Human rights agency trying to shut down charities

[CANADIEN]

The main example that you give is segregation in the US south. This was State-sanctioned discrimination. It took US federal legislation forcing individual states to overcome it.

In many ways, it is unfortunate that we adopted this US practice in Canada. It is contrary to our constitutional history and I suspect that it won't be productive in the long run.

It seems that your pet peeve is homophobia (and I'm not sure that I would characterize Argus as homophobic although I'll leave him to defend himself). Social legislation based on a pet peeve is rarely a good thing. Once you have the precedent set and the institution in place, what stops someone else with a different pet peeve to use it too?

For example, people with blue eyes earn on average more money than people with brown eyes. Tall people earn more than short people. Should we not extend grounds for non-discrimination to height and eye colour?

More terrifying, what if we start to forbid people from expressing views contrary to current human rights legislation?

My pet peeve is not homophobia, it hatred and intolerence. And the tought, offensive to logic, decency and basic humanity, that society has not business intervening, through its governments, to prevent employment or service practices that, because they are discriminatory and unjustifiable by the needs of the jobs and services in question, are not justified.

Society regulates businesses in many, from what they can, can't and must say to clients to product safety standards and rules on opening hours. Society regulates employers, from minimum salary to safety standards. The freedom of a business or an employer to act as they see fit is not absolute. There is nothing wrong, on the contrary, in regulating against practices harmful to the common good.

BTW, when was the last time employers posted "no people with brown eyes need apply". I can do better, but you can do much better.

Edited May 13, 2008 by CANADIEN

[CANADIEN]

Why not? From reading your previous postings I'd consider you well-equipped to discuss idiocy.

You mean like the Salvation Army would be unable to care for the destitute if they were required to sign off on approval of homosexuality? I would tend to agree that they could simply sign it and continue to care for the destitute, but that's not what happened. Similarly, the Salvation Army could still see to the needs of children needing homes even if a tiny fraction of those applying as parents were homosexuals - but that's not what happened. They closed down rather than give in on what they considered to be an important element of their religious beliefs.

Again, I realize that anything related to reality is an unrecognizable and scary thing to you, and that is why you continue with your emotional snivelling about the rights of lesbians.

If Christian Horizons is forced to compromise its beliefs that homosexuality is immoral then there is the very real possibility they will withdraw from this work, as have other such organizations before them.

Yes, shame on the Salvation Army. Shame on the Boy Scouts. They're all evil because they won't accept the morality of homosexuality.

You can make up motivations behind my postings all you want. It's clear that reality plays no more role in your life than compassion for those in need of help.

Here we go again... When an organization would rather stop serving those in need than stop employment practices that have NOTHING to do with the work they perform, THEY are the ones who betray those in need. And they demonstrate that to them loving others and serving the poor and the needy is less important than shunning those they find "immoral". So spare us the crocodile tears about how it's "about those in needs". Nobody buys it, and nobody is in doubt about your motivations.

So do yourself a favour and don't claim to teach anything to anyone about reality. Stick to something you are an expert at, like making a fool of yourself.

Or feel free to answer a simple question. What makes a lesbian unable to change a disabled person's diapers, take care of their physical and emotional needs, or show them love and compassion? Since not being a lesbian seems to be a bona fide requirement for caring for the disabled, surely you can explain why?

Edited May 13, 2008 by CANADIEN

[eyeball]

Here we go again... When an organization would rather stop serving those in need than stop employment practices that have NOTHING to do with the work they perform, THEY are the ones who betray those in need. And they demonstrate that to them loving others and serving the poor and the needy is less important than shunning those they find "immoral". So spare us the crocodile tears about how it's "about those in needs". Nobody buys it, and nobody is in doubt about your motivations.

So do yourself a favour and don't claim to teach anything to anyone about reality. Stick to something you are an expert at, like making a fool of yourself.

Or feel free to answer a simple question. What makes a lesbian unable to change a disabled person's diapers, take care of their physical and emotional needs, or show them love and compassion? Since not being a lesbian seems to be a bona fide requirement for caring for the disabled, surely you can explain why?

Good point, even better question. Good luck answering it.

[CANADIEN]

What if...

Christian Horizons had a policy barring women from employment on Biblical grounds (women should marry, submit and stay at home)?

[M.Dancer]

What if...

Christian Horizons had a policy barring women from employment on Biblical grounds (women should marry, submit and stay at home)?

I would say fine as long as they don't get any gov't funding.

[Shakeyhands]

What if...

Christian Horizons had a policy barring women from employment on Biblical grounds (women should marry, submit and stay at home)?

according to our homophobes on the right???? Perfect.

[bk59]

Not if it was training students with a care giving component to augment studies. Then it would be a school.

It would be a school. But that is not the relevant question. The relevant question is: are the studies religious in nature or are the studies care giving in nature? If religious, then they can hire people based on religious qualifications. If care giving, then they can hire people who have relevant credentials and skills in teaching how to care for others. I'm not sure this is as big a problem as you think.

[bk59]

There are elementary reading courses available to adults with learning disabilities in most major cities. I would suggest you look into that.

Wonderful stuff. You think it is acceptable for a woman to be prevented from caring for the disabled simply because she is a lesbian. If you are uncomfortable with your position perhaps you should consider changing it. As for the ability to read, it must be nice for you to consider me illiterate. That way when I point out facts you can just ignore them. Never mind that way back in post #10 I pointed out pesky little facts like how the woman complainant was a Christian, had been employed for several years, and was not running around sharing her homosexual views with everyone.

Also, others have shown that Christian Horizons does not currently appear to be shutting down operations. Feel free not to read those posts either.

[Argus]

My pet peeve is not homophobia, it hatred and intolerence. And the tought, offensive to logic, decency and basic humanity, that society has not business intervening, through its governments, to prevent employment or service practices that, because they are discriminatory and unjustifiable by the needs of the jobs and services in question, are not justified.

I am always impressed by the skill needed to construct such finely wrought prose.

[Argus]

Wonderful stuff. You think it is acceptable for a woman to be prevented from caring for the disabled simply because she is a lesbian.

Acceptable? In this context, yes. If Christian Horizons is only willing to undertake their "mission" here so long as they feel it doesn't detract from their religious views, then her needs are outweighed by the needs of the disabled. I'm not saying Christian Horizons is right to fire lesbians. I'm saying that religious groups tend to have this fixation on morals, and other such groups HAVE in the past, simply walked away from situations where the state is demanding respect for homosexuals.

[Bryan]

Christian Horizons is a religious organization, not a secular one. Their name should be the first clue. That they are a member of Evangelical Fellowship of Canada should be another. These kinds of statements in their literature should reinforce that:

"Christian Horizons is an evangelical ministry seeking to reach out with Christian love to people with disabilities."

"Christian Horizons is a non-profit, Christian charitable organization. We seek to reach out with supports and friendship to persons who have exceptional needs.

Our purpose is to contribute to the exceptional person’s quality of life by addressing his/her spiritual, emotional, intellectual, social and physical needs. We serve in a manner that considers each person’s intrinsic value as loved by God and bearing His image."

"How It All Began

In 1965, a group of Christian parents who had children with exceptional needs felt there was no place they could turn for help. They were exhausted and could no longer provide the level of care that their children needed at home.

Yet, they were unhappy leaving their children in an institution with a hospital-like environment. They wanted more for their children!

With both options being unsuitable, they decided to join together and create a service that would meet their needs. That year, the Ontario Christian Association for Exceptional Children was born! The group soon became known as Christian Horizons, and their services expanded to children and adults.

What once began as a summer camping program grew to include a wide variety of support and vacation programs across Ontario and even internationally. Today, our caring workers meet the daily physical, emotional and spiritual needs of the many individuals we support!

Whether they need minimal support or 24-hour care, individuals enjoy a home environment and an excellent quality of life as they master new skills, make friends and experience God's love."

So clearly, ministry is an integral part of their operation, in addition to physical care. It's part and parcel of their mission. This makes ensuring that all employees are on the same page with respect to what the core beliefs are totally relevant. If someone has different beliefs, they are not with the program, and absolutely should be removed from service. This is a case of "discrimination" that is completely justified. And yet, they did not do that. Instead they offered her counselling with respect the beliefs that she claimed to profess when she was hired. Instead of taking the counselling, she quit. They did not fire her.

The question of whether a religious organization should receive funding is a different story. While I tend to think they should not, I also need to filter that against the reality that Christian Horizons is the biggest special-needs residential home operator in Ontario. Not one of the biggest, THE biggest. They run 180 group homes! If they don't do it, who will? The social services system for special-needs people in Ontario will collapse if they are cut out of the picture.

Edited May 14, 2008 by Bryan

[the janitor]

Oh my oh my. We cannot let a lesbian care for elderly people, right?

Religious organisations should of course have the right to limit employment to people who subscribe to their philosophy and lifestyle requirements when the job is of a religious nature (ex.: a priest or rabbi) or clearly involves a role in spreading the Word (such as a teacher in a Catholic school or an official spokesperson for a mosque).

Why? Someone can be gay or lesbian and still be versed in theology. Religious doctrines can still be presented from a secular standpoint. No one has to be a Muslim to understand or even teach about Islam.

Edited May 15, 2008 by the janitor

[the janitor]

It's part and parcel of their mission. This makes ensuring that all employees are on the same page with respect to what the core beliefs are totally relevant. If someone has different beliefs, they are not with the program, and absolutely should be removed from service.

Very well said. This is exactly the issue.

Edited May 15, 2008 by the janitor

[madmax]

So clearly, ministry is an integral part of their operation, in addition to physical care. It's part and parcel of their mission. This makes ensuring that all employees are on the same page with respect to what the core beliefs are totally relevant. If someone has different beliefs, they are not with the program, and absolutely should be removed from service.

Then the institution is part and parcel to accepting the laws of the Province (Providing Physical Care, without violating the HR Code).

The Province providing the funding for this endeavour. They must abide by the law. The Province also has the right to choose to continue or remove the current funding, like any othe project.

This isn't a private affair, but a public one.

They run 180 group homes! If they don't do it, who will? The social services system for special-needs people in Ontario will collapse if they are cut out of the picture.

Since the funding is virtually all from the Provincial Government, just about any other group, agency, social service or private sector institution would line up to fill the void in a heartbeat.

[Kitchener]

clearly, ministry is an integral part of their operation, in addition to physical care.

Christian Horizons is the biggest special-needs residential home operator in Ontario. Not one of the biggest, THE biggest.

Indeed. The latter description is accurate: that's what they are. They are a special-needs provider with a few unusual hiring practices irrelevant to their primary aim. If they want to minister to the handicapped, they can start a dedicated ministry. Of course this wouldn't get millions in funding, so they're not interested. But if they want to offer care -- then offer care.

They run 180 group homes! If they don't do it, who will? The social services system for special-needs people in Ontario will collapse if they are cut out of the picture.

Good grief, yet another ride on the Chicken Little express.

Read carefully: They are not "cut out of the picture". Things that you imagine are not data.

But suppose we indulge Bryan and Argus's pants-wetting panic fantasy for a moment. What if Christian Horizons was just so heartbroken by their inability to dictate sexual orientation that they stopped caring for the handicapped; suppose they really were that shallow. Who then would pick up the slack? Who else would be interested in $60 million in government money?

I prescribe a day's bedrest and a large dose of Give Your Head A Shake.

Edited May 15, 2008 by Kitchener

[the janitor]

If they want to minister to the handicapped, they can start a dedicated ministry.

HELLOOOOOOO! That's exactly what they have, Mr. Give your head a shake.

I'd suggest you get your head out of the sand.

There are many Christian, Jewish and Muslim aid agencies that get government funding without the government telling them (or anybody else for that matter) what to believe. They receive funding for the service they provide, not for their beliefs.

Looks like some people have been shaking their head so much they don't believe anything unless it's given a spin. Go back to sleep.

Edited May 15, 2008 by the janitor

[Kitchener]

n/m

Against stupidity even the gods struggle in vain.

Edited May 16, 2008 by Kitchener

[Bryan]

If they want to minister to the handicapped, they can start a dedicated ministry.

That's precisely what they are, and exactly what they were doing all along. The Province of Ontario were the ones who saw the job they were doing, and decided that Christian Horizons was providing better care for less money than the province or any other agency could, and decided to hire them to provide even more of the services that they were already providing.

The Province got what they hired, and the organization IS a dedicated ministry. They are absolutely within their rights to have a code of conduct for that ministry. If the citizens of Ontario lose this resource, it won't be because Christian Horizons walked away, it'll be because they were driven out.

[August1991]

What makes a lesbian unable to change a disabled person's diapers, take care of their physical and emotional needs, or show them love and compassion? Since not being a lesbian seems to be a bona fide requirement for caring for the disabled, surely you can explain why?

Your rhetorical question has prejudged the answer. But are you the judge? Who should judge? For example, if I don't like lesbians or blue-eyed women, should I not be free to choose a brown=eyed straight? Why should a lesbian care for me if I don't like lesbians? After all, women and men still choose a partner to have children. Do they not discriminate? (ie. choose?)

----

Let me throw in a wrench here, sure to raise Argus' ire. (What a language, English. And what a word, ire.)

Imagine a future Canada where a Muslim Aid Society exists to care for elderly (Canadian citizen) Muslims. Refuse to hire Lesbians? They refuse to hire Christians! What if they refuse to hire a man because he would have to care for women?

My own viewpoint is that we should approach all of these questions pragmatically. What method is likely to lead to the greatest good?

----

I'll throw in this last point. The Red Crescent society exists, and charity is a fundamental principle of Islam, but Christian charity is more often women's work.

Edited May 16, 2008 by August1991

[Peter F]

As I understand it, the woman was employed by CH. CH was her employer, as such CH must conform to the laws and regulations that apply to all employers. They cannot descriminate against an employee because of her sexuality.

The purpose and ethics of the employer mean nothing if the employee was doing her job competently.

They harrassed her solely because of her sexuality.

They were wrong to do so as any other employer in the land would also be wrong to do so.

Perhaps CH should learn how to treat thier employee's like actual human beings instead of cattle.

Perhaps then CH could continue to supply the noble service they do....

[August1991]

Perhaps CH should learn how to treat thier employee's like actual human beings instead of cattle.

Peter, if a tall, blue-eyed man invites you to go and a see a movie and you refuse, are you guilty of discrimination?

----

I am astonished how some Westerners have not thought through Galilean/Enlightenment principles. Some people take for granted this life. Well, we may owe existence to the Grace of God but we do not enjoy this life by chance. People in the past sacrificed to make this life of ours possible.

Peter, you are free to choose - even refuse - and yet you don't appreciate the origin of this freedom.

Edited May 16, 2008 by August1991

[bk59]

That's precisely what they are, and exactly what they were doing all along. The Province of Ontario were the ones who saw the job they were doing, and decided that Christian Horizons was providing better care for less money than the province or any other agency could, and decided to hire them to provide even more of the services that they were already providing.

The Province got what they hired, and the organization IS a dedicated ministry. They are absolutely within their rights to have a code of conduct for that ministry. If the citizens of Ontario lose this resource, it won't be because Christian Horizons walked away, it'll be because they were driven out.

There is a difference between employing someone to care for people with taxpayer money and employing someone to preach a religion. Christian Horizons is involved with the former, not the latter. This means they cannot discriminate against the Human Rights laws in Ontario. Simply saying that they are "a dedicated ministry" does not relieve them of their obligations, just like any other employer in the province.

If the citizens of Ontario "lose this resource" as you say, it will be very simply because Christian Horizons walked away. Saying that they would be driven out because they were forced to abide by the law is a bit ridiculous.

[bk59]

Peter, if a tall, blue-eyed man invites you to go and a see a movie and you refuse, are you guilty of discrimination?

----

I am astonished how some Westerners have not thought through Galilean/Enlightenment principles. Some people take for granted this life. Well, we may owe existence to the Grace of God but we do not enjoy this life by chance. People in the past sacrificed to make this life of ours possible.

Peter, you are free to choose - even refuse - and yet you don't appreciate the origin of this freedom.

Have you not noticed the difference yet between a private individual and a business that is employing people? The government does not regulate an individual's right to choose who they associate with. The government does regulate employers. Why? Among other reasons, because of the historical power imbalance between employers and employees. Because of the historical injustices done to minority populations in society. We want to give everyone the chance to succeed and you can't do that if you allow employers to discriminate against employees for reasons that have nothing to do with their jobs. I can choose to not go to the movies with a tall, blue-eyed man. I can't discriminate against that same tall, blue-eyed man when it comes to deciding whether or not to continue employing him if being tall and blue-eyed is the only basis for my decision and being tall and blue-eyed has nothing to do with his job.

[madmax]

If the citizens of Ontario lose this resource, it won't be because Christian Horizons walked away, it'll be because they were driven out.

Of what concern is it, to the disabled being cared for, the Sexual Orientation of their caregiver?

[Argus]

This isn't a private affair, but a public one.

Since the funding is virtually all from the Provincial Government, just about any other group, agency, social service or private sector institution would line up to fill the void in a heartbeat.

At two or three times the price, presumably. They get very little from the province given the number of group homes they operate.