Renegade

I did not mean that the Rosa Parks situation was analogous to this one. What I meant was that Rosa Parks resisted to make a point. Betsy's response seem to indicate that she agreed with the woman in principle, but still thought the woman should go to another bar. You on the other hand, don't seem to agree with the prinicple at hand. My question to you is where do we draw the line in where discrimmination is permissable? Your position seems to be that private establishments should be allowed to discrimminate. Do you think they should be allowed to refuse service and discrimminate on the basis of race, religion, gender? What about discrimmination for employment? If we allow private establishments to discrimminate, as RW said, it shouldn't be enforced with a double standard.

So do I, but only after she has made her point by legally establishing that she has the right to enter the establishment if she so chose. What would have happened if Rosa Parks decided rather that make a fuss, she would just board another bus?

There could be extenuating circumstances in some cases but in general, single soldiers don't need it, nor do most single non soldiers. "Need" is a subjective term.Why should the VA determine who "needs" it? Treat everyone equally. Should we pay single soldiers less than married ones, because their "needs" are less? Do you not agree with equal pay for equal work?

Death benefits is an insurance term and is defined as follows: linkThe beneficiary is named, and does not necessarily need to be a dependant.

Would your answer be the same if the woman applied for employment at the bar and was discrimminated on the basis of sexual orientation, gender, or race?

I disagree. It is provided for whomever the benificary designates. He could for example designate a charity to recieve a death benefit. Since the government is providing "life insurance" for married soldiers without additional cost, it should provide the same for single soldiers. Why should single soldiers buy it when married soldiers do not. It is clearly discrimmination.

The question is should we allow private establishments to discriminate or not. If we do as you suggest then it should be allowed across the board. Bars can ban patrons on the basis of colour, race, or gender. What about employers, as private enterprises, are they also accorded the privilige of dicrimminating on the basis of race or sexual orientation?

We already have many such precedences. "Curves" gym prohibits men. Many bars on "ladies night" charge men an entrance fee but not women. Is that not also precedence-setting disrimmination? The problem is the double standard. A bar owner can be sued if they tried to run a bar that did not allow blacks or gays. Either get rid of the laws that allow owners to be sued for discriminating against certain types of clients or apply those laws equally to all. No double standards. Exactly right RW. It seems that society has selective vision in what kind of discrimmination is tolerated.

Personally I agree with Dinning. This is a discrimminatory benefit provided one group and not another based upon martial status. Essentially the married soldiers are being provided life insurance with a $250,000 payout, as part of their employment conditions. That same benefit is not provided to single soldiers. The single soldiers should either be provided with equivalent coverage or should have their pay increased to compensate them for the lack of coverage.

You mean seniors were doing better with income trusts under the Liberals? How so? I wasn't aware that the Liberals listened to anything Harper said, or followed his advice. Disappointing for a party not to be able to make its own decisons, and have to say "I listened to the other guy". I have no idea, and we will never know. Did Harper pervent a disaster by changing the law so that more companies didn't convert to income trusts, or did he deprive investors of a tax break for which they are entitled? Unless you have visonary capabilies to know what would have happened, it is an unanswerable question.

Leafless, are you saying that if one does not share the beliefs of the majority, then one is not a bona fide member of Canadian society?

Here's the thing. I expect most of those seniors invested in income trusts had done so, long before Harper was elected and made any such promises. Those seniors likely benefited greatly in the run-up of income trust prices and collected the payouts. How valid is their complaints if you also don't consider the gains that the income trusts produced all those years. IOW, another way to look at it is those who invested in income trusts were lucky to be able to take advantage of a tax break for many years that other investors did not have. In any case, the other major parties would have ended the breaks on income trusts and it is unlikely the seniors would have been any better off under a different regime.

Of course. But given the available choices, I also have to take into consideration that other parties also have been shown to break promises.

Agreed, but a government is not judged by how well it forecasts. If a govenment wanted to, it could come in exactly on budget but underestimating the surplus and then applying last minute frivilous spending to make sure it came on budget. Not sure about you, but I'd prefer the government to come in with as large surpuluses as possible despite what they have forecast. Well your specific comment was " the Tories are likely to just try to cut the GST rather than address income taxes" and you made that comment in a topic about the use of the federal surplus, so it was natural for me to assume you meant that the Tories were likely to apply the surplus toward a GST cut. If that is not what you meant, I must have misunderstood. Yes, absolutely he has broken some. Personally I would have favoured income tax cuts over a GST cut, but even more than that, I favour a government keeping its word, especially promises it was elected on.

Agreed. Worth what? Perhaps she has already considered and decided that this guy is not worth being her child's dad. Maybe, maybe not. But regardless, it's their call not either of ours. I was not aware that the determination of whether one person was a fit for another was relegated to anyone else but the couple themselves. Perhaps you would like to enforce in law, the rules of what makes people compatable. How can you, when I haven't yet attempted to be humourous.

The Tories used to ridicule the Liberals for making such huge underestimations. Sadly, the Tories are likely to just try to cut the GST rather than address income taxes where the largest percentage of growth in federal income was made. And if they don't cut taxes, expect a new wave of spending prior to an election announcement. Perhaps they will be defeated before they have a chance to cut or spend. Given the choice between governments missing their estimates by overspending or by underspending, I much prefer underspending. It doesn't matter much to me whether it was the Liberals or PC who did so. As far as applying the surplus to the GST, shouldn't we expect that, afterall isn't that part the platform they were elected on? Or are you encouraging the PC not to keep their election promises?

So geoffrey, why stop there? Why not triple the debt and give everyone tax cuts to pay-off credit card debt, or mortgages, or invest in the stock-market to get 25% returns. Taken the extreme, why not just stop taxing and just accumulated debt?

Ok, perhaps I misunderstood what you were saying in the quote. If I correctly understand you, the man will be a person of influence, no different than any other adult. Correct? No, for both the man and women it is essential that they make their legal standing clear PRIOR to waiting to see how long the relationship last. It would indeed be foolhardy for the parties, to try and enter a contract after the child is born depending upon if the relationship last. This couple may be going into this contract with the assumption that their relationship will not last, and thus wish to make clear the parenting intent of each party. It is force and coercion which takes away the free will of both parties to freely enter into a contract. The man is being forced to be designated as a parent. So absolutely there is force involved. If the rest of your argument is that if the guy is around he will have influence on the child, ok, I agree. But influence doesn't make him a father, any more than all the other adults around a child who influence the child make them the father. What exactly do you mean? The guy is pretty clear, he doen't want to be a father. The woman too is clear, she wants to be a mother. It is you who is speculating pretty far out that somehow he will change his mind and become attachec to the child and want the fatherly duties. By your own words there are people who had fathers who were abusive or didn't care. At least this guy is definitively stating he is not accepting that role, nor the privilidges nor the responsiblities. If the mother is ok with it, why shoudl the govenment intefere? I can see how your justice and rights works.

If you agree that any number of adults in the child's environment have a role of influence in a child's life, how is that none of them save those designated as "parents" are saddled with any legal responsibilites enforcable by law? How do you even know this guy will even be around enough so that the child forms an attachment? If the couple didn't live together, would there not also be such a bond? So you think it is less emotionally scarring on the child to have an unwilling father forced upon that child? Maybe so, but the man is making his decisions upon his feelings NOW, and his wishes for fatherhood. If he wishes to change that position because circumstances change later on, he is free to adopt the child with the approval of the mother. Even if you are right in your assessment it is not illegal to be sefish. People should be free to enter agreements which clearly state their intentions.

Eminently sensible position IMV. However, does the boy's father not have first claim on custody if something happens to you?

So what if they are in a common-law relationship. Even in such a relationship, while there is a "default" set of laws covering the responsibilities of each partner, the parties can override them by mutual agreement by entering into a written contract. Why would that not apply to parential responsiblites? You avoid defending the justification you brought up originally, that "A child should be getting as much support as possible". RW justifiably asked where that support ends and you haven't answered. Common-law responsibilites are not fixed and can be changed by mutual agreement. How is that different than when a single mother dies? Do we draft the nearest man into the role of custodian of the child regardless of if he is willing or not? It is easy to follow that that is your position. What makes little sense is the linking of presence in the house to acceptance of parental responsiblity. Yes they all should have that right, afterall don't mothers have that right? No, I don't think that is what is being said. Parental responsibility should be accepted voluntarily, however once accepted cannot be revoked. What is being stated is that if it was never accepted voluntarily it should not be imposed. IMV, the agreement still stands. IMV, the cohabitant would need to apply in court to adopt the child and by doing so accepts the responsiblity of bieing a parent. He shouldn't default into it against his will.

Would you assume that if Jane Doe had a roommate she was not in a conjugal reltionship with, that the other adult must be involved in the raising of the child and thus must be a parent? Would you assume that the roommate must support the child? If I read your position correctly, the simple fact of being in the same residence as the child, makes that person the child's parent. You didn't answer RW's question that if it was siblings sharing the residence, and one decided to have a child, does it make the other the parent. Here's the thing, whereas in most cases courts have deduced intent based upon actions, in this case the intent is clear and documented. Despite that, the courts have gone with a set of assumptions based upon implied intent, and I think the courts are dead wrong to override both individuals wishes. raising a child well or badly, for good or ill. Well you havin't provided a lot more detail, you have simply substituted one ambiguous word with another. What constitutes raising? Does that mean that physical presence around the child constitutes "raising"?

You make a leap that physical presence in the house constitutes a "relationship" with the child. I'm not sure I agree that presence constitutes relationship. Furthermore, why would it be up to Mr Doe as to what he has to "do with the child"? That is up to the wishes of the only identifable parent, the mother. "Best interests" of the child is not the trump card which overrides all other factors. There are many situations in society where other individuals rights are the differentiating factor. For example in abortion rights, arguably the "best interests" of the child is to force the mother to give birth. As another example, would we force adoption of a child to adoptive parents if the adoptive parents can be shown to be better parents, and justifiy the forced removal from the natural parents as being in the "best interests" of the child. Actually Jane Doe and John Doe are trying to have a contract signed which specifically states that Jane is the parent and John is not, but they are prevented from entering into such a contract.

Actually nowhere in the facts of the case have I seen that they plan to raise a child together. What is says that John Doe wishes to continue a romantic relationship with Jane Doe. Does that constitute "raising a child together"? Define "parenting".

Today The Toronto Star published this piece by Brenda Cossman, professor of law at the University of Toronto. And `daddy' makes 3 ... Or maybe not IMV the court rulings to date are devoid of common sense and are contradictory with respect to other laws, such as abortion laws, which recognize that a person has the right to choose to be a parent. The assumptions upon which the court bases rulings, are upon traditional family structures and relationships. It makes no accomodation to the diverse set of relationships which are present today. Do you think that an individual should simply default into a parental relationship with a child despite their explicit wishes? What makes someone a parent or not?