CPC convention policy motions

[g_bambino]

I don't see the point of the motion. Freedom of religious institutions is guaranteed in the constitution. It's as important as equality of people. I do have a problem with the assisted suicide motion though.

Haven't there been a fair few HRC cases filed against religious institutions that refused to marry same-sex couples and the ruling was in favour of the couple? ......I'm not certain and I don't have much time to look it up.

[Smallc]

I don't have time to look it up right now either, but that would seem to be in direct contravention of the Constitution.

[The_Squid]

I don't have time to look it up right now either, but that would seem to be in direct contravention of the Constitution.

HRC is neither here nor there... it has nothing to do with whether churches should be exempt from the law,

Charter rights are never unlimited. There are always limits to every constitutional right.

freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;

Despite the fact that you have the above right, you still cannot discriminate. That is certainly a restriction on Section 2 of the Charter, but it is a reasonable restriction.

There is no reason that the Charter right (a) freedom of conscience and religion; should allow churches to discriminate. You are not exempt from the law, despite the fact that the law may be impeding certain Charter rights as long as the restriction is deemed reasonable, as it declares in Section 1 of the Charter.

Edited November 4, 2013 by The_Squid

[Smallc]

Religious freedoms though are fundamental, and equality rights shouldn't trump them...and I'm an atheist.

[The_Squid]

Religious freedoms though are fundamental, and equality rights shouldn't trump them...and I'm an atheist.

Lots of freedoms are fundamental, but they are still not unlimited.

Will they be discriminating against liars, divorcees and those who don't keep the Sabbath holy? Of course not. They cherry pick their discriminations... so it is very tough to argue that they discriminate based on their religion when other "sins" get a pass. They are simply bigots. And bigots should not get a special governmental pass to be exempt from any laws.

[Smallc]

Look, I personally think religion shouldn't exist, but, if we want to keep religion out of the state, we should do our best to keep the state out of religion.

[The_Squid]

Look, I personally think religion shouldn't exist, but, if we want to keep religion out of the state, we should do our best to keep the state out of religion.

That's a nice slogan, but making religions exempt from laws is just not a good idea.

[Smallc]

I'm not saying it should be exempt from all laws, but expecting a religion to perform a ceremony that isn't permitted under their belief system isn't right.

[The_Squid]

I'm not saying it should be exempt from all laws, but expecting a religion to perform a ceremony that isn't permitted under their belief system isn't right.

We are not talking about performing a cermemony. They are already exempt from that, and I do agree with that. If that is what you are arguing, then you didn't read the motion.

The CPC motion had nothing to do with religious ceremonies because they are already exempt (and rightfully so...).

The motion:

"supports the rights of faith based organizations to refuse the use of their facilities to individuals or groups holding views which are contrary to [its] beliefs or standards,"

[AlienB]

Sounds like SmallC would be happier in the US where there is a seperation of church and state.

Religion is definately supressed in Canada, but bear in mind Anglican Cannon Laws forms part of the constitution of Canada and likewise the defence of the Catholic faith in areas of New France is constitutionally gaurenteed.

None the less most people not of those religion probably don't want them to be the dominant religions but they are legally. None the less, the law really doesn't matter much, its not followed anyway. If you don't have government religious policy you'll have religious poeple in government with passive religious values.

There really isn't anything to religion but funny symbols anyway. It more or less just amounts to philosophy.

----

I am hopeful eventually Canadians will wake up and grant universal non licensed access to weapons. The right to bear arms is an old right and the basis of not allowing a public militia is only supporting a police state where individual liberties and rights are more grossly violated.

People will still kill anyway and people can make guns to do killing anyway if they want. Why block the commerce? Illegal people will do illegal things anyway.

Guns are way too restricted. It is absurd that people in remote northern areas can't buy or use restricted weapons because there are no shooting clubs in their back of the woods.

[cybercoma]

Haven't there been a fair few HRC cases filed against religious institutions that refused to marry same-sex couples and the ruling was in favour of the couple? ......I'm not certain and I don't have much time to look it up.

I could be wrong, but I believe they were sued when offering their facilities for rent to the public, whilst refusing to rent to gay people. So the problem is renting things out to the general public and discriminating against people in that capacity. The HRC can't force religious institutions to marry people whom the institution doesn't recognize as being able to marry nor should it, imo.

Edited November 4, 2013 by cybercoma

[Guest Derek L]

I'm not saying it should be exempt from all laws, but expecting a religion to perform a ceremony that isn't permitted under their belief system isn't right.

I believe the argument isn’t so much a place of worship been forced to perform ceremony, but like stated, the allowance of said place of worship to refuse usage of their facilities to those they feel immoral.

[cybercoma]

I believe the argument isn’t so much a place of worship been forced to perform ceremony, but like stated, the allowance of said place of worship to refuse usage of their facilities to those they feel immoral.

Why just religious institutions? Can I stop serving Jews in my restaurant because I feel they're immoral?

[Guest Derek L]

I could be wrong, but I believe they were sued when offering their facilities for rent to the public, whilst refusing to rent to gay people. So the problem is renting things out to the general public and discriminating against people in that capacity. The HRC can't force religious institutions to marry people whom the institution doesn't recognize as being able to marry nor should it, imo.

I think you've nailed it.........In other words, a church advertises that they will rent out their basement to the general public to hold certain “events”, but they can decide who they can rent to based on their own perceived morality…….A church might be willing to rent their basement out to the local Cub Scouts, Lions Club, marriage counselling or to hold Alcoholics Anonymous meetings, but refuse renting their facilities for gay weddings, (to borrow from the other thread) “Lesbian haunted houses” or to pro-abortion organizations.

I would assume there is likely not much of a demand amongst these “immoral” organizations to hold their functions within places of worship………but there you go

I, a person that aside from weddings and funerals, hasn’t attended a religious service since the late 1960s, thinks such a right for religious organizations is fair, well clearly not precluding others from holding their functions elsewhere…it’s all about compromise.

[Guest Derek L]

Why just religious institutions? Can I stop serving Jews in my restaurant because I feel they're immoral?

Religion at it’s core is divisive?

You certainly could stop serving Jews in your restaurant if they started performing oral sex on one another, or were using foul & coarse language, or etc etc

[Guest Derek L]

I am hopeful eventually Canadians will wake up and grant universal non licensed access to weapons. The right to bear arms is an old right and the basis of not allowing a public militia is only supporting a police state where individual liberties and rights are more grossly violated.

And that will never happen........The previous FAC system and today's PAL/RPAL have both been generally positive outcomes for the Firearms community………the revamping of the Firearms Act is warranted, but there will, as there should, always be some form of firearms licensing.

Guns are way too restricted. It is absurd that people in remote northern areas can't buy or use restricted weapons because there are no shooting clubs in their back of the woods.

I agree fully here.........I went deer & grouse hunting today, and maybe it’s age setting in, but would have much rather packed my Ruger mkII .22lr in a holster and carried my deer rifle, then slung my Ruger 10/22 over my back and carried my deer rifle……..

I see zero valid reason why the current restricted class of firearms shouldn’t have the same rules applied to their use as the non-restricted class.

[On Guard for Thee]

Sounds like SmallC would be happier in the US where there is a seperation of church and state.

Religion is definately supressed in Canada, but bear in mind Anglican Cannon Laws forms part of the constitution of Canada and likewise the defence of the Catholic faith in areas of New France is constitutionally gaurenteed.

None the less most people not of those religion probably don't want them to be the dominant religions but they are legally. None the less, the law really doesn't matter much, its not followed anyway. If you don't have government religious policy you'll have religious poeple in government with passive religious values.

There really isn't anything to religion but funny symbols anyway. It more or less just amounts to philosophy.

----

I am hopeful eventually Canadians will wake up and grant universal non licensed access to weapons. The right to bear arms is an old right and the basis of not allowing a public militia is only supporting a police state where individual liberties and rights are more grossly violated.

People will still kill anyway and people can make guns to do killing anyway if they want. Why block the commerce? Illegal people will do illegal things anyway.

Guns are way too restricted. It is absurd that people in remote northern areas can't buy or use restricted weapons because there are no shooting clubs in their back of the woods.

That's about as ridiculous a statement I've heard since that NRA guy said "the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun, is a good guy with a gun" I certainly hope you don't have another school shooting anytime soon, but with that mentality, I expect you will.

[cybercoma]

Religion at it’s core is divisive?

You certainly could stop serving Jews in your restaurant if they started performing oral sex on one another, or were using foul & coarse language, or etc etc

Where does this even come from? You think a gay wedding reception is going to have public sex?

The point is the Church has to follow the same rules as private enterprise if they're going to start selling goods or services to the public.

[Guest Derek L]

Where does this even come from? You think a gay wedding reception is going to have public sex?

Not at all.......I've been to two and have yet to see that.

Morality is obviously a subjective term.

The point is the Church has to follow the same rules as private enterprise if they're going to start selling goods or services to the public.

Places of worship are non-profit....or has that changed?

[On Guard for Thee]

Not at all.......I've been to two and have yet to see that.

Morality is obviously a subjective term.

Places of worship are non-profit....or has that changed?

Surely you jest! Ever looked at the catholic church bank account? They are definitely places for profits.

[Topaz]

Perhaps the "right to die" should go to the provinces and let the feds stay out of it, after all it would be under health care. Some people are making more of this issue than it needs. IF a person has the RIGHT to chose how they will die when they are told you will be dead in 6 months or so, then they should have the RIGHT to say, I don't want my family to suffer seeing me die, I'm going to die, I have no choice but I do have the choice WHEN. This can all be done in a Living Will, at least for an adult. Children, who have cancer that would be up to the parents, guided by doctors , if they choose to have it. Again, no one can be forced to do this, its a matter of FREEDOM of CHOICE. What's wrong with that?

[bleeding heart]

I am hopeful eventually Canadians will wake up and grant universal non licensed access to weapons. The right to bear arms is an old right and the basis of not allowing a public militia is only supporting a police state where individual liberties and rights are more grossly violated.

People will still kill anyway and people can make guns to do killing anyway if they want. Why block the commerce? Illegal people will do illegal things anyway.

Guns are way too restricted. It is absurd that people in remote northern areas can't buy or use restricted weapons because there are no shooting clubs in their back of the woods.

I think gun owners generally have tended towards a reasonable and practical approach: for example, posters Derek and Kimmy have argued very well that some of the restrictions simply make no sense, while some of them do. So each component should be examined discretely, where possible.

[Smallc]

Perhaps the "right to die" should go to the provinces and let the feds stay out of it, after all it would be under health care.

It's a criminal matter, and that makes it a federal matter.

[Guest Derek L]

It's a criminal matter, and that makes it a federal matter.

Not if you remove the associated laws on assisted suicide from the criminal code….

Edited November 8, 2013 by Derek L

[Guest Derek L]

I think gun owners generally have tended towards a reasonable and practical approach: for example, posters Derek and Kimmy have argued very well that some of the restrictions simply make no sense, while some of them do. So each component should be examined discretely, where possible.

Exactly. As I’ve bleated about in the numerous firearms related threads, if the end game is public safety against firearms related violence, laws and measures that will actually keep the public safe are ideal. If we’ve achieved reasonable measures to “control” who can legally obtain firearms and ammunition, as I feel we have, the focus should shift to limiting the black-market for illegal arms purchases, both supplier and customer.

Creating and enforcing laws that limit legal purchases based on barrel length, magazine capacity, the physical appearance & name and most importantly, the firearms action, do little for public safety when the vast majority of firearms used in violent crime are obtained illegally.