Human rights agency trying to shut down charities

[M.Dancer]

But when I weigh the "right" of some lesbian to flaunt herself at work against the right of the severely disabled to proper treatment somehow my "homophobia" causes me to think she's the less important one here.

If I make it known at my office I am a straight male, am I flaunting my sexuality?

I think the only real issue here is should a group that doesn't conform with Canadian laws receive public funding. In my mind no.

Everyone who feels they should have the right to hire only those whose conform to the Horizons moral code is free to open up their cheque books and give till it hurts.

[Kitchener]

Again - zero concern about the disabled. Oh someone will take care of them (not you of course) so what's the big deal?

Don't be daft. From the available news reports, including in their home-base of Kitchener, Christian Horizons has continued to function, and will continue to function. They continue to receive public funding, and may well be using that funding to support its continued appeals against elements of the HRTO ruling. Why not get at least a slender grip on the most basic facts before wetting your pants in public?

By the way, I ("not you of course") worked for several years doing personal care for the handicapped, with both children and adults. I understand the job far better than you, judging by your pious mouthing of ill-informed but conveniently anti-gay foolishness on the topic.

How do you know someone is a lesbian at work? I mean, honestly, why the need of gay people to flaunt what they are in public?

The people at my workplace know that I'm straight, that I'm married. Does that mean I've somehow "flaunted" the fact? Or does it suggest that we are, you know, human beings -- who occasionally chat, socialize, put pictures on our desks, pass the time of day, show a collegial interest in one another... act friendly? Oops, except for gay people, who can't do what practically every working straight person does in the workplace for fear of offending the hysterical homophobes by (as it suddenly becomes) "flaunting" their sexual preference.

I mean, stop and think for a quarter of a second before posting.

[sharkman]

Whenever these types of situations come up I'm always amazed at the ignorance of the law.

The Human Rights Code in Ontario does allow for the following:

QUOTE

24. (1) The right under section 5 to equal treatment with respect to employment is not infringed where,

(a) a religious, philanthropic, educational, fraternal or social institution or organization that is primarily engaged in serving the interests of persons identified by their race, ancestry, place of origin, colour, ethnic origin, creed, sex, age, marital status or disability employs only, or gives preference in employment to, persons similarly identified if the qualification is a reasonable and bona fide qualification because of the nature of the employment;

msj, as an employer in B.C., you were obviously unaware of this section of the code in Ontario. Your comment about amazement at ignorance of the law applies to yourself.

[msj]

Again - zero concern about the disabled. Oh someone will take care of them (not you of course) so what's the big deal?

How do you know someone is a lesbian at work? I mean, honestly, why the need of gay people to flaunt what they are in public? Whose business is it? Why can't they just shut the hell up about it at work and do the job they were hired for? I seriously doubt any of her colleagues was discussing their sexuality or sexual desires openly. This woman finding another job is a pretty unimportant token to weigh against the monumental weight of the endeavor the province will be taking on in trying to find others to care for these severely disabled people.

And yes, weighing their needs for treatment against her "need" to shout out how much she likes having sex with other women at work does indeed cause me to have some disdain for the idiot human rights agencies and politicians in this case. Talk about warped priorities.

I guess I shouldn't tell my employees about how I bought the wife a nice ring for our anniversary this weekend. The wink and nudge that goes with that is waaaaaay out!

How dare I!?!?!

I mean, honestly, why the need for heterosexuals to flaunt what they are in public? Whose business is it? Why can't I just shut the hell up about my wife and do the job I am self-employed for?

And yes, weighing my clients needs for proper tax and auditing services against my "need" to shout out how much I like having sex with my wife (because, you know, I just can't help but talk about that) indeed causes me to have some disdain for the idiot human rights agencies and politicians in this case.

Talk about warped priorities.

[bTW, for the obviously slow - I'm using a mocking tone again]

[Kitchener]

I don't care if they have a policy against Jews.

And there's the trouble with relying on reductio ad absurdum to refute someone's ridiculous view. Every once in a while, someone will embrace the still more ridiculous/stupid/morally degenerate absurd consequence you used in the reductio.

Then, instead of being able to show that they're inconsistent, you have to settle for having shown that they're a wingnut.

[Drea]

By the way, I ("not you of course") worked for several years doing personal care for the handicapped, with both children and adults. I understand the job far better than you, judging by your pious mouthing of ill-informed but conveniently anti-gay foolishness on the topic.

The people at my workplace know that I'm straight, that I'm married. Does that mean I've somehow "flaunted" the fact? Or does it suggest that we are, you know, human beings -- who occasionally chat, socialize, put pictures on our desks, pass the time of day, show a collegial interest in one another... act friendly? Oops, except for gay people, who can't do what practically every working straight person does in the workplace for fear of offending the hysterical homophobes by (as it suddenly becomes) "flaunting" their sexual preference.

I mean, stop and think for a quarter of a second before posting.

I find it funny that the homophobes think that sex is ALL a homosexual EVER thinks about. It's because every time THEY (the homophobes) see a person of the opposite sex they have sexual thoughts so they project this onto others.

Edited May 12, 2008 by Drea

[Shakeyhands]

Again - zero concern about the disabled. Oh someone will take care of them (not you of course) so what's the big deal?

How do you know someone is a lesbian at work? I mean, honestly, why the need of gay people to flaunt what they are in public? Whose business is it? Why can't they just shut the hell up about it at work and do the job they were hired for? I seriously doubt any of her colleagues was discussing their sexuality or sexual desires openly. This woman finding another job is a pretty unimportant token to weigh against the monumental weight of the endeavor the province will be taking on in trying to find others to care for these severely disabled people.

And yes, weighing their needs for treatment against her "need" to shout out how much she likes having sex with other women at work does indeed cause me to have some disdain for the idiot human rights agencies and politicians in this case. Talk about warped priorities.

Actually I pointed out that she wanted to work with the disabled, God bless her.

Who cares what they are, the woman in the nexgt cubicle here used to bug the hell out of me with her incessant talk, I just ignore her now. I'm sure she wasn't flaunting anything having said that. Hell if I was gay I wouldn't tell anyone because I wouldn't want to deal with what people like you have to say.

Do you really think we should go back to these people being discriminated against in the workplace?

[sharkman]

I find it funny that the homophobes think that sex is ALL a homosexual EVER thinks about. It's because every time THEY (the homophobes) see a person of the opposite sex they have sexual thoughts so they project this onto others.

Thanks for editing your post Drea, you really went overboard with the granny nonsense.

[msj]

msj, as an employer in B.C., you were obviously unaware of this section of the code in Ontario. Your comment about amazement at ignorance of the law applies to yourself.

BC has a similar provision.

I read it in the same manner as Kitchener in post #43:

Indeed. On its face, this heavily qualified proviso seems to fail twice over to apply to the situation at hand: the organization is "primarily engaged" in serving people identified by their needs as handicapped persons, not their needs as homophobes. And being straight is not "a reasonable and bona fide qualification because of the nature of the employment".

Unlike you, sharkman, I know what "bona fide" means.

Edited May 12, 2008 by msj

[madmax]

How do you know someone is a lesbian at work? I mean, honestly, why the need of gay people to flaunt what they are in public? Whose business is it?

Whose business is it?

[Melanie_]

Why does it matter if the person performing the job is Christian, let alone straight. The job itself involves caring for the disabled - no religious affiliation required, unless this organization is proselytizing. If that's the case, they are taking advantage of a vulnerable population, and there is another issue for the human rights tribunals to investigate.

[Argus]

If I make it known at my office I am a straight male, am I flaunting my sexuality?

I think the only real issue here is should a group that doesn't conform with Canadian laws receive public funding. In my mind no.

Everyone who feels they should have the right to hire only those whose conform to the Horizons moral code is free to open up their cheque books and give till it hurts.

I congratulate you on writing yet another post which says "The hell with the severely disabled. I only care about lesbians being respected."

[sharkman]

Yes, it seems we have inequality towards religions in Canada. If you are a religious organization, you are welcome to educate Canadians with religious education, including gay issues.

However, if you are a religious organization, you are not allowed to employ people to help the disabled, since your beliefs on gay issues are not acceptable.

How can it be that you are allowed to educate people but not employ them to care for disabled? Is not education much more influential than employment? What nonsense.

[Argus]

And there's the trouble with relying on reductio ad absurdum to refute someone's ridiculous view. Every once in a while, someone will embrace the still more ridiculous/stupid/morally degenerate absurd consequence you used in the reductio.

Then, instead of being able to show that they're inconsistent, you have to settle for having shown that they're a wingnut.

No, it's called practicality. Outside of the very religious, the next largest group of people who tend to look after the aged and severely disabled are losers who can't find anything better. They treat people badly, and move around like drifters, leaving as soon as they find anything better. You can see it in so many homes for the aged, and in the poor, and often cruel treatment given to them by ham-handed, ignorant, poorly educated staff.

I'm not religious at all. But I can easily discern that very religious people do an awful lot of good in this country, including most of the volunteering. So I'm willing to cut them some slack. Have their little religious organization abide by morals clauses and the like in light of the good that they do. Nobody NEEDS to work for these people, after all, while the severely disabled do NEED these kind of people to look after them.

But political zealots have the human warmth of a stone, and care about nothing and no one but themselves and their "causes".

[Argus]

Why does it matter if the person performing the job is Christian, let alone straight. The job itself involves caring for the disabled - no religious affiliation required, unless this organization is proselytizing. If that's the case, they are taking advantage of a vulnerable population, and there is another issue for the human rights tribunals to investigate.

To my way of thinking it doesn't matter a damned. What does it matter if the people taking care of the disabled engage in pre-marital sex - presuming it doesn't happen at work, or surf the internet for porn? It wouldn't matter to me. But I'm not at all religious. It apparently does matter to these religious people. And if that's something they require in order to do this very difficult and very necessary task then I'm willing to cut them some slack. If you don't want to sign their morals clause work elsewhere. Is that so bloody hard?

[Argus]

I find it funny that the homophobes think that sex is ALL a homosexual EVER thinks about. It's because every time THEY (the homophobes) see a person of the opposite sex they have sexual thoughts so they project this onto others.

How do you keep doing it, Drea? How do you consistently ensure that every post is dumber then the one which preceded it? Day after day, month after month?

[Argus]

I guess I shouldn't tell my employees about how I bought the wife a nice ring for our anniversary this weekend. The wink and nudge that goes with that is waaaaaay out!

How dare I!?!?!

Are you saying it isn't possible for a young woman who works for a very religious organization for which she signed a morals clause prior to joining to keep her mouth shut about her new sexuality? I mean, is sex all they ever think about? No? Then why the hell couldn't she just do her job and then go home? Do you really think everyone who signed their morals clause abstains from sex outside marriage, lying, getting drunk and looking at porn? I'm guessing uh, no. They just don't talk about it at work.

[bTW, for the obviously slow - I'm using a mocking tone again]

It's good that you explain yourself to the obviously slow. They're the ones on your side, after all.

Edited May 12, 2008 by Argus

[Drea]

why do you feel the need to insult me? I never said anything negative about you (or anyone for that matter). Just pointing out that people project their thoughts and feelings onto others.

Homophobic people believe that gays do nothing but think of how to lure their next 'conquest'...

Note that I did not say YOU... I said PEOPLE. Now if you lump yourself in the homophobe group who am I to argue -- you know yourself better than I do.

Cheers!

[eyeball]

I congratulate you on writing yet another post which says "The hell with the severely disabled. I only care about lesbians being respected."

I congratulate you on writing yet another post which says "The hell with the severely disabled. I only care about lesbians being persecuted."

Yeah right, as if you haven't watched the L Word.

At the very least someone close to you probably has. For all you know you're related to a lesbian. How would you know? Do you have background checks done from time to time? You have to allow for someone changing their minds. How could you sleep at night not knowing?

By the way does anyone have any idea how the severely disabled people in question feel about all this? Its easy to imagine they're probably too worried about being taken care of to really care but perhaps I'm wrong.

[Argus]

why do you feel the need to insult me? I never said anything negative about you (or anyone for that matter). Just pointing out that people project their thoughts and feelings onto others.

Homophobic people believe that gays do nothing but think of how to lure their next 'conquest'...

Note that I did not say YOU... I said PEOPLE. Now if you lump yourself in the homophobe group who am I to argue -- you know yourself better than I do.

Cheers!

I didn't say YOU were dumb. I said your posts were dumb. See, I never said anything negative about you at all.

I will say that those who think the "right" of homosexuals to be open about their sexuality trumps the need of the severely disabled to be cared for are pretty damned callous and thoughtless.

Edited May 12, 2008 by Argus

[Argus]

I congratulate you on writing yet another post which says "The hell with the severely disabled. I only care about lesbians being persecuted."

Yeah right, as if you haven't watched the L Word.

At the very least someone close to you probably has. For all you know you're related to a lesbian. How would you know? Do you have background checks done from time to time? You have to allow for someone changing their minds. How could you sleep at night not knowing?

I know it's extremely difficult for you to get your one and one half brain cells to function together so as to actually understand what is written in these posts. But I have made it quite clear that I am not religious and don't particularly care about people's sexuality - or whether they get drunk or lie or surf the internet for porn, for that matter. I would not work for an outfit which required a morals clause either. If I did I would certainly keep my mouth shut at work about some things I do in my off hours.

But this discussion is not about my preferences or my morality. It's about, to my thinking, allowing a bunch of religious people to have their little moral work place so long as it functions well to look after the severely disabled.

Not that you care a damned about them, of course.

[msj]

Are you saying it isn't possible for a young woman who works for a very religious organization for which she signed a morals clause prior to joining to keep her mouth shut about her new sexuality? I mean, is sex all they ever think about? No? Then why the hell couldn't she just do her job and then go home? Do you really think everyone who signed their morals clause abstains from sex outside marriage, lying, getting drunk and looking at porn? I'm guessing uh, no. They just don't talk about it at work.

It's good that you explain yourself to the obviously slow. They're the ones on your side, after all.

1) To what extent she spoke about sex around the work place is unknown. I believe in freedom of speech so I don't really have a problem with someone talking about such things.

Of course, if what she says is/was inappropriate there are other methods besides firing her to ensure that she does her job without disturbing others.

2) My point about the "obviously slow" was aimed at sharkman who has an inability to recognize a mocking tone. Last time I checked he was defending your right to express violence against lesbians (for which you have every right to do).

3) Stop pretending to be on the high ground - you have no interest in the disabled beyond making more of them by breaking lesbians legs.

We all know it, so cut the nonsense.

[eyeball]

No, it's called practicality. Outside of the very religious, the next largest group of people who tend to look after the aged and severely disabled are losers who can't find anything better. They treat people badly, and move around like drifters, leaving as soon as they find anything better. You can see it in so many homes for the aged, and in the poor, and often cruel treatment given to them by ham-handed, ignorant, poorly educated staff.

This is exactly why relying on charity to perform this important job is a mistake. The cost of caring for the severely disabled should be covered by a universal health-care system with better wages paid to attract better people.

I'm not religious at all. But I can easily discern that very religious people do an awful lot of good in this country, including most of the volunteering. So I'm willing to cut them some slack.

Why? How more focused can a homophobic religous person be on their job compared to the losers you describe? It stands to reason if they can spend so much time worrying about some co-workers sexual orientation how much time do they spend worrying about the person they're caring for? How long will it be until these nut-bars demand their patients be screened before they touch them?

Have their little religious organization abide by morals clauses and the like in light of the good that they do. Nobody NEEDS to work for these people, after all, while the severely disabled do NEED these kind of people to look after them.

Nobody NEEDS these people either. Pay health workers directly to do it and stop being so cheap.

But political zealots have the human warmth of a stone, and care about nothing and no one but themselves and their "causes".

Takes one to know one eh, or did you even notice?

[bk59]

I cannot say I'm surprised by the idiocy and thoughtlessness of most of those who've replied on this thread. Every one of them focussed on the rights of the lesbian - and not a single one had one single word to say about the severely disabled people who are looked after by Christian Horizons. Do any of YOU want to look after them (pause now to see people shuffling backwards and whistling idly as they look at their watches). Not a bloody chance. It takes a certain kind of person to devote their energy to that sort of endeavor.

Yes, it does take a certain type of person. A person just like the woman in this case. There is some thoughtlessness in saying that people should be allowed to care for the disabled while arguing that someone should not be allowed to care for the disabled. Seems like a self-defeating argument to me.

But hey, nobody gives a shit about that, right, not on the face of a woman's right to publicly talk about how much she likes performing oral sex on other women. It's not like she could be expected to keep such thoughts to herself at work, after all! It's her right to whistle and stare at other women's butts and ask them out on dates - at work. She can't be expected to simply do her job and not talk about her sexual preferences! That would be too unkind! Far better to have a bunch of quadriplegics sitting in their own excrement for days on end, right!?

Wow. Your ignorance of the facts is astounding. Particularly since they have already been posted in this thread. She did confide to two co-workers about her sexuality in 1999. But then in 2000, when this issue actually blew up, it was two other co-workers who confronted her about rumours that she was in a same sex relationship. So I'm curious, at what point does having people come up to you and nose into your personal life turn into talking publicly about how much you like performing oral sex on other people of the same sex? Seems to me like maybe Christian Horizons should have just stayed out of her personal life and continued to employ another Christian who clearly wanted to care for the disabled. If you're so willing to protect the interests of the disabled who need care, why aren't you demanding to know why this organization intruded into this woman's personal life just to dig up stuff to fire her?

I mean, honestly, why the need of gay people to flaunt what they are in public? Whose business is it? Why can't they just shut the hell up about it at work and do the job they were hired for? I seriously doubt any of her colleagues was discussing their sexuality or sexual desires openly.

Every time someone says wife instead of partner are they flaunting their sexuality? When using "he" or "she" when talking about your partner is that flaunting your sexuality? This is a poorly thought out argument. Particularly when the facts show that there was no flaunting going on. Because it is nobody's business. And I'm guessing that yes, her colleagues did discuss their husbands and wives. How dare homosexuals do the same!

Sometimes, posts are so fundamentally stupid it's quite difficult for me to restrain myself in questioning the intelligence of those who post them. But being a good boy I shall not do so here.

I shall similarly restrain myself.

[Argus]

1) To what extent she spoke about sex around the work place is unknown. I believe in freedom of speech so I don't really have a problem with someone talking about such things.

Of course, if what she says is/was inappropriate there are other methods besides firing her to ensure that she does her job without disturbing others.

2) My point about the "obviously slow" was aimed at sharkman who has an inability to recognize a mocking tone. Last time I checked he was defending your right to express violence against lesbians (for which you have every right to do).

3) Stop pretending to be on the high ground - you have no interest in the disabled beyond making more of them by breaking lesbians legs.

We all know it, so cut the nonsense.

If you don't think this is about the disabled what on earth do you think (presuming, and I'm being optimistic here, that you are capable of thought) this is about? Perhaps Sharkman didn't recognize your "mocking tone" because humour is a foreign concept to you, thus your continuing to snivel about my offhand suggestion the lesbian involved would be in a wheelchair - and thus need looking after... no? Woosh, well over your head, right? Of course.

I believe in freedom of speech, too, almost certainly more strongly than you do given your clear ideological proclivities, but I believe that the well-being of the disabled trumps that in this particular case.