"Tories Plan To Protect Same-Sex Opponents"

[betsy]

"Tories plan to protect same-sex opponents

If government loses bid to reopen debate, Defence of Religions Act is next option

By JOHN IBBITSON and BILL CURRY AND BRIAN LAGHI

From Wednesday's Globe and Mail

OTTAWA — The Conservative government is planning measures, including a Defence of Religions Act, to allow public officials, such as Justices of the Peace, to refuse to perform same-sex marriages.

The measures are also intended to protect the free-speech rights of religious leaders and others who criticize homosexual behaviour or refuse to do business with gay-rights organizations, The Globe and Mail has learned.

Any legislation would be brought forward only if the government loses the motion this fall to reopen the debate on same-sex marriage. All indications are that the motion, which would authorize the government to introduce legislation to repeal the same-sex marriage law passed by Parliament last year, will be defeated by a combination of Opposition MPs supported by a few Conservatives."

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...3/BNStory/Front

When pointedly asked at MDuffy Live, Conservative Kenney did not deny or confrim that a legislation is going to come. A journalist who talked to a judge said the judge confirmed it saying: "oh, it's coming."

Kenney said the vote on same-sex marriage will happen sometime in the fall.

[Technocrat]

"Tories plan to protect same-sex opponents

If government loses bid to reopen debate, Defence of Religions Act is next option

By JOHN IBBITSON and BILL CURRY AND BRIAN LAGHI

From Wednesday's Globe and Mail

OTTAWA — The Conservative government is planning measures, including a Defence of Religions Act, to allow public officials, such as Justices of the Peace, to refuse to perform same-sex marriages.

The measures are also intended to protect the free-speech rights of religious leaders and others who criticize homosexual behaviour or refuse to do business with gay-rights organizations, The Globe and Mail has learned.

Since when is gay bashing a freedom of speech issue? I don't want any hate mongers and homophobia legitimized especially by our national government.

Im not very happy about the 'others who critisize homosexual behaviour' idea, who exactly are the others and what are legitimate grounds for refusing to do business with gays? Isn't there a court case going on now in Montreal because a bar refused to serve a black guy because he was black? I guess were back to 'separate but equal'

Tread lightly Mr. Harper... I do support legislation regarding people not having to marry gay couples if they think its against their religion... sure fine... but discriminatory business practices based on sexual preference... just sounds... well... wrong.

Of course we have yet to see the actual legislation so, we will know soon enough i suppose... sigh... 1 step forward 3 steps back

[betsy]

"Tories plan to protect same-sex opponents

If government loses bid to reopen debate, Defence of Religions Act is next option

By JOHN IBBITSON and BILL CURRY AND BRIAN LAGHI

From Wednesday's Globe and Mail

OTTAWA — The Conservative government is planning measures, including a Defence of Religions Act, to allow public officials, such as Justices of the Peace, to refuse to perform same-sex marriages.

The measures are also intended to protect the free-speech rights of religious leaders and others who criticize homosexual behaviour or refuse to do business with gay-rights organizations, The Globe and Mail has learned.

Since when is gay bashing a freedom of speech issue? I don't want any hate mongers and homophobia legitimized especially by our national government.

Im not very happy about the 'others who critisize homosexual behaviour' idea, who exactly are the others and what are legitimate grounds for refusing to do business with gays? Isn't there a court case going on now in Montreal because a bar refused to serve a black guy because he was black?

Tread lightly Mr. Harper... I do support legislation regarding people not having to marry gay couples if they think its against their religion... sure fine... but discriminatory business practices based on sexual preference... just sounds... well... wrong.

Of course we have yet to see the actual legislation so, we will know soon enough i suppose... sigh... 1 step forward 3 steps back

The incident with Knights of Columbus was given as an example.

As for criticisms of behaviours....well, aren't homosexuals free to criticise the others as well?

Anyway, since when did criticism of behaviour become a crime? Look at our former Gov Gen Clarkson....she criticized the behaviour of the queen...and published it to boot!

Someone I know (an atheist) said that the freedom of speech should not only be for religious groups. That it should also include people who don't belong with any religious faith...to have the freedom to express an opinion and what they believe in. And she's right. Why should it only be for religious groups?

The way I look at it, as long as it does not incite hatred towards any particular group or race.

[gerryhatrick]

Oh yeah, Canada was inches away from putting ministers in jail.

They probably think this pointless legislation will please their base, but it's got no real purpose.

[Riverwind]

The incident with Knights of Columbus was given as an example.

The Knights of Columbus rents its facilities to the public. If it rents it facilities to the public it should be expected to obey all anti-discrimination laws - gays are no exception. We do not want to go back to the bad old days when stores could put signs up saying 'no blacks allowed'.

If the KOC is so bothered by same sex marriages then it should stop offering its facilities for use by the public. If it wants to be protected like a church then it should act like a church and restrict its facilities to Catholics only.

[Argus]

"Tories plan to protect same-sex opponents

I see no evidence to support this.

When pointedly asked at MDuffy Live, Conservative Kenney did not deny or confrim that a legislation is going to come.

I saw it. He did, in fact, rather pointedly deny it. The reporter simply pretended he didn't so the Liberal and NDP guy could harumph indignantly and call the Tories names.

A journalist who talked to a judge said the judge confirmed it saying: "oh, it's coming."

A judge? Since when do judges know what policy changes the party in power is considering? Especially given the Tories are not particularly chummy with most judges.

[Argus]

The incident with Knights of Columbus was given as an example.

The Knights of Columbus rents its facilities to the public. If it rents it facilities to the public it should be expected to obey all anti-discrimination laws - gays are no exception. We do not want to go back to the bad old days when stores could put signs up saying 'no blacks allowed'.

The "no blacks" thing is just nonsense. People didn't allow Blacks in because they hated blacks. The KOC don't hate homos. I have a feeling if some guy who was gay wanted to rent their hall in order to talk about flower arranging, they'd have no problem with his sexuality. But in the case to which you are referring a pair of lesbians deliberately sought out a KoC hall in order to hold a homosexual wedding, knowing Catholics dissaprove. In fact, you could consider their actions to be a form of religious persecution and harrassment as the person responsible for renting the hall was a co-worker they and others were trying to get rid of. It wasn't that a gay person couldn't rent the hall, it was that a gay person couldn't rent the hall in order to engage in an act the Catholics consider to be wicked and sinful.

BTW, the man who rented the hall, or actually refused to, was later fired by Costco - the same Costco the lesbians worked at - by his homosexual boss, who was a friend of the lesbians. The homosexual boss was later demoted by Costco to checkout clerk, so you know there was more going on there than a gay wedding.

Costco Fires Catholic Who refused gay wedding

If the KOC is so bothered by same sex marriages then it should stop offering its facilities for use by the public. If it wants to be protected like a church then it should act like a church and restrict its facilities to Catholics only.

The KoC has a right to rent out its facilities with the assumption that those using them will not be doing things the KoC consider to be immoral and sinful.

[BubberMiley]

"According to a report in The Globe and Mail on Wednesday, the federal government is floating the idea of a Defence of Religions Act that would protect public officials who refuse to perform same-sex marriages, and church groups that refuse to rent halls to gay couples.

Justice Minister Vic Toews confirmed the government plan to The Globe Tuesday but refused to discuss specifics. "

- Globe and Mail

Does Vic Toews count?

[Riverwind]

The KoC has a right to rent out its facilities with the assumption that those using them will not be doing things the KoC consider to be immoral and sinful.

I can live with religious institutions creating all sorts of arbitrary rules that restrict who can and cannot use their facilities. However, there must be a clear line to ensure that businesses operating under the guise of a 'religious organization' do not use this exception to justify discrimination. There are a number of different ways to ensure this (i.e. the facility must be owned by a religious organization as defined by tax code). Restricting access to followers of the faith would be another way to ensure this exemption is not abused. I don't care about the exact specifics of the rule as long as there is one and it is unambiguous.

[gerryhatrick]

"According to a report in The Globe and Mail on Wednesday, the federal government is floating the idea of a Defence of Religions Act that would protect public officials who refuse to perform same-sex marriages, and church groups that refuse to rent halls to gay couples.

Justice Minister Vic Toews confirmed the government plan to The Globe Tuesday but refused to discuss specifics. "

- Globe and Mail

Does Vic Toews count?

I have a friend in his riding. She's always telling me about the anti-gay literature he sends out. Big time bible belt boy.

[gc1765]

The Conservatives are now denying that this is true Link

I guess we'll have to wait and see if they are telling the truth...

[betsy]

The KoC has a right to rent out its facilities with the assumption that those using them will not be doing things the KoC consider to be immoral and sinful.

I can live with religious institutions creating all sorts of arbitrary rules that restrict who can and cannot use their facilities. However, there must be a clear line to ensure that businesses operating under the guise of a 'religious organization' do not use this exception to justify discrimination. There are a number of different ways to ensure this (i.e. the facility must be owned by a religious organization as defined by tax code). Restricting access to followers of the faith would be another way to ensure this exemption is not abused. I don't care about the exact specifics of the rule as long as there is one and it is unambiguous.

I agree with Argus. The refusal was not because they were lesbians. The Christian churches that I know of would never turn away sinners.

It was simply because the lesbians were going to use the place for something which is considered a sin.

[BubberMiley]

It was simply because the lesbians were going to use the place for something which is considered a sin.

A lesbian orgy?

[betsy]

It was simply because the lesbians were going to use the place for something which is considered a sin.

A lesbian orgy?

Why, were there supposed to be more than two of them? The whole gang?

Seems you know more details than I do...so yeah, that too.

[BubberMiley]

Who rents a church basement to have sex?

[Ricki Bobbi]

I can live with religious institutions creating all sorts of arbitrary rules that restrict who can and cannot use their facilities. However, there must be a clear line to ensure that businesses operating under the guise of a 'religious organization' do not use this exception to justify discrimination. There are a number of different ways to ensure this (i.e. the facility must be owned by a religious organization as defined by tax code). Restricting access to followers of the faith would be another way to ensure this exemption is not abused. I don't care about the exact specifics of the rule as long as there is one and it is unambiguous.

The Knights of Columbus are far from a business operating *under the guise* of a religious organization. They have always been a Catholic men's farternal benefit society.

Your implication this affiliation is some kind fo ruse is just plain false.

[geoffrey]

Oh yeah, Canada was inches away from putting ministers in jail.

They probably think this pointless legislation will please their base, but it's got no real purpose.

Bishop Fred Henry of Calgary was pulled before a Human Rights Commission (in my opinion a minority vs. reason organization) because he distributed literature on the same-sex marriage debate obviously in favour of the Catholic position.

Such threats against freedom of religion and conscience, let alone speech, should not be tolerated. There was no incitement of violence, why should such intimidation be allowed?

Such legislation is welcome. It doesn't infringe upon anyones rights, but protects a significant segement of our population destined to be targeted because of their faith.

Who rents a church basement to have sex?

People with agendas.

[betsy]

Who rents a church basement to have sex?

You were the one who suggested lesbian orgies. You tell me.

For all I know you're privvy with the lesbian world...that, maybe orgy-ing is just part of their lifestyle....just like the cool slurp rails in Toronto (according to Christie Blatchford). How should I know?

[Argus]

"According to a report in The Globe and Mail on Wednesday, the federal government is floating the idea of a Defence of Religions Act that would protect public officials who refuse to perform same-sex marriages, and church groups that refuse to rent halls to gay couples.

Justice Minister Vic Toews confirmed the government plan to The Globe Tuesday but refused to discuss specifics. "

- Globe and Mail

Does Vic Toews count?

Only if Vic Toews says it.

[Argus]

"According to a report in The Globe and Mail on Wednesday, the federal government is floating the idea of a Defence of Religions Act that would protect public officials who refuse to perform same-sex marriages, and church groups that refuse to rent halls to gay couples.

Justice Minister Vic Toews confirmed the government plan to The Globe Tuesday but refused to discuss specifics. "

- Globe and Mail

Does Vic Toews count?

I have a friend in his riding. She's always telling me about the anti-gay literature he sends out. Big time bible belt boy.

You respect Muslims who want to execute gays but you sneer at a Christian who doesn't approve of gay marriage? Okaayyyyyy.

[myata]

I think that to criticise someone's sexual orientation is simply an enourmously stupid thing to do. Just like to criticise someone for being short or ugly. Or to criticise someone else for being Muslim (or Catholic) or etc. Yet as long as it's done with "love" (sarcasm intended) and no incitation of violence, it shouldn't be criminal. Just stupid.

Now, we'll have to see if the govt really indends to bring up legislation to explicitly protect non criminal but stupid behaviour from criminal prosection. To me it wouldn't look like a very smart act but who knows.

[Higgly]

Clearly the solution is for the gays to start their own religion.

I can hardly wait for this to get to the supreme court.

[betsy]

I think that to criticise someone's sexual orientation is simply an enourmously stupid thing to do.

Your're saying we shouldn't criticise pedophiles who wants to diddle little kids!

Or sadists?

Or Snuff-ists ? (heck don't know what they call 'em)

That to do so, it's stupid????

Ahem.....

[BubberMiley]

How about bigots?

...Or fools?

Or smug, self-righteous, people who can't just mind their own business>?

cough, cough

[cybercoma]

The incident with Knights of Columbus was given as an example.

The Knights of Columbus rents its facilities to the public. If it rents it facilities to the public it should be expected to obey all anti-discrimination laws - gays are no exception. We do not want to go back to the bad old days when stores could put signs up saying 'no blacks allowed'.

If the KOC is so bothered by same sex marriages then it should stop offering its facilities for use by the public. If it wants to be protected like a church then it should act like a church and restrict its facilities to Catholics only.

And why don't we want to go back to those days? I can't stand Canadians who have no faith in the power of the market. If someone opens up a shop and puts a big sign in the window that says NO NIGGERS, NO JEWS AND NO FAGS....how many people do you think are going to shop there? It would be suicide because you'd get next to no business.

The KoC is a religious institution that should be allowed to deny support to homosexuals. You don't see pigfarmers of Ontario holding conventions in Islamic mosques. Ok, that example is silly...but if someone wanted to hold their wedding reception at a muslim convention centre and wanted to serve pork, there'd be outrage....probably beheadings. There are plenty of other places homosexuals can have their wedding/reception at...the catholic church shouldn't be forced by law to change its traditions for a small minority of people.