Human rights agency trying to shut down charities

[bk59]

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.

That is not true. They are allowed to employ people to help the disabled. They just can't require those people to conform to all of their religious beliefs and practices.

If this was about a religious organization running private education classes about the religion, then they can require people to conform to all of their religious beliefs. But that is not what we are talking about here.

[Argus]

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.

Oh I agree completely. I also agree we shouldn't have to wait ten hours in hospital to get a bone set, or wait months to get an MRI. But that is the world we live in. And the only thing one can be reasonably assured of is that if Christian Horizons pulls out of this the job will be given to some kind of commercial health care provider - no doubt the lowest bidder - and that the lives of the severely disabled involved will become that much worse.

Why? How more focused can a homophobic religous person be on their job compared to the losers you describe?

I don't pretend to really understand the religious types, but they are, if nothing else, predictable. All these types of organizations have morals clauses against "fornication" and drugs and alcohol and porn and all that sort of thing. It seems to be part and parcel of who they are, and somehow that somewhat self-righteous sense of morality still manages to produce the most and best and most caring volunteers in every city in this country.

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

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

And where do you think we're going to find them given virtually every government run institution for the aged and disabled is short of staff?

[eyeball]

...I am not religious...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.

Do YOU want to look after them (pause now to see Argus shuffling backwards and whistling idly as he pinches his wallet).

You've bought into the idea that social welfare should be faith-based even though you're not religious, haven't you?

Talk about being severely lame, not to mention cheap.

[Kitchener]

By the way, I ("not you of course") worked for several years doing personal care for the handicapped, with both children and adults.

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.

Ah, so subtle. Grow a spine! Have the stones to come out and make your clumsy, boring, wholly confabulated ad hominems explicit!

[Argus]

Do YOU want to look after them (pause now to see Argus shuffling backwards and whistling idly as he pinches his wallet).

You've bought into the idea that social welfare should be faith-based even though you're not religious, haven't you?

Talk about being severely lame, not to mention cheap.

Not to mention dumb. No, I don't have the inclination to look after them. But then I'm not the one who's clamoring for those who ARE looking after them to be given the boot because they don't respect homosexuals in the work place.

Nor have I said social welfare should be faith based, only that the majority of volunteerism appears to function that way. Hello, real world? Anyone there? You can wish things were different but I see no prospect of that. The government hasn't the resources to do all this stuff, and no one else wants to. So if the religious types are willing to - and the condition is you sign a morals clause, then I'm okay with that.

[Kitchener]

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.

Since they have as now ceased employing the morals pledge, and there is so far no sign of their finding it somehow impossible to care for the handicapped, it's even harder than usual to understand what you are burbling about.

[bk59]

But then I'm not the one who's clamoring for those who ARE looking after them to be given the boot because they don't respect homosexuals in the work place.

No, you're the one clamoring for those looking after the disabled to be given the boot because they are homosexual.

[msj]

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.

What I'm saying is that this is about employment law.

There are no reasons to restrict employment in the manner that this group has done. They are intruding on the privacy and free speech of their employees which is discriminatory and against the law.

As far as your "joke."

Sure, I get it. But it really isn't that funny which is why I clearly marked mine as satire.

Of course, you have every right to say stupid and offensive things. But it doesn't give you the high ground.

[Kitchener]

Is it remotely possible that Argus will at some point figure out Google, read some actual stories about this case*, and discover that Christian Horizons has shown no signs of having its funding removed or ceasing to care for the handicapped?

Or would that just make it too difficult to sustain the pointless, groundless, clueless babbling about how the handicapped will suffer because of this decision?

*I hope this doesn't require a subscription.

Edited May 12, 2008 by Kitchener

[guyser]

Is it remotely possible that Argus will at some point figure out Google, read some actual stories about this case*, and discover that Christian Horizons has shown no signs of having its funding removed or ceasing to care for the handicapped?

What , you mean like read the facts of this case? Tsk tsk, cant have that.

If that were done he wouldnt post such idiocy. Give the man marks , even when he is shown to be completely wrong , especially and particularly in this case, he simply moves the goalposts and rants that "we dont care about old infirm people".

Facts shmacks. Cant have facts in a rant now can we? Hell he missed the most salient part of the whole debacle, employment law.

This weeks special...Lesbians. Watch for your local flyers advertising next weeks topic.

[CANADIEN]

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!?

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.

Edited May 12, 2008 by CANADIEN

[August1991]

What I'm saying is that this is about employment law.

There are no reasons to restrict employment in the manner that this group has done. They are intruding on the privacy and free speech of their employees which is discriminatory and against the law.

I think you're missing the whole point of this thread, msj. We are discussing the legitimacy of this human rights/employment law.

Should the State have the right to dictate who a private employer may or may not hire? This is a tremendous intrusion into private affairs and I have never felt comfortable with all manner of human rights legislation. We discriminate constantly in our daily lives and it seems odd to me that some forms of discrimination are banned. Why?

Why single out employers but not employees? Why single out shopkeepers but not customers? Underneath human rights legislation, there is a pointing finger of Big Brother who just doesn't trust private citizens to make civilized choices.

-----

Anyway, there are two angles in this thread that made me think. First, Morris noted that this organization receives government funding. As such, one could argue that it must comply with certain requirements - including the hiring of lesbians (for example). I'm not so sure of this though. Governments contract out many services and why should it require such policies on all contractors?

Second, I find Argus' argument the most sensible. Argus approaches the question in a pragmatic way and I think ultimately that's the best way when dealing with these kinds of issues. Rather than try to reason through using some kind of principle (ie. the State should not intervene in private decisions), let's look at the consequence of this policy. Well, Argus is right. This organization in the long run will not function as well as it might and more disabled people will not be as well cared for.

I am always uncomfortable when I see the power of the State used against people who happen to have beliefs contrary to what is politically correct.

[CANADIEN]

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.

[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.

Could someone tell me why the above is allowed in Canada? Being allowed to educate as your conscience dictates, but not serve disabled people. It just doesn't add up.

[CANADIEN]

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.

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.

[guyser]

I think you're missing the whole point of this thread, msj. We are discussing the legitimacy of this human rights/employment law.

But that is not how it started.

Anyway, there are two angles in this thread that made me think. First, Morris noted that this organization receives government funding. As such, one could argue that it must comply with certain requirements

Second, I find Argus' argument the most sensible. Argus approaches the question in a pragmatic way and I think ultimately that's the best way when dealing with these kinds of issues. Rather than try to reason through using some kind of principle (ie. the State should not intervene in private decisions), let's look at the consequence of this policy. Well, Argus is right. This organization in the long run will not function as well as it might and more disabled people will not be as well cared for.

Except that is not what pretty much the rest of us see.

First, the govt funds them so they have to abide by the laws of the land.

Secondly, the fact she was a lesbian never prevented her from doing a competent job. As someone above this post said, that argument is emotional blackmail. And it is.

If she was good enough yesterday to do her job, then she is as good at it today when we found out she was a lesbian. To try and turn this into a "the religious group cant do the job" because of someones sexuality is bogus. Pure and simple.

I am always uncomfortable when I see the power of the State used against people who happen to have beliefs contrary to what is politically correct.

The powers instituted by the state came as a result of years of injustice perpetuated by the employers the world over.The Human Rights growth did not come first. It was an approach to rectify the injustice people saw.

[Kitchener]

I think you're missing the whole point of this thread, msj. We are discussing the legitimacy of this human rights/employment law.

We are discussing many things, but primarily whether it was wrong to fire her. The fact that it was inconsistent with a democratically and legally sound human rights code is probably the fundamental consideration -- though one could also argue that the code itself is illegitimate. (Nobody so far has given any such actual reasoning, however.)

Should the State have the right to dictate who a private employer may or may not hire?

This case does not actually raise that question directly. It raises the question of whether the State can regulate how employers fire employees.

This is a tremendous intrusion into private affairs and I have never felt comfortable with all manner of human rights legislation. We discriminate constantly in our daily lives and it seems odd to me that some forms of discrimination are banned. Why?

Are you seriously wondering why the State should get involved if, say, black people were told they can't eat in restaurants, ride the bus, or join the Scouts?

Why single out employers but not employees?

First thing: because employers are responsible for what their employees do on company time. That's why employers can legitimately fire employees for all manner of work-related reasons, right? So when one employee torments another one on company time, in such a way that the employer knew or ought to have known, the employer is on the hook. Second thing: it's actually false that the employees cannot be "singled out". It's just that focusing on the employer respects the responsibility that employers have over their employees -- responsibility that they are not reluctant to exercise in most circumstances.

Anyway, there are two angles in this thread that made me think. First, Morris noted that this organization receives government funding. As such, one could argue that it must comply with certain requirements - including the hiring of lesbians (for example). I'm not so sure of this though. Governments contract out many services and why should it require such policies on all contractors?

Getting government funding is not particularly relevant, I agree. The point is that the firing was contrary to the Human Rights Code. These rights do not apply preferentially to those who work on the government nickel, even indirectly. They apply to everyone.

Second, I find Argus' argument the most sensible.

Ah. Would you mind putting his "argument" in the form of premises and conclusion, just so we can see exactly what it looks like?

Argus is right. This organization in the long run will not function as well as it might and more disabled people will not be as well cared for.

Of course Argus has given no reason to believe this remarkable statement, nor have you. Indeed, he hasn't even made that particular claim; he's made radically stronger claims than your sanitized version: that handicapped people will be sitting in the own feces because of this nasty lesbian and the human rights tribunal.

I am always uncomfortable when I see the power of the State used against people who happen to have beliefs contrary to what is politically correct.

Since that has essentially zero to do with this case, it's hard to see why you'd mention it. Nothing has happened to Christian Horizons specifically on account of they "happen to have beliefs contrary to what is politically correct" -- whatever you might mean by the infinitely flexible term "politically correct" (typical translation: "stuff I don't like"). So it's an absurd misdescription to claim this. Rather, they just can't fire someone for the job-irrelevant property of being gay.

[CANADIEN]

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.

[sharkman]

Christian Horizons is not allowed to hire people according to their conscience, while Christian organizations are allowed to educate according to conscience. Education has much more influence on people than employing them. People are free to seek education elsewhere if they don't want to sign the morals agreement prior to attending a religious school. Why does the same principle not apply to religious organizations wanting to do charity work?

People seeking employment at religious schools agree to abide by a morals code. There is no difference in people seeking employment with religious organizations doing charity work or whatever.

[msj]

I think you're missing the whole point of this thread, msj. We are discussing the legitimacy of this human rights/employment law.

Oh, I agree we are. But since Kitchener and Canadien have been cleaning up in that department I consider that battle already won.

Should the State have the right to dictate who a private employer may or may not hire? This is a tremendous intrusion into private affairs and I have never felt comfortable with all manner of human rights legislation. We discriminate constantly in our daily lives and it seems odd to me that some forms of discrimination are banned. Why?

Why single out employers but not employees? Why single out shopkeepers but not customers? Underneath human rights legislation, there is a pointing finger of Big Brother who just doesn't trust private citizens to make civilized choices.

Good questions - already largely answered by Canadien and Kitchener.

-----

Anyway, there are two angles in this thread that made me think. First, Morris noted that this organization receives government funding. As such, one could argue that it must comply with certain requirements - including the hiring of lesbians (for example). I'm not so sure of this though. Governments contract out many services and why should it require such policies on all contractors?

Second, I find Argus' argument the most sensible. Argus approaches the question in a pragmatic way and I think ultimately that's the best way when dealing with these kinds of issues. Rather than try to reason through using some kind of principle (ie. the State should not intervene in private decisions), let's look at the consequence of this policy. Well, Argus is right. This organization in the long run will not function as well as it might and more disabled people will not be as well cared for.

I am always uncomfortable when I see the power of the State used against people who happen to have beliefs contrary to what is politically correct.

Kitchener has already provided a link to a story which shows the above part to be false.

I will add that I find it odd that this group would want to limit the pool of eligible workers given the demographics in this country.

It is increasingly more difficult to find the "right" people as the pool of this "type" of person continues to shrink.

In this way, the group has done more harm to the people they purport to be helping by reducing the total amount of potential qualified employees (and by qualified I mean qualified to perform the job regardless of colour, religious belief, sexual orientation etc).

Edited May 13, 2008 by msj

[CANADIEN]

We are discussing many things, but primarily whether it was wrong to fire her. The fact that it was inconsistent with a democratically and legally sound human rights code is probably the fundamental consideration -- though one could also argue that the code itself is illegitimate. (Nobody so far has given any such actual reasoning, however.)

This case does not actually raise that question directly. It raises the question of whether the State can regulate how employers fire employees.

Are you seriously wondering why the State should get involved if, say, black people were told they can't eat in restaurants, ride the bus, or join the Scouts?

First thing: because employers are responsible for what their employees do on company time. That's why employers can legitimately fire employees for all manner of work-related reasons, right? So when one employee torments another one on company time, in such a way that the employer knew or ought to have known, the employer is on the hook. Second thing: it's actually false that the employees cannot be "singled out". It's just that focusing on the employer respects the responsibility that employers have over their employees -- responsibility that they are not reluctant to exercise in most circumstances.

Getting government funding is not particularly relevant, I agree. The point is that the firing was contrary to the Human Rights Code. These rights do not apply preferentially to those who work on the government nickel, even indirectly. They apply to everyone.

Ah. Would you mind putting his "argument" in the form of premises and conclusion, just so we can see exactly what it looks like?

Of course Argus has given no reason to believe this remarkable statement, nor have you. Indeed, he hasn't even made that particular claim; he's made radically stronger claims than your sanitized version: that handicapped people will be sitting in the own feces because of this nasty lesbian and the human rights tribunal.

Since that has essentially zero to do with this case, it's hard to see why you'd mention it. Nothing has happened to Christian Horizons specifically on account of they "happen to have beliefs contrary to what is politically correct" -- whatever you might mean by the infinitely flexible term "politically correct" (typical translation: "stuff I don't like"). So it's an absurd misdescription to claim this. Rather, they just can't fire someone for the job-irrelevant property of being gay.

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.

[msj]

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.

Good fictional case study, Canadien.

I agree with you, of course the employee should continue to be employed unless there are actual real employment reasons not to.

[msj]

What , you mean like read the facts of this case? Tsk tsk, cant have that.

If that were done he wouldnt post such idiocy. Give the man marks , even when he is shown to be completely wrong , especially and particularly in this case, he simply moves the goalposts and rants that "we dont care about old infirm people".

Facts shmacks. Cant have facts in a rant now can we? Hell he missed the most salient part of the whole debacle, employment law.

This weeks special...Lesbians. Watch for your local flyers advertising next weeks topic.

Well stated Guyser.

Exactly what he has done - moved the goal posts and pretends to care about the disabled when clearly he would prefer to rant about homosexuals.

No one's buying it (well, maybe a few who don't like gays, too).

[sharkman]

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.

The converted gay is now in a conflict against his contract. He should resign. Weird story Cdn.

[guyser]

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?

A bit tricky, but in the end, not much different from my viewpoint either.

The difference is that Purity Convent openly advocates they are anti-gay. The employee who went straight , and believed the anti-gay sermon is then serving the people he was taught were inferior.Perhaps that can affect the quality of care he provides.

THe lesbain merely mentioned her sexuality,not that she joined an anti-old people convent. And she was a good employee from what we have read.

Minor difference.