Michael Hardner Posted January 30, 2018 Report Share Posted January 30, 2018 1 hour ago, Rue said: As a Canadian of Jewish identity I can attest I am not and have never been normal..but I know what you mean. You're welcome to break unleavened bread at my house. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gingerteeth Posted January 30, 2018 Report Share Posted January 30, 2018 16 hours ago, Michael Hardner said: Yes. Just like the government can't say "money for anybody but black people" they can't say "money for anybody but religious people". Some may have a problem with that analogy. Yea the problem with your analogy is that the government never said that "money for anybody except religious people." Or anywhere close to that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted January 30, 2018 Report Share Posted January 30, 2018 17 minutes ago, Gingerteeth said: Yea the problem with your analogy is that the government never said that "money for anybody except religious people." Or anywhere close to that. Well, by demanding that someone promise to follow values that don't align with their religion they effectively did. They could also say - you have to eat a bacon sandwich in front of us to get Government Money, and it would be against the Charter of Rights. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boges Posted January 30, 2018 Report Share Posted January 30, 2018 I think JT should make groups looking for public funding sign a form saying they oppose FGM and Honour Killings. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OftenWrong Posted January 30, 2018 Report Share Posted January 30, 2018 1 hour ago, Boges said: I think JT should make groups looking for public funding sign a form saying they oppose FGM and Honour Killings. That would not be necessary since those things are already illegal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boges Posted January 30, 2018 Report Share Posted January 30, 2018 2 minutes ago, OftenWrong said: That would not be necessary since those things are already illegal. So is any restriction on Reproductive Rights. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OftenWrong Posted January 31, 2018 Report Share Posted January 31, 2018 (edited) 1 hour ago, Boges said: So is any restriction on Reproductive Rights. The law against abortion was struck down. There is no specific law against being anti-abortion. There are specific laws against the crimes you listed. ETA- there are certainly restrictions in some provinces for late term abortions, unless it is for urgent health reasons. Edited January 31, 2018 by OftenWrong Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gingerteeth Posted January 31, 2018 Report Share Posted January 31, 2018 3 hours ago, Michael Hardner said: Well, by demanding that someone promise to follow values that don't align with their religion they effectively did. They could also say - you have to eat a bacon sandwich in front of us to get Government Money, and it would be against the Charter of Rights. They are promising not to violate other people's rights. There is no right to violate rights that you are suggesting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted January 31, 2018 Report Share Posted January 31, 2018 (edited) 34 minutes ago, Gingerteeth said: They are promising not to violate other people's rights. There is no right to violate rights that you are suggesting. They're being asked to support abortion rights ? Their religion prohibits that. They are already off side at that point. Furthermore they have the right to protest. The right to pay protesters is a weird one... Edited January 31, 2018 by Michael Hardner Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackbird Posted January 31, 2018 Report Share Posted January 31, 2018 (edited) 10 hours ago, Rue said: No they have not and in fact this has nothing to do with "Liberalism". Governments must remain neutral to all constituents. They therefire can't use taxpayers' money to fund anyone whose views would discriminate against another's violating the charter. Simply put, you don't have to agree with homosexuality as a lifestyle, but you can't refuse to fire someone who is gay simply because you disapprove of his being gay. No one asks you to accept his lifestyle. Maintain your own beliefs about gays, just don't expect the government to fund your discrimination. By the way, using your reasoning the government should fund the KKK because its a religious organization and it should fund extremist Islamic terrorist groups. I can't stand Trudeau or Liberals but this is not a "liberal" issue. Its a legal issue dealing with discriminating against people's basic legal rights. In fact true conservatism would maintain the government has no business imposing individual choices of lifestyle on anyone which is precisely what it would do if it allowed its taxpayers' money to be used to discriminate. The only indirect connection would be in the church's beliefs. The church itself would not agree with abortion or homosexuality. But this is irrelevant to hiring students for summer camps. Would they give money to Muslims to hire summer students? There are probably lots of things in Islam that one could say violate the Charter of Rights, like the 109 or so verses in the Quran that advocate violence against infidels or non believers. Trudeau has a strong dislike for evangelical christians. Evangelical beliefs do not fit in with his liberal, progressive agenda and further he believes he can punish those who don't accept his progressive belief system. He is basically an authoritarian who does not respect freedom of conscience or freedom of religion. I would also say the liberal ideology of abortion and LGBT is a religion in and of itself. It meets the definition and is pushed by Trudeau the same as a religious cult. Edited January 31, 2018 by blackbird Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PIK Posted January 31, 2018 Report Share Posted January 31, 2018 22 hours ago, Rue said: The above is false. No one has been asked to agree with abortion or transgender rights. That is an absolute and outright lie. Any government can not give grants to anyone who will not recognize an individual's rights under the Charter. No government has asked anyone to agree with anything. What they have said is if you want government funding you can't choose ONLY people who are not transgendered or are against abortion when they apply for work and you can not use either of those beliefs (believing transgender is wrong, abortion is wrong)as criteria to hire someone-no different from you can not expect government funding to hire students then refuse to hire blacks, Jews, etc. I wouldn't worry. I doubt anyone wants to work for you. Do you even work? Yah yah. You make pointed hoods. I am in business and hired a lot of kids thru the yrs, and this is the 1st time that you had to do this. You have to check a box at the end of the app, and if you don't check it, you get nothing. You check it and get the money you can hire anyone you want. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gingerteeth Posted January 31, 2018 Report Share Posted January 31, 2018 19 hours ago, Michael Hardner said: They're being asked to support abortion rights ? Their religion prohibits that. They are already off side at that point. Furthermore they have the right to protest. The right to pay protesters is a weird one... They are asked to respect charter rights and reproductive rights. Not sure what protesting has to do with it I never said they didn't have a right to protest. You keep moving the goalposts. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PIK Posted January 31, 2018 Report Share Posted January 31, 2018 (edited) 20 hours ago, OftenWrong said: The law against abortion was struck down. There is no specific law against being anti-abortion. There are specific laws against the crimes you listed. ETA- there are certainly restrictions in some provinces for late term abortions, unless it is for urgent health reasons. Maybe someone should explain that to BC. It seems they can have selective abortions out there. But then they did stop telling pregnant chinese women what they were carrying. To try and stop it. Edited January 31, 2018 by PIK Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted January 31, 2018 Report Share Posted January 31, 2018 53 minutes ago, Gingerteeth said: They are asked to respect charter rights and reproductive rights. Not sure what protesting has to do with it I never said they didn't have a right to protest. You keep moving the goalposts. They don't have to respect other charter rights. I brought up protesting because I think paying protesters is a problem. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted January 31, 2018 Report Share Posted January 31, 2018 56 minutes ago, Gingerteeth said: They are asked to respect charter rights and reproductive rights. And once again, reproductive rights are NOT Charter rights. There is nothing stopping government from imposing limits on abortion provided the SC finds they are reasonable. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted January 31, 2018 Report Share Posted January 31, 2018 And I want to hire people to hand out leaflets calling for Christianity to be banned I can. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
?Impact Posted January 31, 2018 Report Share Posted January 31, 2018 On 1/30/2018 at 4:37 PM, Boges said: I think JT should make groups looking for public funding sign a form saying they oppose FGM and Honour Killings. I believe he already did that, and the regressives cried. 17 hours ago, blackbird said: Trudeau has a strong dislike for evangelical christians. Evangelical beliefs do not fit in with his liberal, progressive agenda and further he believes he can punish those who don't accept his progressive belief system. He is basically an authoritarian who does not respect freedom of conscience or freedom of religion. No, an example of an authoritarian would be the previous holder of his office, the Evangelical Christian that took money away from groups that provided planned parenthood to third world countries. That example is about a billion times more blatant, what is your excuse for that one? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gingerteeth Posted February 1, 2018 Report Share Posted February 1, 2018 3 hours ago, Argus said: And once again, reproductive rights are NOT Charter rights. There is nothing stopping government from imposing limits on abortion provided the SC finds they are reasonable. Doesn't change what I am saying. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted February 1, 2018 Report Share Posted February 1, 2018 (edited) 4 hours ago, ?Impact said: No, an example of an authoritarian would be the previous holder of his office, the Evangelical Christian that took money away from groups that provided planned parenthood to third world countries. That example is about a billion times more blatant, what is your excuse for that one? How the hell is it authoritarian to not want to give Canadian money to foreigners for any damned reason he wanted? Are you entirely unaware of the difference of the rights Canadians have for freedom of religion and equal treatment by government vs the non-existent rights of a bunch of damned foreigners to our money? Edited February 1, 2018 by Argus Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted February 1, 2018 Report Share Posted February 1, 2018 1 hour ago, Gingerteeth said: Doesn't change what I am saying. Only completely. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted February 1, 2018 Report Share Posted February 1, 2018 9 hours ago, Argus said: Only completely. I concur here. But here is another example: I want to hire a student to go on web forums and advocate for removing the right of women to vote. My intentions are anti-Charter, but my right to express myself is guaranteed as long as I am not spreading 'hate'. The government may not like my message but they aren't authorized to disallow me from receiving services based on that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gingerteeth Posted February 1, 2018 Report Share Posted February 1, 2018 12 hours ago, Argus said: Only completely. Nonsense my point is still the same. The organizations wanting funding still have to respect charter rights and reproductive rights as I have said above. What the court limits has nothing to do with what I said. 2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said: I concur here. But here is another example: I want to hire a student to go on web forums and advocate for removing the right of women to vote. My intentions are anti-Charter, but my right to express myself is guaranteed as long as I am not spreading 'hate'. The government may not like my message but they aren't authorized to disallow me from receiving services based on that. Religious people aren't prevented from expressing themselves or holding opinions. They just can't use funding to violate rights of others and their summer students. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted February 1, 2018 Report Share Posted February 1, 2018 8 minutes ago, Gingerteeth said: Religious people aren't prevented from expressing themselves or holding opinions. They just can't use funding to violate rights of others and their summer students. I said they are 'disallowed from receiving services'. Any reasonable reading of the charter makes for that. If you want to ban religion, don't be sneaky about it - make a constitutional change. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gingerteeth Posted February 1, 2018 Report Share Posted February 1, 2018 8 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said: I said they are 'disallowed from receiving services'. Any reasonable reading of the charter makes for that. If you want to ban religion, don't be sneaky about it - make a constitutional change. They are disallowed from recieving funding if they refuse to follow the charter and reproductive rights. Has nothing to do with wanting to ban religion which I am obviously not advocating for. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted February 1, 2018 Report Share Posted February 1, 2018 9 minutes ago, Gingerteeth said: 1. They are disallowed from recieving funding if they refuse to follow the charter and reproductive rights. 2. Has nothing to do with wanting to ban religion which I am obviously not advocating for. 1. As has been pointed out to you by Argus and by me: they do not have to follow the charter, the charter describes the rights that government affords to the people. Reproductive rights are also not proclaimed in the charter. 2. Are you in favour of it though ? 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.