Human rights agency trying to shut down charities

[CANADIEN]

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.

[sharkman]

In English, "whine" does not mean "clearly point out sharkman's slimy defense of violent rhetoric about a woman". If you can't handle having your creepy behaviour spotlit, I suggest you exercise some judgement before you act -- rather than falling back on the dumbest of the dumb evasions and prevarications afterward.

This really does deserve a replay:

"I say we break the lesbian's legs and run her out of town in a wheelchair"

"I'm in ... REAL women probably are tying the noose"

"Count me in."

I quoted you so it could be replayed yet one more time again. Thank you for spot lighting that behaviour. A word of advice: if you want to be taken seriously, you'll have to stop whining so much. Also, the knee jerk reactions on par with a bleeding heart liberal only give you away.

[sharkman]

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.

No, it was not actually funny. Locker room banter can get into the realm of bodily harm jokes when alpha males are trying to one up each other, but you're not missing anything.

[Melanie_]

From the link in the opening post... (emphasis mine)

One would have thought that clients of the organization would rather approve of being helped by people who don't lie, cheat, watch porn, drink or run around on their spouses.

~snip~

Walk along almost any main street and look at the names of the houses, associations and institutes that care for the poor, the abused, the marginalized, irrespective of their gender, race, religion or sexuality.

What a hypocrite, in one breath sympathizing with the marginalized irrespective of their sexuality, and in the next breath condemning someone based on her sexuality. I don’t think it’s safe to assume that people with disabilities have any interest in judging their caregivers, particularly if they are doing a good job of caring for their clients, and have done nothing illegal.

[August1991]

A person's sexual orientation has nothing to do with his/her capacity to provide compassionate and competent care. This is not rocket science.

Sexual orientation has nothing to with care? Who should be the judge of that?

If a person prefers to have a male barber rather than a female barber, should the State intervene and say that one cannot discriminate that way?

This was a private charitable organization - albeit one that received some government financing - that had a variety of rules for hiring staff. For example, it wanted its staff to be practicing Christians. If I prefer to go to a restaurant where the waiters are gay because I happen to think they do a better job, am I guilty of a crime?

----

The sad result in this case is that lesbians will find it more difficult to get a job. Who wants to hire a lesbian and then find themselves hauled before a human rights tribunal and having to pay out several hundred thousand in a settlement? Better to avoid the whole problem and not hire one in the first place.

This is referred to as the law of unintended consequences and it applies often in cases of social engineering. Governments cannot legislate morality and they shouldn't try.

[Shakeyhands]

Sexual orientation has nothing to with care? Who should be the judge of that?

It has something to with care? Really?

If a person prefers to have a male barber rather than a female barber, should the State intervene and say that one cannot discriminate that way?

This comes down to your choice, the store however cannot refuse to hire female barbers.

This was a private charitable organization - albeit one that received some government financing - that had a variety of rules for hiring staff. For example, it wanted its staff to be practicing Christians.

The charitable organization cannot refuse to hire someone based on their sexual preferance. And rightly so.

If I prefer to go to a restaurant where the waiters are gay because I happen to think they do a better job, am I guilty of a crime?

Again, this is simply your choice, and has nothing to with the hiring practices of the restaurant.

[msj]

I quoted you so it could be replayed yet one more time again. Thank you for spot lighting that behaviour. A word of advice: if you want to be taken seriously, you'll have to stop whining so much. Also, the knee jerk reactions on par with a bleeding heart liberal only give you away.

If you want to be taken seriously then I suggest that you stop whining so much when someone else makes substantive posts about the topic at hand.

Your continuous defence of the indefensible only gives you away.

[bk59]

Sexual orientation has nothing to with care? Who should be the judge of that?

What kind of question is that? No, sexual orientation does not have something to do with how you care for other people. Feel free to point to any evidence to the contrary. At any rate, it would be up to the people doing the firing to prove that somehow homosexuals are incapable of providing the same care as heterosexuals. This was not done in this case.

If a person prefers to have a male barber rather than a female barber, should the State intervene and say that one cannot discriminate that way?

As pointed out above, the state is not intervening in a customer's choice. We are talking about an employer here.

This was a private charitable organization - albeit one that received some government financing - that had a variety of rules for hiring staff. For example, it wanted its staff to be practicing Christians. If I prefer to go to a restaurant where the waiters are gay because I happen to think they do a better job, am I guilty of a crime?

1. Christian Horizons received most of its funding from the government. In fact, it is funded "almost exclusively" by the government. You don't get a free pass on discrimination just because you claim that you are a private charity, and certainly not when almost all of the funding comes from taxpayer money.

2. This woman was a practicing Christian. I guess that is just another pesky fact getting in the way of a good rant.

3. Again, we are not talking about customers, we are talking about employers.

The sad result in this case is that lesbians will find it more difficult to get a job. Who wants to hire a lesbian and then find themselves hauled before a human rights tribunal and having to pay out several hundred thousand in a settlement? Better to avoid the whole problem and not hire one in the first place.

The whole point is that you don't need to determine someone's sexuality in order to hire them for a job. So no, this will not make it harder for lesbians to find a job. At your last job interview were you asked about your sexual preferences? How many employers force their employees to sign contracts that promote a particular sexuality?

[msj]

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

This case is in Ontario so lets look at section five of the Ontario Human Rights Code:

Every person has a right to equal treatment with respect to employment without discrimination because of race, ancestry, place of origin, colour, ethnic origin, citizenship, creed, sex, sexual orientation, age, record of offences, marital status, family status or disability. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, s. 5 (1); 1999, c. 6, s. 28 (5); 2001, c. 32, s. 27 (1); 2005, c. 5, s. 32 (5).

There we go. Follow the law or pay the price.

------------------------------------------------------------

I happen to be a private employer in BC (whose Human Rights code is similar but different to that above).

One of my staff (that I'm aware of at any rate) happens to be a lesbian.

I know the law so that even if cared about her sexual orientation I wouldn't try to fire her unless I had actual grounds -- you know, like reasons related to job performance rather than who she goes to bed with each night.

Whether there is government funding or not, no organization or business has the law on their side when it comes to discrimination.

Which is too bad, because I would really like to ensure that I never hire Christians, Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, Sikhs etc...

Even better, I'd like to break their legs and run them out of town....

[bTW, these last two lines are what is called "satire" which is "sarcasm used to expose and discredit vice"].

[sharkman]

If you want to be taken seriously then I suggest that you stop whining so much when someone else makes substantive posts about the topic at hand.

Your continuous defence of the indefensible only gives you away.

And you might well do to not plagerize if you want to be taken seriously.

[CANADIEN]

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.

Edited May 12, 2008 by CANADIEN

[VD.]

I find it very sad that this topic is even under discussion. I mean I'm just repeating what has already been said but I really don't think sexuality has an impact on performance (double entendre XD). I mean if a disabled person would prefer for a homosexual person to stay away from them then they can ask for another care giver, but she really shouldn't have been fired . By the way I know asking my next question is going to incur the wrath of some people on this forum but how do you do those little partial quotes? I've been trying to figure it out and haven't been able to .

[White Doors]

As discrimination is against the law, a contract that includes discriminatory clauses is legally invalid. The argument that the person signed it willingly (if there was a contract) is meaningless, as the contract is still invalid and signing was compulsory as a condition of employment.

'Discrimination' is most certainly NOT against the law. The whole hiring process is in fact, discriminating candidates for the position.

My wife discriminated against all males in the country when she decided to marry me.

You have to be careful with what words you use.

[bk59]

And you might well do to not plagerize if you want to be taken seriously.

Using someone's words or "logic" against them isn't exactly plagiarism. "If you can't handle it, maybe you should stay out of the locker."* I mean, forum.

* See post #24.

[CANADIEN]

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".

[bk59]

In the interest of fairness, this issue is not quite as simple as "they are an employer therefore they must not discriminate". The Human Rights Code in Ontario does allow for the following:

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;

This was what Christian Horizons was claiming. I think I've made my position on this topic clear (I hope), but we should recognize that any group does have the right to discriminate with respect to its employees in certain circumstances.

[bk59]

Interesting how a bit of search even on the Internet can reveal things.

Agreed. As I said in my first post on this topic, isn't it interesting how actually looking at the facts of a situation makes all the difference?

[Kitchener]

In the interest of fairness, this issue is not quite as simple as "they are an employer therefore they must not discriminate". The Human Rights Code in Ontario does allow for the following:

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;

This was what Christian Horizons was claiming. I think I've made my position on this topic clear (I hope), but we should recognize that any group does have the right to discriminate with respect to its employees in certain circumstances.

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".

[Argus]

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.

The end result if this ruling holds is that Christian Horizons will withdraw from this charitable venture. We've seen it before elsewhere. And then what? Government will struggle to look after these people, with hired (and much better paid) government workers, few of whom have the kind of commitment religious people have. The cost will quadruple and the treatment given the disabled deteriorate markedly.

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!?

Edited May 12, 2008 by Argus

[M.Dancer]

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.

You are right of course. Disabled people should have the same right to be cared for by lesbians as everyone else. Denying the disabled a competent caregiver is not defensible.

[Kitchener]

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.

The end result if this ruling holds is that Christian Horizons will withdraw from this charitable venture. We've seen it before elsewhere. And then what? Government will struggle to look after these people, with hired (and much better paid) government workers, few of whom have the kind of commitment religious people have. The cost will quadruple and the treatment given the disabled deteriorate markedly.

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!?

And if they'd had a policy against hiring Jews, it would be the "outed" Jew's fault that handicapped people had to find service elsewhere when the organization had its funding cut off. Right?

Your homophobia is doing all your thinking for you. Change the minority designation to a different (and similarly irrelevant) one and the vacuity and foolishness of your position should be obvious. Even to you.

Edited May 12, 2008 by Kitchener

[Shakeyhands]

Funny post Argus, really I liked it.

Did you stop for a moment to think about this woman who was willing to provide care for these poor souls? Or did you just sit and fantasize about what went on in her bedroom, or how that might affect her job performance?

Who by the way stated that she shoved her sexual preferences down peoples throats? And beyond that, even if she did, how does that justify her being fired?

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.

The end result if this ruling holds is that Christian Horizons will withdraw from this charitable venture. We've seen it before elsewhere. And then what? Government will struggle to look after these people, with hired (and much better paid) government workers, few of whom have the kind of commitment religious people have. The cost will quadruple and the treatment given the disabled deteriorate markedly.

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!?

[Argus]

Funny post Argus, really I liked it.

Did you stop for a moment to think about this woman who was willing to provide care for these poor souls? Or did you just sit and fantasize about what went on in her bedroom, or how that might affect her job performance?

Who by the way stated that she shoved her sexual preferences down peoples throats? And beyond that, even if she did, how does that justify her being fired?

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.

[Argus]

And if they'd had a policy against hiring Jews, it would be the "outed" Jew's fault that handicapped people had to find service elsewhere when the organization had its funding cut off. Right?

Your homophobia is doing all your thinking for you. Change the minority designation to a different (and similarly irrelevant) one and the vacuity and foolishness of your position should be obvious. Even to you.

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 don't care if they have a policy against Jews. They're a fundamentalist Christian religious organization. Of course they have their weird little quirks and preferences. I, for one, could never work for such an organization, could never abide by their rules. 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.

Edited May 12, 2008 by Argus

[msj]

And you might well do to not plagerize if you want to be taken seriously.

No, it's called a mocking tone.

And trolls like you deserve mockery.