CANADIEN

Nice try. The fact that you start almost all your comments about the Governor General by rambling about her being an immigrant from Haiti is a clear enough indication that it bothers you. That, your non-sense about how some Canadians are truer than others, and the way you keep reading facts about the GG's recent to France through the lense of your prejudice and ignorance instead of reality prove of much of a joke you are. In case you did not figure it out yet, I know a majority of Canadians choose to raise their kids and use English, a Canadian language. And that it is their right as Canadians. And there is one thing you are too racist (to use your own word) to get - there are other CANADIANS who chose to raise their kids and French, ANOTHER Canadian language, as is their right as CANADIANS. You don't like it, keep whining while I live according to my rights as a Canadian. And no worry, I know the political aspirations of a majority of Canadians are NOT motivated by your brand of racism.

The way you constantly try to split hairs, you most be a barber. Doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that the issue at hand would be the nature of the job, and the normal expectations rrelated to it. Keep trying to beat a dead horse and to split hair as much as you can... I've been clear enough and won't waste my time.

Is the town of Condom, France, trying to get royalties for the trademark?

And I thought the most idiotic statements (to use his own terms) were those pieces of homophobic drivel by Argus... After reading this, I stand corrected.

Nice try... then the students are students, not employees... the teachers are teachers

It is not about what the law says. It is about plain logic, which you fail to grasp. Any organization, even a school, that hired people for the sole purpose of working on care program for the disabled would be acting not as a school, but as health care facility as for as its relationship with those people were concerned. As for the hypocrisy (since you chose that word). The real hypocrisy here is to claim that Christian Horizons was persecuted for its religious views when it was prosecuted for its illegal employment practices.

That question has been aswered before. I am not repeating the response.

Je suis Franco-Ontarien. Mais vous, puisque vous êtes, entre autres, homophobe, francophobe et, je suspecte, xénophone, vous êtes, d'après votre propre définition, un Québécois :lol: Argus does not need a translation, but for the the benefit of everyone else I am Franco-Ontarian. But you... since you are, among other things, homophobic, francophobic and, I suspect, xenophobic, you are, according to you own definition, a Québécois :lol:

No more weird than a woman fired for violating an invalid contract forbidding her from being a lesbian. I'll give you one thing, you're consistant... wrong, but consistant.

YOU are missing to the point. She employee signed a contract that had nothing to do bona fide work reequirements and constituted a form of discrimination prohibited by law. The contract had no value in law, and that she signed - actually, that she was required to sign it if she wanted the job - does not give it a value it did not have in the first place.

Being called a bigot by someone who (a) doesn't like that the Governor-General was born in Haiti and ( claims that true Canadians only raise their children in English :lol:

Your last point is particularly important. Unlike what some would want us to believe, Christian Horizons was not brought to court because of their opinions on homosecuality, but because they caused someone to lose her job for reasons that had nothing to do with what she had to do or how she did it.

The following is of course fictional, but just to see how many woud still take the side of the employer, or the employee... I'd still have the same opinion, who else would? Rainbow Eyes is a charity associated with the Gay. Lesbians and Transgandered Alliance of Greater Someplace, Ontario. Their goal is to provide help to blind people, and the charity's work has always been lauded... until they ran into trouble with the Human Rights Commission. R.H. lived in a gay male relationship for ten years, including four during which he worked for Rainbow Eyes. When he started, he, like other employees, signed a contract stating he would not engage in activities or associate with groups promoting hatred against gays or opposing gay rights. No problem, until he, in his own word "converted from his life of sin", and joined the Purity Covenant, a known anti-gay rights group. He then approached his employers, revelead his membership in the Purity Covenant and expressed the wish to continue his work. He was fired for breach of contract. He went to the HRC, who ordererd Rainbow Eyes to re-hire him. Soem spekespersons for the Alliance has raised the possibility of having to discontinue their work if they are forced to employ people who do not, in their own words, "share their commitment to equality", as that commitment is central to Rainbow Eyes' work.

Non-sense indeed. Your postings from beginning to end that is. In case you didn't figure that one yet, Christian Horizons is not prevented from hiring people to care for the disabled - they are prevented from refusing to employ people for reasons that have nothing to do with caring for the disabled.

It would be sooo fun to poke hole at all the idiocy (your own choice of words, remember?) you posted, but I'll do something more worth my time, like watching "Deal or No Deal". Nah, it's too tempting. If you (like in "you", the bigots) Canada is not big enough for you and I, you're right. Any place and any time period before the dinosaurs roamed the Earth is not big enough to hold you. And while you keep whining, I will continue to enjoy my rights as a Canadian. By the way, did you think you would hurt me by badmouthing people from Quebec? Je suis Franco-Ontarien... dixième génération.

Argus. For me to have any kind of reaction to something logical you say, you would first have to say something logical. My opinion on the Toronto taxicab by-law is that the city has a legitimate right to regulate business for the common good. That the taxicab industry is licensed has nothing to do with it. Interesting, by the way, that for you a business owner has absolute freedom to use what ever language he wants, unless he has a municipal license... pr should I say unless he is told to speak WHITE? The consistency of your principle truly amazes me

About the old "freedom of expression includes the right to refuse employment to someone for reasons that have nothing to do with the job to be done" line, Argus. That argument is false. You lost the battle. Your fellow homophobes lost the battle. The sexists lost the battle. The racists lost the battle. The bigots lost the battle. About 50 years ago. You have of course the right to whine about it. But as you prove every time you hit the keyboard, having the right does not make you right.

Let's talk about idiocy, Argus, since you chose the word. - the idiocy (and the lack of compassion towards the disabled) of the argument that Christian Horizons would be unable to care for the severely disabled if they had lesbians on their staff. The Human Rights Commission has not threatened to prevent Christian Horizons from continuing its great work, and there is nothing in its decision that would lead to such result. Shame on anyone who uses such a disgusting emotional blackmail ("unless we are allowed to act according to our bigotry, we cannot serve the disabled"). And shame on anyone who would rather see paraplegics in soiled diapers for lack of help than let a gay or lesbian near them - the idiocy of using the "it takes only a certain kind of person to do that job" line while heaping garbage on one of those truly extraordinary people because of something that has nothing to do with the great work she is doing - the idiocy of the "she's a lesbian, therefore she spends her time at work talking about sex, whistling, starring and cruising"; not only do most intelligent people know this stereotype has little to do with reality, but even the interpretation of the case gien by the lawyer FOR THE EMPLOYER mentions nothing of the kind, merely that she "confessed" (nice choice of word) to management - and the idiocy of the "she asks for dates AT WORK" whining; heterosexuals do it too (at my workplace, four heterosexual couples met at the office and got married, and a fifth one is doing so later this year); as long as it does not affect their work performence, who cares (except idiots of course)? - and the idiocy of believing most people will buy the "it's about the disabled people" excuse when it is clear that all the idiocy is about homophobia BTW Argus, do YOU want to take the place of that woman and serve the disabled? I didn't think so.

Interesting how a bit of search even on the Internet can reveal things. If one is to believe the article by Michael Coren (which i knew to be an homophobe but previously believed to be a bit more intellectually honest), the woman in this case was hired under false pretense, then just turned around proclaiming to the world that she is a lesbian and spending her time shoving it in everyone's face. Other news stories, including one by that luminary of communist thinking the National Post, talk about a woman who after five years working for Christian Horizons and struggling with her sexual orientation came to terms with being a lesbian and was fired because she chose to be honest about it. Quite a difference. What is even more interesting is the audacity of that organization and some of its supporters. Unless they are allowed to discriminate, so goes the argument, they cannot be a Christian organization and most importantly they cannot continue their work. I must be in the wrong Church, because I always thought the commandment to love my neighbour and to feed the hungry, welcome the foreigner and do good works does not come with the caveat "unless the one doing it with you is not good enough in your eyes".

Same old same old... Today it is the South Asians (darn I hate that term, not the people, the label) and the Jamaicans, yesterday it was the Irish and the Italians. Today it is the Chinese, yesterday it was the Jews. Today it is "TD offers services in 9 languages". Yesterday it was "They have their own banks and Credit Unions". Why not just say "I hate everyone who doesn't share my culture or my hatred"? We already know it anyway.

That's a new one... So, they are a private organization, so who they hire or do not hire is their own business? No, wait. It's not new. The same argument was heard when governments had the audacity to pass laws forbidding organizations from refusing employment or service because of the colour of their skin, or their gender, or where they were born. Small minds didn't get it then, and they don't get it now. As for the "I can choose whaetever store, or charity, or group of people I want to deal with" argument, how often do people need to repeat that the issue at hand is employers' legal obligations, not customer choice? Some don't get it.

I have four words for you and anybody, in Quebec or anywhere, who think Québécois are either too good or not good enough to be Canadians: GET OUT OF CANADA

Thanks Sharkman. I made it very clear that I believe background checks are appropriate when they pertain to a legitimate requirement, such as protecting an organization's clients. Not that background checks are inappropriate no matter what. As for the locker room humour... I've heard locker room humour, real one, and it did not include jokes about inflicting bodily harm. You want me to laugh, say something that is actually funny.

Bizarre, isn't Argus, that there was nothing wrong when 90% of Federal civil service managers in the Ottawa area where English-speaking (and of course unilingual), even though that percentage is higher than the percentage of Canadians whose first language is English? But now that there is a LEGITIMATE requirement that managerial positions and some other positions be filled by bilingual people, and that more bilingual people have French than English as their first language, suddenly percentages become a big issue. I smell double standard. ... and whining. If I had chosen not to speak English, you would not hear my cry foul when a job as legitimate requirement for the knowledge of that language. Same if I was told I cannot apply for a company whose main business is with Japan because I never learned Japanese. I chose not to study law, or engineering, or medecine, so I won't whine because I can't be a lawyer, an engineer or a doctor.

You didn't made claims about freedom of expression, others did, and I did. Interesting though, that a by-law in Russell mandating French alongside English is deemed by you an attack on private property, but that there is no such concer about a Toronto by-law that mandates taxicab drivers to be able to speak English. I must assume that their private property is not as important. Now to the whining... Interesting that English-speaking Ontarians who work in Gatineau sre unwilling victims of the bad bad Quebec elites, while Quebecois are floodinOttawa, no doubt to steel jobs And linguistic rights stop a the counter... Thanks for confirming that French-speaking civil servants have the right to use their Canadian language only if it does not inconvenience their English-speaking survisors. And pleeeaaaaaaaaaase don't serve us the legend that each and every secretary, HR specialist, IT specialist etc. is designated bilingual. Common sense alone proves that's not the case. And especially thanks for repeating that great fallacy it is all about more power for Quebec over the rest of the country. Where do people get that garbage? There must be something somewhere called the Protocal of the Elders of Chateau Frontenac, because the last time I heard of such drivel, it was from another type of Protocols