan Human Rights Tribunal
> fined Hugh Owens thousands of dollars for quoting a couple of Bible
> verses in a letter to the local newspaper. And Mayor Diane Haskett in
> London, Ontario, was fined $10,000 plus interest for declining to
> proclaim a gay pride day.
>
again the facts of that case are, Mr. Poster?
> Nor have Canada’s bishops been spared. Bishop Fred Henry, one of
> Canada’s most outspoken defenders of the sanctity of life and
> marriage, was brought before a human rights commission for upholding
> Catholic moral teaching. While the complaint was ultimately withdrawn
> — not by the commission, but by the individual who originally filed
> the complaint — Bishop Henry incurred thousands of dollars of legal
> costs.
>
And the facts of that case are?
As I recall, the father, was, I suggest to you, uncatholic in what he
said.
> Thus Bishop Henry sympathizes with Father de Valk, who the bishop
> praises as a model of Catholic orthodoxy and fidelity to Christian
> teaching. “The social climate right now is that we’re into a new form
> of censorship and thought control, and the commissions are being used
> as thought police,” His Excellency states.
>
No, you are free, religous or not to have all the sexual or non-sexual
thoughts you want.
You just can't say, print or public any suggestion that it is okay to
harm other humans in
society or wish harm to come to them.
> Additionally, a message posted to a popular Catholic internet forum
> has reportedly made its way before the British Columbia Human Rights
> Tribunal. The alleged poster, who is an American writing from America,
> was commenting on an article written by Mark Steyn - a Canadian author
> who now lives in New Hampshire. The tribunal accepted this posting as
> evidence that Steyn promoted “hatred”. While the website is never
> mentioned by name in news reports - referred to only as “a Catholic
> website” — a source at the tribunal told me, off-the-record, that the
> website was Catholic Answers.
>
So what are you trying to say in this last paragraph?
> While the claim is unconfirmed as of this writing, the controversial
> Mark Steyn article, over which the British Columbia hearing is being
> held, was posted to the Catholic Answers message forum. Moreoever,
> popular Jewish-Canadian blogger Ezra Levant, who is blogging live from
> the hearing, and who is the subject of his own human rights commission
> complaint, published a description of the unnamed Catholic forum.
> Several details match, including the screen names of two participants
> to the Catholic Answers forum discussion of Steyn’s article.
>
And sadly, again, what are you trying to say in this last paragraph?
> Imagine that! Canada’s human rights tribunals are now attempting to
> prosecute a case against an American resident, based upon what an
> American citizen allegedly posted to a mainstream American Catholic
> website. What passes for mainstream Catholic discussion in America is
> now the basis for a hate complaint in Canada.
>
And, sadly, again, what are you trying to say in this paragraph? If you
are
trying to make the point that if somebody wishes harm to a certain
individual or group of
people and says so, yes, it is of interest to governments at all levels
as it relates to hate
crimes.
> Moreover, Christians in America are not immune from what is happening
> to their co-religionists across the border. This past April, the New
> Mexico Human Rights Commission ordered Elaine Huguenin, a self-
> employed Christian photographer, to pay a lesbian couple $6,600 for
> having declined to photograph their same-sex commitment ceremony. This
> fine and stress from the legal proceedings come at a time when
> Huguenin and her husband are expecting their first child.
>
and the facts of the case are, Mr. Poster?
> The New Mexico commission ignored the fact that photography is a form
> of artistic expression. The state commission ignored the fact that the
> First Amendment protects individuals from compelled speech — that is,
> coercion from the state to give artistic expression that violates
> one’s most deeply held beliefs. The commission’s one-page ruling
> simply stated that Huguenin had “discriminated against [the lesbian
> complainant] because of sexual orientation.” As this New Mexico Human
> Rights Commission ruling shows, Americans are in grave danger of
> having their religious liberty ripped away from them by Canadian-style
> human rights commissions.
You have a right like anybody else to post whatever you like, but
failing to post what someone said, I suggest to you, is nothing short of
being lame.
mariposas rand mair fheal
> Catholic or religious
> to say you hate the thought of same sex marriage or taxes or most
> anything. Yes, you and everyone else is allowed to hate. What you
> can't do is wish harm to other people. For example it may fall within
the reforms martin luther king and others
resulted in real economic and political harm to some people
and those people felt they were unduly hated
> the hate crime guidelines if you said you hated for any reason Martians
> or the people of the planet Mars. Most hate legisation is about
so would mlk be guilty of a hate crime or those who opposed him
the purpose with thoughtcrime is to force people to agree
with whoever happens to be current minister of love
> preventing peopel from saying the hate and want harm to come to a
> particular group of people. You cat say I don't think Martians should be
> entitle to same sex marriage but you can't say that homosexual Martians
> should suffer any harm or death, etc. That would probably fall within
> the hate legisation defintion.
after a conviction for an actual crime (not merely miffed feelings)
the motives and other factors can be considered in sentencing
but given the first amendment in the usa hate cannot be legislated
this means all sides of an argument can be presented vigorously
and hopefully the best course decided collectively
> And, sadly, again, what are you trying to say in this paragraph? If you
> are
> trying to make the point that if somebody wishes harm to a certain
> individual or group of
> people and says so, yes, it is of interest to governments at all levels
> as it relates to hate
> crimes.
to those of us who believe humans have souls
which might be subject to eternal punishment
wouldnt anyone pushing people towards damnation be the ultimate hate?
if god hates gays and damns them all
wouldnt anyone defending lgbt be the ultimate haters?
who gets to decide what is the truth?
arf meow arf - raggedy ann and andy for president and vice
limp and spineless lint for brains is better yet and nice
then rueing pair of shrub and dick the republican lice
call me desdenova seven seven seven seven seven seven
Nosterill
wrote:
Why only in Canada? I would have thought they were doing even more
damage in Africa right now.
JohnN
wrote:
Well that's just impossible. Your god destroyed Canada for allowing
same-gender marriages. Since Canada no longer exists, there is no
hate crime in Canada.
You really should pay more attention to rightwing-nut religious TV and
websites.
JohnN
juanjo
wrote:
> Moreover, Christians in America are not immune from what is happening
> to their co-religionists across the border. This past April, the New
> Mexico Human Rights Commission ordered Elaine Huguenin, a self-
> employed Christian photographer, to pay a lesbian couple $6,600 for
> having declined to photograph their same-sex commitment ceremony. This
> fine and stress from the legal proceedings come at a time when
> Huguenin and her husband are expecting their first child.
>
Let us be clear about something. This so-called christian
photographer runs a business in which she advertises and holds herself
out as willing to be employed as a photographer at social functions
such as weddings. To the extend she does so she is nothing more than
someone hired to perform a job. It has nothing to do with art
although certainly the more skill one has a photographer places one's
services in higher demand and allows one to charge a higher prices for
one's services. The same is true of a florist, a baker of wedding
cakes or a caterer. You are bound by the same rules as any business
and in New Mexico as in most civilized states this includes the fact
that you cannot discriminate on the basis of certain enumerated
factors. If this piece of crap, judgmental snapshot artist had
decided to not perform services for Blacks or Protestants or
Republicans, she would have been equally liable and trumpet boy would
be on his high horse condemning her perhaps. It the silly creature
had simply declined the job without mentioning anything about
objecting to photographing a same sex marriage ceremony she would have
been safe. But being a judgmental twat she shot off her bigoted mouth
and paid for it.
I cannot speak for the Canadian aspects of this post although some of
the examples seem to be of the same ilk, people engaged in business
with the public. If so then they deserved to be fined for violating
the law. If you have a business open to the public then you have to
follow the laws applicable to those types of businesses.
I am reminded of a situation which occurred way back in 1972. I was
employed at the time in a catering business which was owned by a
Lutheran minister. He did an excellent business and was much in
demand by many church and social groups. He was contacted by a gay
couple who were having a commitment ceremony and wished him to cater
the reception. This was the first I had ever heard of such a thing as
a commitment ceremony but that is not the point. The couple came in
and met with Chuck as the owner was known. They ordered quite a
spread of food and beverage. Somehow word of this event was leaked to
some and a Baptist minister came to see Chuck and asked him not to
cater the event. Chuck threw the minister out telling him that the
gay couple's money was as green as anyone's and he would not start
refusing work based on other people's likes and dislikes abut his
customers.