Canpol: Stick a fork in them, and congrats on the nuptials

[KrazyHorse]

Doesn't really matter. Gay marriage has become a Charter issue. I doubt taxation of religious institutions is about to go that way, as it involves no fundamental human rights (either to be taxed or to tax)...

[Kontiki]

When did Canadian churches receive their tax-exempt status?

[KrazyHorse]

No idea. A quick Google search does not provide the answer.

Why would that be relevant?

[Kontiki]

Just wondering how completely absurd Wezil's analogy with cigarettes was. I know it's out there, but I just wanted to see how far.

[St Leo]

Well, from what I remember of 8th grade history, there was a problem in early Canada with the Catholic church owning a huge chunk of Quebec and being untaxable. It was resolved by it no longer owning as much land.

[Kuciwalker]

Interesting way of putting it

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2005/01/24/lesbian-wedding-050124.html

Right, Boris. Paranoid I am, when there is this case that is already being fought! The bill, as worded, provides no protection to religious institutions who do not want to affirm gay marriage.

A private club of Catholic men is not a religious institution. It's just a club.

Whether a private club should have the right to discriminate against people is a Charter of Rights question and doesn't have anything to do with the same sex marriage bill that was passed.

And the courts have ruled that the Charter's protection of freedom of religion means that churches have a right to discriminate against same sex marriages.

[Ben Kenobi]

Surely freedom of association ought to protect the right of private clubs to associate with whomever they choose?

[Ben Kenobi]

I asked for an instance where such an event had been forced to occur. That's just one couple in the process of a complaint. Get back to me when the commission decides the church has to comply.

Anyone can bring a suit like this. That doesn't mean it will be deemed to have merit.

Granted. When the ruling goes against the lesbians, and upholds the freedom of association of the Knights, then I won't worry. While the case is at hand, I am hardly paranoid to be concerned about the progress of the suit.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Surely freedom of association ought to protect the right of private clubs to associate with whomever they choose?

Not when they offer a service to the public.

[Mrs. Tuberski]

nm

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


Granted. When the ruling goes against the lesbians, and upholds the freedom of association of the Knights, then I won't worry. While the case is at hand, I am hardly paranoid to be concerned about the progress of the suit.

Surely you should be familiar with Delwin Vriend.

You are right that discrimination based on sexual orientation for a wide variety of issues has been banned in Canada, but that happened a long time before this bill.

You should be happy that the Supreme Court has said it will uphold the individual rights of conscience of the clergy. No one, and no church, will be forced to perform a ceremony.

Venture into the marketplace by renting facilities to the public, OTOH, and you will be required to pay lip service, at least, to human rights.

[notyoueither]

Tax exempt status being revoked is a huge red herring.

Go ahead and try it.

The same people who supported equal rights for people based on sexual orientation will just as soon support religious freedom and toleration.

[Ben Kenobi]

You should be happy that the Supreme Court has said it will uphold the individual rights of conscience of the clergy. No one, and no church, will be forced to perform a ceremony.

It's a red herring? Well, saying that gay marriage is a human rights issue is seen as a red herring. It assumes, that people are born gay, and that they cannot choose to change.

I would be happy if I could trust the courts, but I trust them as far as I could throw them to stand up for the rights of religous folks.

Now, as for the Knights, they have started to investigate how their halls are being used, and they have started to put them under much more scrutiny then previous. The concept being that the hall is part of a Catholic organisation, and should only be used for functions that support the mission of the Knights. The halls are not open to the public, everyone who wishes to use them faces the same test.

I don't see why the Knights should be required to lease their halls, to those who wish to use them for purposes contrary to the mission of the Knights.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


It's a red herring? Well, saying that gay marriage is a human rights issue is seen as a red herring. It assumes, that people are born gay, and that they cannot choose to change.

It is the law of the land. You may not like it, but we have a Constitution, a Charter of Rights, and courts charged with overseeing them. This is how we govern ourselves, finding it preferable to the rule of mobs, or worse.

The state of being gay was already protected by prior court rulings

Gay marriage was already legal in seven or eight provinces due to court rulings.

Parliament has merely given the rubber stamp to what the courts have been telling us all for over ten years.

I would be happy if I could trust the courts, but I trust them as far as I could throw them to stand up for the rights of religous folks.

It won't be just you standing up should things go haywire. Many of the same people who could not abide shunting Asher off as some kind of second class citizen will be standing right beside you if your rights are being infringed.

Now, as for the Knights, they have started to investigate how their halls are being used, and they have started to put them under much more scrutiny then previous. The concept being that the hall is part of a Catholic organisation, and should only be used for functions that support the mission of the Knights. The halls are not open to the public, everyone who wishes to use them faces the same test.

I don't see why the Knights should be required to lease their halls, to those who wish to use them for purposes contrary to the mission of the Knights.

Now you reach hairy ground.

If the hall is available to be leased by the public, but they choose to exclude asian people from renting, would you not see a problem?