M.Dancer Posted July 30, 2007 Report Share Posted July 30, 2007 Hmmm, I don't think the couple who booked the Knights of Columbus hall were ignorant of the fact that what they were doing would have been offesnsive to Catholics. But I don't think they even bothered to inform them. If I booked a hall belonging to an Orthodox Jewish synagogue and decided to roast a pig in there I would expect them to come and give me the boot. I think what they thought, what they were ignorant of or cognisant of is entirely irrelevant. They paid there deposit, they made the invitations and the KofC broke the contract. I don't think they were under any contractual obligation to inform them of anything. Point of fact, this hall belonged to a fraternal society, not a synagogue, not a church. It is in no way a consecrated place of worship so don't even bother to try and muddy the facts. They rented it out as a commercial enterprise..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jefferiah Posted July 30, 2007 Report Share Posted July 30, 2007 K of C is a Catholic organization. I rather think they knew and it was intentional. The same thing has been done by homosexual activist groups out west. They booked a Catholic hall for a pride dinner under false pretenses, then installed two police officers at the doors so the priest could do nothing. There were only a few dozen places they could have booked. Why not just go to the one we know is the most conservative. For a group who claims to be so afraid of and threatened by Christians it is strange behaviour. The minister out west who wrote a letter to a Red Deer editorial is another good example of human rights cases gone ridiculous. The man wrote complaining about homosexuality being taught in schools and for having to fund gay groups he doesnt support with his tax dollars. For simply writing his opinion on the matter the man was charged by a U of A professor who is not even homosexual. The minister did not incite people to attack homosexuals though he did say that the activist movements were malicious. In many cases they have been throughout history. There is no denying that. When psychologists classified homosexuality as a disease there were raids on their annual meetings. People say the same undesirable things about other groups and their intentions all the time. Harper for instance is a right wing Bible thumping hate monger, apparently. Some people claim George Bush is the antichrist. Thus far I don't think he is suing anyone. Would you suggest that we make Liberals and Conservatives protected groups and that way any argument from either side must be stifled because it is bigotry? Sometimes I think the Liberals would be game for that. But honestly though....apparently being homosexual is so special, so unique that we must punish people for speaking ill of them or believing it is immoral, rather than expect them to apply the old "sticks and stones" rule, or the "agree to disagree" rule. And this case of Bill Whatcott, the subject of this topic, is the most ridiculous I have heard yet. His statements were not inciting any violence against anyone. Many of them were questions not even statements. And a non-muslim Uni Professor in Quebec feels she needs to procure money from the website that allowed him to post this. I am sorry, M Dancer, but this is plain ridiculous. If you think it is reasonable to even consider cases like this, I can tell you this will cause a lot more harm than good. People with strong beliefs will speak (many of them harmless individuals) and society will punish them for it, while more dangerous people are free. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted July 30, 2007 Report Share Posted July 30, 2007 K of C is a Catholic organization. I rather think they knew and it was intentional. The same thing has been done by homosexual activist groups out west. They booked a Catholic hall for a pride dinner under false pretenses, then installed two police officers at the doors so the priest could do nothing. No it is not the same thing, but congrats you now have the journalistic ethics of World Nut Daily...... ...and secondly, you are free to think what you want, about their motives, being psychic and all.....but it is still irrelevant to the issue (whether the fraternal org broke the contract because of discrimination) and whether World Nut Daily misrepresented the story. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jefferiah Posted July 30, 2007 Report Share Posted July 30, 2007 (edited) O......K M Dancer. I rather think you agree with me that it was intentional. Knights of Columbus subscribes to Catholic beliefs. In this way it can be said that they are Catholic. Edited July 30, 2007 by jefferiah Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jefferiah Posted July 30, 2007 Report Share Posted July 30, 2007 (edited) O......K M Dancer. I rather think you agree with me that it was intentional. Knights of Columbus subscribes to Catholic beliefs. In this way it can be said that they are Catholic. You will then defend the rights of Catholics and or other religious groups, if they decided to put in their terms and conditions (upon renting halls or using catholic property) that they are not to be used for Gay rights rallys, etc etc? Maybe even a sign on the door? Or you would commend someone's decision to rent property belonging to Orthodox Jews for a pork roast because they simply forgot the "no pork" sign? Edited July 30, 2007 by jefferiah Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted July 30, 2007 Report Share Posted July 30, 2007 O......K M Dancer. I rather think you agree with me that it was intentional. Knights of Columbus subscribes to Catholic beliefs. In this way it can be said that they are Catholic. No sorry, I see no reason to believe in your unsupported hearsay. And the beliefs of the KofC are irrelevant. They are not clergy or a religious order and were operating a commercial enterprise. A muslim tailor isn't allowed to shoo Jews away from his window...... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jefferiah Posted July 30, 2007 Report Share Posted July 30, 2007 (edited) O......K M Dancer. I rather think you agree with me that it was intentional. Knights of Columbus subscribes to Catholic beliefs. In this way it can be said that they are Catholic. No sorry, I see no reason to believe in your unsupported hearsay. And the beliefs of the KofC are irrelevant. They are not clergy or a religious order and were operating a commercial enterprise. A muslim tailor isn't allowed to shoo Jews away from his window...... Ahhhhh big difference, Sir. Big difference. Allow me to explain the problem with your analogy. The Knights of Columbus would not turn away homosexuals at the door. But a homosexual wedding is different, isn't it. Or a gay pride rally. The Church would not shoo away individuals who are gay at the door, but they would not allow them to have the pulpit to promote gay rights or they would not perform a gay marriage. Because that would be condoning it. I went to a Synagogue when I was 15. I was a pork eater. I was not turned away at the door. Now if I came in with a piece of pork..... Edited July 30, 2007 by jefferiah Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted July 30, 2007 Report Share Posted July 30, 2007 You will then defend the rights of Catholics and or other religious groups, if they decided to put in their terms and conditions (upon renting halls or using catholic property) that they are not to be used for Gay rights rallys, etc etc? Maybe even a sign on the door? Now I will not. Being religious does not give you the right to opt out of human rights laws. If someone wants to engage in religious worship, they are protected under the law. If someone wants to make a buck.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted July 30, 2007 Report Share Posted July 30, 2007 O......K M Dancer. I rather think you agree with me that it was intentional. Knights of Columbus subscribes to Catholic beliefs. In this way it can be said that they are Catholic. No sorry, I see no reason to believe in your unsupported hearsay. And the beliefs of the KofC are irrelevant. They are not clergy or a religious order and were operating a commercial enterprise. A muslim tailor isn't allowed to shoo Jews away from his window...... Ahhhhh big difference, Sir. Big difference. Allow me to explain the problem with your analogy. The Knights of Columbus would not turn away homosexuals at the door. I'm not going to beat a dead horse. They rented out their hall, they later broke the contract. Fuck them. They want to run a business and not be subject to the law. It went to court, they lost, get over it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jefferiah Posted July 30, 2007 Report Share Posted July 30, 2007 I did not say a sign saying "No gays allowed." I said a sign that would say our Church hall or whatnot is not to be used for a gay rights meeting, or for a gay wedding. Your original argument against the K o C was that they rented the hall and then turned around. When I suggest that the couple was most likely not ignorant of the fact that it would be offensive to them, you say that I have no proof and I am not psychic. So I then say if these groups now have to put up a sign in order to make the rules of usage known will you support that. Gays can still be allowed. But if the Church wants to make their own rules of usage ---- i e no gay weddings. What is that to you? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jefferiah Posted July 30, 2007 Report Share Posted July 30, 2007 (edited) That law was created and it can be changed. This is what we are arguing. It will create more problems than good and restrict freedoms. We are saying----look ridiculous human rights cases is where we are headed because of these laws. If the Jews don't want me eating pork in the Synagogue I can handle that. Shouldn't gays also be expected to understand that a church building is an inappropriate place for a gay celebration day. They do understand it. That's why a group rented the hall belonging to Bill Whatcott's church and held a gay celebration day there. Do you think that was a coincidence, M Dancer? Edited July 30, 2007 by jefferiah Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted July 30, 2007 Report Share Posted July 30, 2007 Your original argument against the K o C was that they rented the hall and then turned around. When I suggest that the couple was most likely not ignorant of the fact that it would be offensive to them, you say that I have no proof and I am not psychic. So I I said it was irrelevant. Check out the definition if you have to. In other words, putting up a sign declaring that they dicriminate and don't want to respect the law is irrelevant also. You can't hide behind religion when you are operating a commercial enterprise. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jefferiah Posted July 30, 2007 Report Share Posted July 30, 2007 (edited) deleted---same post as below Edited July 30, 2007 by jefferiah Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jefferiah Posted July 30, 2007 Report Share Posted July 30, 2007 (edited) They cannot discriminate about people entering the hall, but they can set rules as to what it can be used for. It is their hall and they make the rules. No gay weddings here. No gay pride rallys. I would not hold an NRA meeting at PETA headquarters. Would you? It is against the law to discriminate against a person using the hall, but the rules as to what it can be used for are determined by the owners. Right? This is why I can go to a synagogue, but I would have to respect there demand that no pork dinners be held in their hall. Edited July 30, 2007 by jefferiah Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted July 30, 2007 Report Share Posted July 30, 2007 They cannot discriminate about people entering the hall, but they can set rules as to what it can be used for. It is their hall and they make the rules. No gay weddings here. No gay pride rallys. I would not hold an NRA meeting at PETA headquarters. Would you? I'm not sure why you feel the need to get beat up on this.....you asked me to show how World Nut Daily distorted the news, I gave you some examples from one story. I see no need to go into the loopholes about how private groups might be able to conduct a business and still discriminate agaisnt Canadians. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jefferiah Posted July 30, 2007 Report Share Posted July 30, 2007 Discriminate. At this point you are taking it way too far, M Dancer. Look you know just as well as I do that the Catholics and other churches would consider gay marriage abomination. Now they can't turn gays out at the door, nor would they want to. You know that it is against the faith for them, and to force them to perform gay marriages or allow their facilities to be used for something like this would be quite offensive. It's even rude to ask. That's why I use the pork example with Jewish people. That would be a very very inconsiderate thing to do at a Synagogue, understanding what Jewish people believe, right? ' To expect people who believe gay marriage is a sin to perform it in their church or to endorse it in their halls is plain disrespectful. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted July 30, 2007 Report Share Posted July 30, 2007 Discriminate. At this point you are taking it way too far, M Dancer. Look you know just as well as I do that the Catholics and other churches............. Get back to me if the topic is about churches or places of worship. Until then you can keep struggling to find a point that ain't irrelevant or convoluted. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jefferiah Posted July 31, 2007 Report Share Posted July 31, 2007 (edited) On Oct. 2, 1881, a small group of men met in the basement of St. Mary’s Church on Hillhouse Avenue in New Haven, Connecticut. Called together by their 29-year-old parish priest, Father Michael J. McGivney, these men formed a fraternal society that would one day become the world’s largest ("CATHOLIC") family fraternal service organization. www.kofc.org/un/eb/en/about/history/index.html I couldn't figure out how to underline it. I was going for "underlined, quotated, in parantheses"---a la Alice's Restaurant. Commercial ventures do have the right to set terms as to how their rented products can be used. Edited July 31, 2007 by jefferiah Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbg Posted July 31, 2007 Report Share Posted July 31, 2007 I went to a Synagogue when I was 15. I was a pork eater. I was not turned away at the door. Now if I came in with a piece of pork.....I'm impressed.Given their extreme anger and violence, I'm surprised you survived the visit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikedavid00 Posted July 31, 2007 Report Share Posted July 31, 2007 I went to a Synagogue when I was 15. I was a pork eater. I was not turned away at the door. Now if I came in with a piece of pork.....I'm impressed.Given their extreme anger and violence, I'm surprised you survived the visit. These vicious circles of violence only end when one side has the maturity and strength to choose to not hit back. Pre-Holocaust, the Jews did not hit back. We know the results. Never again. Wow this is amazing. I completley agree and feel more strongly than ever on this. I stand with Israel. Christians should stand with Isreal. Harper Stands with Isreal which makes me proud. Here's why. Guyser? Jefferiah? Geoffry? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geoffrey Posted July 31, 2007 Report Share Posted July 31, 2007 I'm not a religious fanatic like the Islamists, and also, apparently you MikeDavid. I perfer the rational thinking that got Western society where it is, not shoot from the hip extremism. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbg Posted July 31, 2007 Report Share Posted July 31, 2007 I stand with Israel. Christians should stand with Isreal. Harper Stands with Isreal which makes me proud.When the CPC was elected, someone in the States asked how Harper would be on Israel. Without much basis I said "he'll be very strong on Israel". It was just a prediction, based on his character, I was right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jefferiah Posted July 31, 2007 Report Share Posted July 31, 2007 I stand with Israel as well Mike. I don't stand with you with regards to your posts on the radio thread. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scribblet Posted August 4, 2007 Author Report Share Posted August 4, 2007 Hey, it's been withdrawn - Mark Fournier Free Dominion August 3, 2007 Gentes/CHRC withdraw complaint against Free Dominion Moments ago, we received another letter from the Canadian Human Rights Commission, dated August 1, 2007, informing us that Marie-Line Gentes has withdrawn her complaint against Free Dominion and requested that the CRHC take no further action against us. I would like to thank Ms. Gentes for making this move and will assume her motives for doing so were honourable. The meat of the letter reads: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Summary of Complaint 1. The issue in this complaint is whether the respondent communicated or caused to be communicated, by way of the Internet, material that is likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt on the basis of religion, race, national or ethnic origin and sexual orientation. Background to Complaint 2. The complainant alleges that the respondent has communticated or caused to be communicated discriminatory material on www.freedominion.ca Free Dominion is a Canadian website that was inspired by Free Republic in the United States. It is described as a Canadian conservative news forum for the discussion of conservative philosophy and activism. The founders of the site are Mark Fournier and Connie Wilkins. Request to Withdraw Complaint 3. On July 17th and 23rd 2007, the complainant contacted the Commission advising that she wanted to withdraw her complaint. Recommendation 4. It is recommended, pursuant to paragraph 44(3)( of the Canadian Human Rights Act, that the Commission take no further proceedings in the complaint because the complainant has asked to withdraw the complaint. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Also included was a cover letter asking us to take note of the fact that Investigative branch of the CHRC will be recommending that the Commission not proceed with this case. It is said that the best victory is in the battle you don't have to fight. This show of strength by people from across Canada - and from beyond our borders - has stopped this battle before it had to be fought. Because all things with the CHRC are political, either Ms. Gentes or the Commission, or both, have decided that an attack at this time on Free Dominion is a political bridge too far. cont. Congratulations ! http://www.freedominion.ca/phpBB2/viewtopi...der=asc&start=0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
(Phone).thumb.jpg.165c8315c6251d31b87efa29fe65361b.jpg)
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.