punked Posted July 3, 2009 Report Share Posted July 3, 2009 What we get from them? Nothing of substance just moral issues. Gay Marriage ban? Yes? http://www.cbc.ca/canada/saskatchewan/stor...x-marriage.html The Saskatchewan Party government is proposing legislation that would allow marriage commissioners to refuse to perform same-sex marriages.In a news release Friday, the provincial government said the proposed law would ensure there are other marriage commissioners available to fill in if someone refused to perform the service because it violated his or her religious beliefs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted July 3, 2009 Report Share Posted July 3, 2009 Gay Marriage ban? Yes?l So in your world, allowing someone to opt out of something they don't want to do, is a ban? Quit trolling. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted July 3, 2009 Author Report Share Posted July 3, 2009 So in your world, allowing someone to opt out of something they don't want to do, is a ban? Quit trolling. So can doctors refuse to operate on a Homosexual too? How about police can they not show up a Homosexuals house when it is being robbed now as well? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted July 3, 2009 Report Share Posted July 3, 2009 So can doctors refuse to operate on a Homosexual too? How about police can they not show up a Homosexuals house when it is being robbed now as well? No, because those are two entirely different things. There isn't an alternative police service, or alternative healthcare to provide the service. And perhaps so-called gay marriage didn't exist when those particular marriage commissioners started practicing. I don't think it's right to change the rules after the fact, as well as infringe on someone's religious beliefs at the same time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted July 3, 2009 Report Share Posted July 3, 2009 What we get from them? Nothing of substance just moral issues. With the NDP, we get corruption with their own election of leader. Shame. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted July 4, 2009 Report Share Posted July 4, 2009 No, because those are two entirely different things. There isn't an alternative police service, or alternative healthcare to provide the service. And perhaps so-called gay marriage didn't exist when those particular marriage commissioners started practicing. I don't think it's right to change the rules after the fact, as well as infringe on someone's religious beliefs at the same time. Homosexuality was illegal when some cops started working too. This is a backwards step, and one that shouldn't be tolerated. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted July 4, 2009 Author Report Share Posted July 4, 2009 No, because those are two entirely different things. There isn't an alternative police service, or alternative healthcare to provide the service. And perhaps so-called gay marriage didn't exist when those particular marriage commissioners started practicing. I don't think it's right to change the rules after the fact, as well as infringe on someone's religious beliefs at the same time. So you suggest we should make an alternative to the police department called the Homosexual police department so the police wont have to go against their beliefs as well? Tell those particular marriage commissioners to resign then. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted July 4, 2009 Author Report Share Posted July 4, 2009 With the NDP, we get corruption with their own election of leader. Shame. Yah we never got that from the Liberals............sigh. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alta4ever Posted July 4, 2009 Report Share Posted July 4, 2009 So you suggest we should make an alternative to the police department called the Homosexual police department so the police wont have to go against their beliefs as well? Tell those particular marriage commissioners to resign then. Funny how the strongest supporters of the Charter like to cherry pick rights and put some ahead of others. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted July 4, 2009 Author Report Share Posted July 4, 2009 Funny how the strongest supporters of the Charter like to cherry pick rights and put some ahead of others. Funny how Alberta dropped this crap a few years ago as soon as they were sued citing the Charter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alta4ever Posted July 4, 2009 Report Share Posted July 4, 2009 Funny how Alberta dropped this crap a few years ago as soon as they were sued citing the Charter. Dropped what crap? Why don't you drop the crap admit that you have no will to see the charter equally applied. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted July 4, 2009 Author Report Share Posted July 4, 2009 Dropped what crap? Why don't you drop the crap admit that you have no will to see the charter equally applied. This is going to cost Saskatchewan a lot of money in a bill rights suit and in the end they are going lose. That is why Alberta dropped it a few years as soon as threatened with it. There is no way they will win. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted July 4, 2009 Report Share Posted July 4, 2009 Yah we never got that from the Liberals............sigh. So you must be disappointed in the NDP of Saskatchewan. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alta4ever Posted July 4, 2009 Report Share Posted July 4, 2009 This is going to cost Saskatchewan a lot of money in a bill rights suit and in the end they are going lose. That is why Alberta dropped it a few years as soon as threatened with it. There is no way they will win. I am not talking about law suits or about the issue posted, I have made the observation that you don't care to see the charter of rights equally applied to all citizens. You seem very willing to place one persons rights before anothers. So will you admit that this charter we have is fundimentally flawed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted July 4, 2009 Author Report Share Posted July 4, 2009 I am not talking about law suits or about the issue posted, I have made the observation that you don't care to see the charter of rights equally applied to all citizens. You seem very willing to place one persons rights before anothers. So will you admit that this charter we have is fundimentally flawed. Yes I agree that a police officer could say he does not believe in a Homosexual's life style and thus not respond when asked too, that is his right. He should be fired for that. If you can't do your job becuase of your beliefs you should not be in that job it is as simple as that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alta4ever Posted July 4, 2009 Report Share Posted July 4, 2009 (edited) Yes I agree that a police officer could say he does not believe in a Homosexual's life style and thus not respond when asked too, that is his right. He should be fired for that. If you can't do your job becuase of your beliefs you should not be in that job it is as simple as that. Quit tring to steer the conversation we are not talking about your so called hypothicals, leave them out we are talking about the application of the charter and as I said before you don't seem to care that it is not being applied equally to all citizens. So will you admit that the charter is fundimentally flawed and that you have no desire to see it applied equally to all citizens. Edited July 4, 2009 by Alta4ever Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted July 4, 2009 Author Report Share Posted July 4, 2009 Quit tring to steer the conversation we are not talking about your so called hypothicals, leave them out we are talking about the application of the charter and as I said before you don't seem to care that it is not being applied equally to all citizens. So will you admit that the charter is fundimentally flawed and that you have no desire to see it applied equally to all citizens. What is your reasoning here? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alta4ever Posted July 4, 2009 Report Share Posted July 4, 2009 What is your reasoning here? My reasoning is that in all charter challenges one persons rights are weighed against anothers, and then judges decide who rights trump anothers, in other words, the document is fundimentally flawed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted July 4, 2009 Author Report Share Posted July 4, 2009 My reasoning is that in all charter challenges one persons rights are weighed against anothers, and then judges decide who rights trump anothers, in other words, the document is fundimentally flawed. This has nothing to do with personal rights. When you get a licenses from the government you half to fallow all laws and regulations which that government tells you too to practise what that license entails. If they don;t want to marry gays then they need to give up that license, it is easy no is forcing them to marry gays it is a choice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alta4ever Posted July 4, 2009 Report Share Posted July 4, 2009 (edited) This has nothing to do with personal rights. When you get a licenses from the government you half to fallow all laws and regulations which that government tells you too to practise what that license entails. If they don;t want to marry gays then they need to give up that license, it is easy no is forcing them to marry gays it is a choice. The government cannot force you to do something that infringes on your charter rights. Nor does a license for marring people come with a take all comers rule A pastor or priest will refuse to marry some couples if they do not decide to do any pre marraige councilling with them. Which again is not the point as I don't care about the marraige issue. Back to the issue at hand you refusal to admit that the charter is not applied equally to all citizens, your refusal to admit it is a flawed document, and your refusal to admit that you are quite happy that it is not applied equally to all citizens. Edited July 4, 2009 by Alta4ever Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted July 4, 2009 Author Report Share Posted July 4, 2009 The government cannot force you to do something that infringes on your charter rights. Nor does a license for marring people come with a take all comers rule A pastor or priest will refuse to marry some couples if they do decide to do any pre marraige councilling with them. Which again is not the point as I don't care about the marraige issue. Back to the issue at hand you refusal to admit that the charter is not applied equally to all citizens, your refusal to admit it is a flawed document, and your refusal to admit that you are quite happy that it is not applied equally to all citizens. Yes I agree a pastor or a priest can refuse this has nothing to do with them. Marriage Commissioner is a government licensed position relating to civil marriage not religious ceremonies. Churches still have the right, which nobody contests, to refuse to perform religious marriage ceremonies that go against their beliefs. All things written by flawed humans will be flawed it is just better then the alternative. My party is flawed yet I support them because the are better then the alternative. Our electoral system is flawed yet I support it because it is better then the alternative. What is your point? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alta4ever Posted July 4, 2009 Report Share Posted July 4, 2009 Yes I agree a pastor or a priest can refuse this has nothing to do with them. Marriage Commissioner is a government licensed position relating to civil marriage not religious ceremonies. Churches still have the right, which nobody contests, to refuse to perform religious marriage ceremonies that go against their beliefs. The charter doesn't say churches, it is individual rights 2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: (a) freedom of conscience and religion; All things written by flawed humans will be flawed it is just better then the alternative. My party is flawed yet I support them because the are better then the alternative. Our electoral system is flawed yet I support it because it is better then the alternative. What is your point? My point is the Charter is a piece of garbage not worth the paper it was written on, yet you seem happy to see one individuals rights promoted over another, which is inherently wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted July 4, 2009 Author Report Share Posted July 4, 2009 The charter doesn't say churches, it is individual rights2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: (a) freedom of conscience and religion; My point is the Charter is a piece of garbage not worth the paper it was written on, yet you seem happy to see one individuals rights promoted over another, which is inherently wrong. No one is infringing on the right to religion. However when that religion hurts and effects another then you lose that right. Here you have a choice give up the job or marry gays, or to marry interracial couples as some religious beliefs say should not happen. I could not shoot an abortion doctor and claim it was my right to religion that got me there. You have a right to religion and you can practise it. However you can not impose it on others. If you don't want to marry a homosexual couple Alta no will make you however if you are given a license by province to do so you have to give up that license so you will not marry those homosexuals. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alta4ever Posted July 4, 2009 Report Share Posted July 4, 2009 No one is infringing on the right to religion. However when that religion hurts and effects another then you lose that right. Here you have a choice give up the job or marry gays, or to marry interracial couples as some religious beliefs say should not happen. I could not shoot an abortion doctor and claim it was my right to religion that got me there. You have a right to religion and you can practise it. However you can not impose it on others. If you don't want to marry a homosexual couple Alta no will make you however if you are given a license by province to do so you have to give up that license so you will not marry those homosexuals. Do you understand what conscience is? It is the first part of that right and it was linked in the document to religion. So again you are tring to argue one persons rights over another don't you understand this. And will you stop trying to link this to the marraige issue, I am not interested in it, because I don't care. What I do care about is that you are willing to take sides over rights that are suppose to be applied equally, which do not seem to be applied equally. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted July 4, 2009 Author Report Share Posted July 4, 2009 Do you understand what conscience is? It is the first part of that right and it was linked in the document to religion. So again you are tring to argue one persons rights over another don't you understand this. And will you stop trying to link this to the marraige issue, I am not interested in it, because I don't care. What I do care about is that you are willing to take sides over rights that are suppose to be applied equally, which do not seem to be applied equally. If we aren't arguing about the marriage issue what are we arguing about? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.