From The Globe and Mail via The Last Amazon:
The Knights [of Columbus], adhering to church teaching, which is against homosexual marriage, cancelled a rental contract that had been signed, returned the couple's deposit and paid for both the rental of a new hall and the reprinting of wedding invitations after Ms. Chymyshyn and Ms. Smith complained that invitations listing the hall's address for their reception had been mailed. That was in September, 2003. In October, the couple complained to the Human Rights Tribunal, which heard the case last week.Something's rotten in Denmark (or Port Coquitlam). The Conservative party's justice critic, Vic Toews, made an interesting point on TV last night. He asked why the courts seem to consistently hold equality rights to trump rights to freedom of religion. It's a good question. I have a question too. Why do so many people hold the view that minorites must support one another? That rights for one group strengthen the rights of all minorities? Doesn't that mean Jewish people ought to support the rights of Nazis in Canada? My point is that support for something ought to be based on its mertis and its truth, and on no other criteria. Interestingly, Global TV is reporting that something like 67% of Canadians want to keep the traditional definition of marriage, and a similar percentage want the issue to go to a referendum. So why do the pointy heads keep telling Stephen Harper that his dissention from the Liberals on this issue is hurting him? If the poll is right, he is the only party leader defending the people of Canada. Jack Layton, for heaven's sake, is insiting that all his NDP members must support the Liberal bill or face consequences. So much for their freedom of religion, which is a Charter Right. Jack says human rights of minorities should never be subject to a majority vote. But Mr. Layton - that is the very question! Is it a human rights issue or not? Are there any limits at all to what the government can rule on and alter?
Comments