Human rights agency trying to shut down charities

sharkman · May 13, 2008

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.

You people are missing the point. The employee agreed to the agreement she signed as a condition of employment. I know the court views this as wrong. But she freely agreed to work under that agreement. If she had been applying at a religious school, apparently the judge would have sided with the school. This is bizzare.

CANADIEN · May 13, 2008

You people are missing the point. The employee agreed to the agreement she signed as a condition of employment. I know the court views this as wrong. But she freely agreed to work under that agreement. If she had been applying at a religious school, apparently the judge would have sided with the school. This is bizzare.

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

CANADIEN · May 13, 2008

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

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

sharkman · May 13, 2008

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

Yes I understand that. What I am saying is why is a morals contract then allowed in religious organizations that educate when it's not allowed with religious organizations that do other work. They both employ people.

CANADIEN · May 13, 2008

Yes I understand that. What I am saying is why is a morals contract then allowed in religious organizations that educate when it's not allowed with religious organizations that do other work. They both employ people.

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

Kitchener · May 13, 2008

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.

Obviously there is an enormous difference, which I already explained rather clearly. Repeating your now-debunked claims won't make them any better.

Once again, the Code in question reads:

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 sets a double-bar for exempting an institution from discriminatory employment practices regarding categories like race, ethnicity, and creed. (1) The primary aim of the institution must be to address the interests of persons in some category-relevant fashion; and (2) membership in such a category must be a genuine qualification for employees.

Now, in the case of religious education, (1) the institution is "primarily engaged" in serving the interests of people in getting a specifically religious education; and (2) the employee's being of that religion (and overtly so; hence comporting with explicitly stated principles) can reasonably be seen as a bona fide qualification for providing that education. (Of course it might not be, in some circumstances, but it could be.) Handicapped services, on the other hand, (1) are "primarily engaged" in serving the interests of the handicapped identified by their need for special care, and by not some fictional interests of not having a gay person work for the company that provides their care; and (2) being straight is not "a reasonable and bona fide qualification" for providing that care.

The point is not a difficult one to grasp, with a little effort.

sharkman · May 13, 2008

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.

-----

snip

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.

Most of you have been contending the law, but what I am saying is the law is hypocritical, whether you care to agree or not. In one instance, you can discriminate, and in another you can't. Religious freedom is being curtailed for the trends of the day. I shudder to think of what pretzels a judge would contort into if faced with a case where a religious school starts an extended care facility and hires people to care for disabled people and fires a lesbian under the same situation.

Melanie_ · May 13, 2008

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.

The morals clause was not relevent to doing the job - I wonder how many potentially fine caregivers for the disabled were screened out for refusing to sign the contract. Christian Horizons may have sabatoged themselves, and denied their clients the quality of care they needed.

Argus, if we say that a religious group can break the law because they are doing good work, how many other laws are we willing to overlook for them? And how many other groups are also doing good work, but would like certain restrictions lifted from them? If this group decides to stop providing services because of the ruling, they can't be terribly committed to the disabled in the first place.

Edited May 13, 2008 by Melanie_

CANADIEN · May 13, 2008

Most of you have been contending the law, but what I am saying is the law is hypocritical, whether you care to agree or not. In one instance, you can discriminate, and in another you can't. Religious freedom is being curtailed for the trends of the day. I shudder to think of what pretzels a judge would contort into if faced with a case where a religious school starts an extended care facility and hires people to care for disabled people and fires a lesbian under the same situation.

It is not about what the law says. It is about plain logic, which you fail to grasp. Any organization, even a school, that hired people for the sole purpose of working on care program for the disabled would be acting not as a school, but as health care facility as for as its relationship with those people were concerned.

As for the hypocrisy (since you chose that word). The real hypocrisy here is to claim that Christian Horizons was persecuted for its religious views when it was prosecuted for its illegal employment practices.

sharkman · May 13, 2008

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

Oleg Bach · May 13, 2008

The morals clause was not relevent to doing the job - I wonder how many potentially fine caregivers for the disabled were screened out for refusing to sign the contract. Christian Horizons may have sabatoged themselves, and denied their clients the quality of care they needed.
Argus, if we say that a religious group can break the law because they are doing good work, how many other laws are we willing to overlook for them? And how many other groups are also doing good work, but would like certain restrictions lifted from them? If this group decides to stop providing services because of the ruling, they can't be terribly committed to the disabled in the first place.

All Charity originally began in a formal manner in about 1957..Prior to that it was all strickly Christian based...then big buisness took over thinking that the nice Christain ladies that ran the COMMUNITY CHEST were a little to soft on the out of work workers , some who simply wanted to escape the oppression of the employer...and the Community Chest was there for them to give the man some breathing room and give him support so as he could have enough to find another job and NOT be force back to the oppressor. Well a massive insurance complany and other decided to take charity away from the kind Christian woman we were in effect freeing the un-employed form the grasp of the robber barrons.

Now the Community Chest was destroyed by the men of big buisness and they set up the agency system..Like that corrupt and self serving over grown monster the United Way ---who in turn funded so-call child prtection agents like the secular Children/s aid society - Chatholic CAS and that flag ship of socila engineering - Jewish Family and Child Services who is about as religious as a secular ultlitarian toilet. So now big buisness has he power to coerse the worker by having the power ot kidnap the offspring of the worker under the guise child protection. All of these mention agents are controlled out of the Universities and are learning centres and also use for social experimentation,

All Charities today are not charities..Charity is if you give you get nothing back and you are by old doctrine to give in secret to the poor so as not to besmerch them and marginalize them publiclly putting them in a position of being stigmatized. When a person gives to charity and gets a tax deduction he in reallity is not giving but taking...so if you are tuning a profit giving to charity then you further steal form the poor. As far as the gays being used to shut down CHRISTIAN OPERATORS....That assist the unfortuneate..You must remember it's bug buisness stiring up the trouble and attemtping to get rid of the few remaining Christian charities..this is a ruse - No real Christian charity would deny a homosexual assistance...this is a rumor. A maniplative and clever use of the poor gays and also another way for the big buisness boys to get rid of the last few real charities so they can enslave the last few resister to corporate crimminal oppression.

CANADIEN · May 13, 2008

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

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

CANADIEN · May 13, 2008

All Charity originally began in a formal manner in about 1957..Prior to that it was all strickly Christian based...then big buisness took over thinking that the nice Christain ladies that ran the COMMUNITY CHEST were a little to soft on the out of work workers , some who simply wanted to escape the oppression of the employer...and the Community Chest was there for them to give the man some breathing room and give him support so as he could have enough to find another job and NOT be force back to the oppressor. Well a massive insurance complany and other decided to take charity away from the kind Christian woman we were in effect freeing the un-employed form the grasp of the robber barrons.
Now the Community Chest was destroyed by the men of big buisness and they set up the agency system..Like that corrupt and self serving over grown monster the United Way ---who in turn funded so-call child prtection agents like the secular Children/s aid society - Chatholic CAS and that flag ship of socila engineering - Jewish Family and Child Services who is about as religious as a secular ultlitarian toilet. So now big buisness has he power to coerse the worker by having the power ot kidnap the offspring of the worker under the guise child protection. All of these mention agents are controlled out of the Universities and are learning centres and also use for social experimentation,

All Charities today are not charities..Charity is if you give you get nothing back and you are by old doctrine to give in secret to the poor so as not to besmerch them and marginalize them publiclly putting them in a position of being stigmatized. When a person gives to charity and gets a tax deduction he in reallity is not giving but taking...so if you are tuning a profit giving to charity then you further steal form the poor. As far as the gays being used to shut down CHRISTIAN OPERATORS....That assist the unfortuneate..You must remember it's bug buisness stiring up the trouble and attemtping to get rid of the few remaining Christian charities..this is a ruse - No real Christian charity would deny a homosexual assistance...this is a rumor. A maniplative and clever use of the poor gays and also another way for the big buisness boys to get rid of the last few real charities so they can enslave the last few resister to corporate crimminal oppression.

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

sharkman · May 13, 2008

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

But my point is, what pretzels would a judge have to contort into to see that. Or would she/he find for charter rights violation? You have no way of knowing. It's a frickin' crap shoot. That is not justice.

sharkman · May 13, 2008

I'm not completely sure, but I think Oleg has just outdone himself. :unsure:

CANADIEN · May 13, 2008

But my point is, what pretzels would a judge have to contort into to see that. Or would she/he find for charter rights violation? You have no way of knowing. It's a frickin' crap shoot. That is not justice.

The way you constantly try to split hairs, you most be a barber. Doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that the issue at hand would be the nature of the job, and the normal expectations rrelated to it.

Keep trying to beat a dead horse and to split hair as much as you can... I've been clear enough and won't waste my time.

August1991 · May 13, 2008

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.

This is not about bigots, homophobes or racists. This is about individual freedom.

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?

That's exactly what I'm questioning.

I can understand why we must ensure that the State itself does not discriminate - the State is a monopoly. But I don't see why a restaurant, if it so chooses, should not be free to discriminate in its clientele. Heck, they do that now. They discriminate against poor people who can't afford to pay.

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.

This is practical nonsense.

Quite apart from labour law, human rights legislation curiously applies to only one side of the transaction. You are free to quit your job if your supervisor is a woman but your supervisor cannot fire you because you're a man.

In fact, such firings/quits happen all the time but they never go to any tribunal because the parties simply move on.

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.

Well, if the government is involved then possibly its an essential or unique service in which no other choice is possible. Then, one must protect against discrimination.

----

Canadien and Kitchener, it might help if you understand where I'm coming from on this. I happen to think the best protection against bigots, racists, homophobes and idiots in general is to be able to cross the street and go elsewhere. In practice, that's what most of us do. We don't run to a Human Rights Commission. We take our business or skills elsewhere.

The freedom to choose is what protects our rights in private dealings and this freedom explains far more of the apparent existing civil rights than any tribunals' work.

I happen to think that when the State gets interferes without very clear grounds in private contracts, it may solve certain problems in the short run but in the long run, it leads to no good. These kinds of State interference have just burdened with more bureaucracy the private dealings of society.

As I and Argus pointed out above, the effect of this decision will be to hurt disabled people and make it more difficult to hire people. Rather than help lesbians and gays, this will just hurt them.

CANADIEN · May 13, 2008

This is not about bigots, homophobes or racists. This is about individual freedom.
That's exactly what I'm questioning.

I can understand why we must ensure that the State itself does not discriminate - the State is a monopoly. But I don't see why a restaurant, if it so chooses, should not be free to discriminate in its clientele. Heck, they do that now. They discriminate against poor people who can't afford to pay.

This is practical nonsense.

Quite apart from labour law, human rights legislation curiously applies to only one side of the transaction. You are free to quit your job if your supervisor is a woman but your supervisor cannot fire you because you're a man.

In fact, such firings/quits happen all the time but they never go to any tribunal because the parties simply move on.

Well, if the government is involved then possibly its an essential or unique service in which no other choice is possible. Then, one must protect against discrimination.

----

Canadien and Kitchener, it might help if you understand where I'm coming from on this. I happen to think the best protection against bigots, racists, homophobes and idiots in general is to be able to cross the street and go elsewhere. In practice, that's what most of us do. We don't run to a Human Rights Commission. We take our business or skills elsewhere.

The freedom to choose is what protects our rights in private dealings and this freedom explains far more of the apparent existing civil rights than any tribunals' work.

I happen to think that when the State gets interferes without very clear grounds in private contracts, it may solve certain problems in the short run but in the long run, it leads to no good. These kinds of State interference have just burdened with more bureaucracy the private dealings of society.

As I and Argus pointed out above, the effect of this decision will be to hurt disabled people and make it more difficult to hire people. Rather than help lesbians and gays, this will just hurt them.

Easy to say, August. When page after page in the job sections said "Negroes need not apply", when publicly founded universities had quotas on the number of Jews they would admit, when restaurants had signs stating "No dogs or Chinese admitted", when hotel had vacancies... until a non-white showed up, when even the law included such injustice, "crossing the street" was not an option.

In a democracy like ours, the State represents each and every citizen. When the law forbid unfair hiring or service practices, it is talking on behalf of society as a whole.

And I see a difference between you and Argus you don't see... You are merely wrong... Argus tops that with homophobic ranting.

August1991 · May 13, 2008

Easy to say, August. When page after page in the job sections said "Negroes need not apply", when publicly founded universities had quotas on the number of Jews they would admit, when restaurants had signs stating "No dogs or Chinese admitted", when hotel had vacancies... until a non-white showed up, when even the law included such injustice, "crossing the street" was not an option.

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.

And I see a difference between you and Argus you don't see... You are merely wrong... Argus tops that with homophobic ranting.

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?

madmax · May 13, 2008

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

You can express your views....

Doesn't seem like this charity can function without a handout from the government. When receiving government funding, follow government legislation and the human rights code. A code that all employers must follow.

You shouldn't violate the legislation.

The Rule of law.

Edited May 13, 2008 by madmax

Argus · May 13, 2008

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

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

Argus · May 13, 2008

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?

The case is not over, and I highly doubt that this organization, even if it has been forced to formally withdraw its morals clause, is going to be willing to hire homosexuals or others with "poor morals". They'll simply find an excuse which can't be disproven by lawyers.

The facts are as stated, that religious groups like this are the backbone of volunteers in this country, and that where such groups have been forced to accomodate the neverending demand for the worship of homosexuality they have simply ceased operations, as per the story.

In California the Salvation Army was forced to close down several inner city missions because officials refused to sign a document approving of homosexuality. The destitute suffered terribly as a consequence. In Britain the Roman Catholic church similarly was obliged to shut the doors of its adoption agency.

I realize that nothing is more important to the brainless, soulless drooling idiots of the left than homosexual rights, but some of us consider the advancement of the gay agenda to be of somewhat less importance than looking after the disabled.

Argus · May 13, 2008

Let's talk about idiocy, Argus, since you chose the word.

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

- 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.

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.

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.

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.

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").

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

- 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

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.

Argus · May 13, 2008

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.

Just like the Salvation Army, you mean?