I'm not very conversant with law, but this strikes me as a very unusual case in which it is illegal to do nothing. No commision of any act, yet a crime nonetheless. Absurd.

Why an indiviual is forced to pay based on this ruling is absurd. The commissioner in question works for the province and therefore would have guidance regarding his powers and limitations in his role. If his actions were to be contested, it should have been contested against the provincial governing body overseeing those who perform civil weddings. Why would the government let one of their employees hang out to dry and allow him to be persecuted by another provincal agency - it defies reason. Try that with a unionized civil servant and see the stink in the media about it!
The insane actions of HRCs continue to destroy individual liberty across Canada.

If the state forced churches to perform gay marriages against their will, I would march with their supporters in protest, even though I am an atheist and not particularly opposed to gay marriage. A free society must include reasonable religious freedoms, or it isn't really free.

However, if a secular state decides that gay marriage is OK, then that state's employees are obliged to do the paperwork. If this offends them, I certainly sympathize, and would hope they could get transferred to another department without retribution or consequence. Surely it would not be difficult to find civil servants who are not unwilling to facilitate a gay marriage.

I don't want the state interfering with the religious beliefs and rights of its people, but I also don't want public servants deciding arbitrarily what government services they will or will not provide, based on their own personal beliefs.

If this was a case of a grocery clerk refusing service, the employer would be the one facing the complaint.

Yet, in this case, he gets the worst of both worlds - compelled by a government that won't take responsibility.

The "human rights" fascists strike again!

I think the employer should be able to dictate what official policy is (and the requirements of the job) but the HRC roos should not.

Simply put, if you work for the state, you do the state's business. If you do not want to do so, find another job. On the other hand, if the employer did not object to finding a different staff member to perform the marriage, that should have been the end of it. It isn't like this guy was forced to perform a marriage in his church. But it has nothing at all to do with either the HRC fascists or the complainant.

As for "MJ," this jackbooted hypocrite should have been given a good kick in his ass for believing he has a right to persecute others while crabbing about persecution. I hope he has been the victim of hate and discrimination all his life for any reason at all or none. He deserves it (as an individual) for his actions.

"He(Nichols)launched his own human rights complaint in 2005, months before he even met M.J., alleging that his religious freedoms would be violated should he be asked to marry same-sex couples. That complaint was dismissed by the Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission in 2006."

Seems like a set up.

It absolutely was a set-up.

"At the human rights hearing in 2007, M.J. testified that although he and his partner were married by another commissioner, he was devastated by Nichols' reaction."

Are all gays this fragile? "I wasth justht DEVETHTATED!"

I've grown up knowing that others don't believe like I do and not to cry when I find out.

Rick

In Orwell's 1984, the state didn't just demand obedience, they demanded to be loved enthusiastically and completely. Even enemies must be forced to love big brother before they can even be executed.

In that same mindset, it isn't enough for this creep to get his way. He must be celebrated and loved by all or he feels hard done by.

He needs a smack upside his head, not a HRC.

I could not agree more with the Justice's decision in finding Mr. Nichols has no legal ground as a marriage commissioner to refuse to marry same sex couples, which is the law in Saskatchewan. A marriage commissioner performs a civil ceremony and hence is not afforded the same protection on religious grounds under the Charter that a priest or miniser is afforded in refusing to marry a same sex couple. Some ministers however, have no problem with it. I recently attended the wedding of two friends, not same sex, but atheists. They were married in a civil ceremony with a Saskatchewan licenced commissioner performing the ceremony. The couple had told the commissioner that they did not want any mention of god in the ceremony, to which he compled, even though he may have believed in god. If this is applealed, I can almost guarantee that the Court of Queen's Bench decision will be up held, the courts have been very clear on this issue.

T,

When you specifically target someone exactly because of their religion you are not demanding that your rights be respected but violating the rights of someone else.

Too bad you leftards aren't smart enough to understand that "nuance" you claim so often.

For another example, see the Miss Cali debacle.

Jason are you talking about N Korea or Canada (sarc off)

Pissedoff

sarcasm presupposes you have a point to make.

"It absolutely was a set-up."

I would concur. I'm sure they went out of their way to get this guy knowing he would refuse to marry them. Just like other gay couples who search around for a place to get married or hold their reception that will turn them down so that they can raise a stink about it. Rather than just go to a place that will service them.

On the other hand if he is a public servant he should do his job. But why do we bend over backwards for Muslims and Sikhs to integrate them into the workplace but won't a allow a Christian to simply transfer a call to another person to perform a job that is against his religion.

sounds like a witchhunt to me.

And if the government says that doctors should perform abortions regardless of their conscience should they? Should the government's view override religious conviction regardless of occupation? Whatever happened to freedom of religion? This ruling goes completely against the Charter it is as simple as that. Just another reason why these human rights commissions must go. I recall a certain St. Thomas Moore having his head cut off because he disagreed with a certain marriage. Is that the road we want to head down?

Yet, in this case, he gets the worst of both worlds - compelled by a government that won't take responsibility

Therein lies the real problem. If the government wasn’t so gutless, the “rights” of both parties could be protected. As long as there are sufficient marriage commissioners in the Province to ensure access to homosexual marriages there is no reason to force any particular commissioner to perform a service that is repugnant to him.

So much for the Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantee of freedom of religion. The charter specifically identifies freedom of religion as a Canadian human right but makes no mention whatsoever of a right to sexual orientation. "Learned" judges "read in" (i.e. made up) this right even though there is an amending formula which could have been used to make the change had there been popular support for it. The activist judges knew there wasn't so they effectively rendered the charter and the constitution meaningless by "reading in" one set of "rights" and for all intents and purposes reading out another set. Since the right to religious freedom has been read out of the constitution, then that constitution is not worth the paper it's printed on. For if that right can be read out, so can any of the others. So much for the rule of law in this country.

Does this mean that doctors, which are paid by the state for public services, will now all have to perform abortions if ask to?

"I wasth justht DEVETHTATED!"

Canadian Charter of Rights and Fundamental Freedoms

2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:

(a) freedom of conscience and religion;

Why look, T, it's the first Fundamental Right and Freedom that the Saskatchewan government is violating here.

Equality Rights
Equality before and under law and equal protection and benefit of law

15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.

So under section 15 the rights of the homos to marriage and the rights of the Marriage Commissioner are at a deadlock.

But then there is this:
Rights to move and gain livelihood

(2) Every citizen of Canada and every person who has the status of a permanent resident of Canada has the right

(a) to move to and take up residence in any province; and

(b) to pursue the gaining of a livelihood in any province.

So the Court of Queen's Bench has denied the right of "freedom of conscience and religion" and the Marriage Commissioner's right to his "livlihood".

The abridgement of 2 rights makes the court WRONG.
PC madness run amoc in the courts, that what is its.

Of course it's obvious that this was a set-up. Michael Jackson actively sought out this commissioner because of his previous stance in order to prove a point and get a little extra wedding gift. The next question I would ask is, "Which lasted longer, this case or the marriage?"

...in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability....So under section 15 the rights of the homos to marriage and the rights of the Marriage Commissioner are at a deadlock ~ Oz

I don't see where the rights of the former are particularly mentioned; unless you're referring to mental disability.

Rob; you're so perceptive.
But at the end of the day, what will Canadians and specifically Saskatchewaners do about this? Will there be a march or protest at the courts building? Will someone burn an effigy of our "Charter" in front of said courthouse? Even 5 or 6 of you?
No; we'll complain and do nothing. And so on it goes.

glasnost,

15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit OF THE LAW without discrimination

The Law says they have the right to marry.
It isn't spelled out in the Charter but it is the Law of the Land.
I don't like it, but it's the Law.

Actually, Oz, you’ll notice that the words “sexual orientation” are not part of Section 15. The idea of having them there was broached but rejected when the Charter was being created. You may remember that legislatures across the land held a series of votes reiterating that marriage is solely the union of one man and one woman (not sure if this was done in Sask.).

But activist judges “read“ it in to Section 15, even though it’s not there, never was, and never was intended to be there. So was have courts of law and judicial travesties like these right commissions ruling based on laws that simply don’t exist.

Mississauga_Matt

Although the SCC did "read in" sexuality into the anti-discrimination parts of the charter, they didn't read in gay marriage and refused to rule on the matter.

Even the supreme court would have had a problem shovelling through gay marriage in the face of a clear vote in parliament (although they may have chosen to do so anyway if parliament went the other way or refused to act.)

It was the parliament of Canada in 2 separate votes (one held by the liberals and one held by Harper himself) which added equal status to gay marriage.

Calling Marriage Commissioners public servants seems to be a significant misnomer. While they are licensed to do what they do, they get paid directly by the people they are marrying, not the government.

I don't see this as being any different than the Scott Brockie case.

This is the same human rights commission that called the Bible hate literature.

Gunny99, if we did the response would be muted and or mocked by our politically entrenched liberal based media.
And I'm not so sure that you'd not then be a target from government harassment, at some level.

Ok cool, find me a Muslim who is a marriage commissioner and let's go for a gay ceremony.

If the RCMP has to allow a turban due to religious regions, how does this ruling stand up?

"But at the end of the day, what will Canadians and specifically Saskatchewaners do about this?"

Perhaps some French style negotiations would work. JUST KIDDING!

Mississauga Matt,

Sexual orientation doesn't have to be in the Charter if the Charter guarantees "the right to the equal protection and equal benefit OF THE LAW without discrimination".

Because Parliament has passed a Law saying that 2men or 2women can be defined as a married couple, Section 15 of the Charter protects SSM as though it were a Right because of the "equal protection and equal benefit" of the Law part in the Charter.

It stinks, but the Law is an ass sometimes.
It isn't any consolation that Stephen Harper, having challenged the SSM description in his first minority government, doomed the chance of the repeal of this repugnant legislation on purpose, knowing that the challenge would fail by dint of the fact that he had a minority government.

Oz: When balancing rights, courts don't just try to count the amount of rights held by both parties, with the victor being whoever holds the most rights.

Besides, s.6 doesn't apply to this situation. S.6 contains mobility rights. It has nothing to do with a right to pursue a profession. I can totally understand your confusion though due to the way that the section is written.

Also, I get the impression that this wasn't a Charter case at all. It seems like it involved the Saskatchewan Human Rights Code instead.

It absolutely was a set-up.
Posted by: Kate at July 24, 2009 12:25 PM "

sounds like a witchhunt to me.
Posted by: gord at July 24, 2009 1:04 PM"

I second that view.

what's to prevent a gay couple shopping around for a marriage authority to refuse and make a beeline to the local HRC?

get someone else to pay the costs of the ceremony plus the pro-advocate publicity.

"Sexual orientation doesn't have to be in the Charter if the Charter guarantees "the right to the equal protection and equal benefit OF THE LAW without discrimination"."

Actually, I think it does, especially if you go to the bother of listing all the ones that Sec 15 does. If anything goes, there's no need to list race, national or ethnic origin, colour, etc.

Man I can't help but to think of how big of bigots we are all going look like in 50 years.

Mississauga Mat said "If anything goes, there's no need to list race, national or ethnic origin, colour, etc."

It's not the people on the list that the list was created for. It's the people not on the list that are due "special" treatment.

My main dislike of the Charter is that it can be used to discriminate against anybody depending on who's in charge. You blend the Charter with Sharia and we will have real problems.

I think we need to go back to "everybody is equal before the law" and bring back Civil Rights. Treat people as individuals instead of groups.

What the government will end up doing is squeezing out able-minded individuals capable of performing whatever services they want for the tiniest minorities who want them. The sole civil servant doing these services will get swamped and ask for assistance, which the government cannot provide. Then they talk deal.
Just my thoughts.

Couldn't agree more, Gord. Well said.

Actually, I think it does, especially if you go to the bother of listing all the ones that Sec 15 does. If anything goes, there's no need to list race, national or ethnic origin, colour, etc.
~Mississauga Matt

15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, SEX, age or mental or physical disability.

There you go Matt. SEX is in section 15.

You may argue that it doesn't mean sexual orientation but then the term sexual orientation hadn't been invented yet when the Charter was written.

Interpretation is whta we have judges for.

The preamble begins:
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

But I'm glad you think it does need to be there. Matt.

Man I can't help but to think of how big of bigots we are all going look like in 50 years.
~Mike_stoon

We won't look like bigots at all.
Homosexuals aren't breeders, don'cha know?

If an action you are required to take as a marriage commissioner contradicts your religious beliefs then don't become one.

And if you are one, do the honourable thing and resign.

I think that a civil servant cannot refuse to perform his duties, but also think that his refusal cannot trigger a human rights complaint. This must be handled by a policy established withing the government body he/she belongs to, i.e. there must be another commissioner made available. In other words, it is government's responsibility to make sure that all legal proceedings can flow thru. HRC just does not fit in this framework.
It's like I am in the store buying pork chops and a muslim cashier refuses to ring them. I will just tell them to get their colleague come to the register, but most certainly this is not something that a reasonable person would take to a commission on human rights.

And if you are one, do the honourable thing and resign.
~JJM

The honorable thing was for the homos, who already had ALL of the benefits of marriage but not the ceremony, to not have rammed their demand to be recognized as married couple down the nation's throat.

They did it just to profane marriage and grind the faces of religious people.

Marriage Commissioners have every right to their jobs, pensions, and benefits.
Resignation strips them of those things.

"Marriage Commissioners have every right to their jobs, pensions, and benefits.
Resignation strips them of those things."

And? Do I have a right to remuneration, pension and benefits for work I refuse to perform?

Was the commissioner aware that his position might at some point require him to marry a homosexual couple?

Look, this yahoo has the absolute freedom of conscience and religion to the bigoted sensibilities his stupidstition dictates. He just can't impose his bigotries in the context of performing his public duties as a marriage commissioner, in violation of the law.
If complying with the law is in conflict with his stuporstition, then he should find other employment.
Why the taxpayer should be on the hook to defend this nonsense defies any concept of common sense.

Do I have a right to remuneration, pension and benefits for work I refuse to perform as a matter of conscience?

Yes, see section 2 (a) of the Charter.
The rules were changed after the commissioner had already spent years on the job.

Not only that, the rules were changed after the Liberals voted on a Bill to ensure, with a majority government, that marriage was only between 1 man and 1 women in 1999.

One of Stephen Harper's more brilliant moves was to take that exact same Bill, word for word, and place it before the Liberals when they still had government during the SSM debate and the lying hypocritical Liberals voted against it.

Philboy, the rights of the many cannot be waylaid by the rights of a well-funded, well-connected few. I believe that is why gay "marriage" was allowed to begin with. Yes, a civil servant should do his job BUT Saint Thomas More (as Warren Z pointed out- hat tip) was also a civil servant who paid the ultimate price for his values over a corrupt state.
Learn how to spell, by the way.

It doesn't matter if he was "set up".

If I'm at the grocery store buying 20 packages of Bacon, and I decide to go to the one checkout lane which is being operated by a woman in a Burqa, should she have the riht to refuse to serve me based on the fact that I "set her up"?

It's the same damn situation. If you have religious beliefs which preclude you from doing a job, find a different job. You won't find too many Jains in the infantry, nor Rastafarians on the police force. It's your responsibility to find work which does NOT conflict with your beliefs.

With that said, sicking the HRC on him is ludicrous. He should have been protected by his employer

philboy;

Why all the bigotry toward a person's religious beliefs?

Stupidstition? Is that a tolerant viewpoint in your world?

"Was the commissioner aware that his position might at some point require him to marry a homosexual couple?"
Posted by: JJM at July 24, 2009 3:06 PM

Was the Sikh applying to be an RCMP officer aware he would have to wear the uniform, which included a hat, at some point? If his religion doesn't allow him to wear hats then he should seek employment that doesn't require such.

But the court doesn't agree with that. The court believes the employer should modify the rules for individuals to accommodate their religion, as long as he isn't a Christian.

You see, the point is we have a judiciary that rules a certain way for Muslims, Sikhs, atheists, gays, lesbians and the like and then a totally different way for Christians.

As previously mentioned, we wait for the Muslim marriage commissioner to be "caught" refusing to marry gays. That will be interesting.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but all of this isht could have been avoided if the gay lobby A’holes would have been content with the term "civil union". The trolls and the rest have already conceded that such a relationship is nothing more than a civil agreement. I'm not aware of any dogma that would prevent anyone from performing this ceremony.

Because of this obvious solution, I've long ago concluded that this has nothing to do with rights. Gay marriage is the gay lobbies “golden goose” and this goose must be poked before it will lay any golden eggs. After all, what would gay people b*@ch about if this wasn’t an issue, the treatment of gays in Afghanistan? Nope, I believe the lively hood of all those that work in the gay lobby depend greatly on so called “homophobes”.

I'll answer, SYF:

Apparently in the last 2,000 years Christians have "murdered millions of people", and since philboy/manny is an atheist Saskatchewan socialist who doesn't recognize Islam or socialism for murdering millions of people, he will mock Christianity.

I don't agree with his POV BTW - just making mental notes of the trolls who stop by.

Does this MJ character WANT people to hate homosexuals?!? Because he's sure doing a good job of promoting hatred! It's taking a great deal of willpower not to succumb...

The commisioner should have directed him to another person and then reported the incident. the gay male should have made a complaint to the employer citing refusal of service and let them deal with it.

Sorry my mistake St. Thomas More not Moore, (not the Irish poet but the former chancellor of England under King Henry the VIII).

The dumb thing about all this is it drives contentious (to some) beliefs and intolerance underground, rather than fostering growth and actual accommodation.

Now a commissioner who fears their (supposedly) charter protected religious beliefs will be attacked if they refuse service, have to hide or ignore them, and make up fake excuses. If a religious belief conflicts with the right to gay marriage, the objection to marriage will not be religious based, but an arbitrary claim of unsuitability.

Commissioners who have legitimate religious conflicts still won't marry gay couples, but now they will be forced to use a bogus excuse not to, for fear of reprimand. Is that a better solution, is that the best compromise that can be made?

As pointed out by Smitherenzes, there's a glaring double, triple, quadruple standard at play here. When a Muslim taxi driver refuses to pick up a blind man and his seeing eye dog because the dog's presence in the car violates the taxi driver's religious beliefs, the commissars rule that the employer has to be punished for inconveniencing the muslim employee and the passenger and make alternate arrangements in future. When the Christian marriage commissioner is inconvenienced because marrying the gay couple would contravene the commissioner's religious beliefs, the employer (government) is off the hook and the employee is punished. And Lynch wonders why her nonsense about "Human Rights" commissions having a body of jurisprudence is greeted with hoots of derision!

Shriiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiieeeeeeeeeeeeeek!

'Nuff said.

It is up to the employer to make reasonable accommodations for religious beliefs. It was done (somewhat fraudulently) in the case of Sikhs in the RCMP and there have been other examples of similar accommodations.

That Charter is fundamentally and fatally flawed...but then that was stated when it first came out.

Alex,

There's a huge distinction between your theoretical Muslim checkout girl and the case at hand.

Marriage Commissioners aren't employees ... they are individuals licenced to perform weddings but who operate independently.

The government publishes a list of them then you are on your own to select - and pay - the guy or gal you want for your ceremony. Some may offer additional services or be a better fit personality wise than others, so many people will put some time and thought into the decision making process to determine which commissioner they ultimately want to use.

This isn't a case of pulling up to a Government run drive-thru wedding chapel and getting turned away and told to try again some other day.

Even so, they are licensed by the government to provide a service to the public. In this instance they are acting as an agent of the government. And I am not at all sympathetic to the argument that agents of the government should be permitted to discriminate against citizens based on said agent's personal religious beliefs.

That being said, the government does have a responsibilty to establish clear policy and expected behaviours from those that it licenses. Which it seems to have failed to do, leaving the mechanisms that are currently in place to sort things out (whether that is the appropriate method or not).

This particular scenario strikes me as a vindictive individual using the machinery of government to punish someone whom he disagrees with.

So lesseee here according to human rights commissions: I as a Muslim don't have to wash my hands before serving food in a restaurant which every sane human being knows endangers human health and I as a Christian marriage commissionaire have to marry gays knowing full well that gay sexual acts spread deadly diseases amongst those who practice homosexual acts...

Maybe human rights commissions really hate humans.

Hrm. Thanks for the info Denis, I wasn't aware of that. It certainly explains why he was charged personally, although it changes things completely.

It's not really a question of religious freedom - if you're a private individual offering a service you should have the right to select your clientele based on whatever criteria you want. If a Marriage Commissioner was opposed to interracial marriages, I'd say he should have the right to turn away an interracial couple. Or if he had something against, say, blondes, he should be able to turn away a blonde couple. I don't see why the government needs to tell private individuals how to chose their customers - I think the free-market is more than capable of handling that issue.

Unfortunately, our laws don't agree. I still don't have much sympathy for the guy - according to the article, Nichols launched his own human rights complaint a few years back, which was overturned. He would have known at that point that he would be violating the law if he refused to conduct same-sex marriages. He could have gotten out of the business, but he chose to stay, and he chose to break the law. So yeah, while I'm not a big fan of anti-discrimination laws, I find it hard to feel sorry for him.

People like Philboy have an agenda folks; it won't be long before it will be against the law to be a Christian or practise Christian ceremonies, because they will be seen as being hateful to others. If we must go back to the catacombs, so be it. We've been told we will be persecuted for Jesus, maybe the time has arrived; the whirlwind is a comin'.

Wouldn't/shouldn't there have been a sort of grandfather clause for Mr. Nichols? I mean, if he had become a marriage commissioner after gay marriage became legal, then he wouldn't have a leg to stand on--he would have gone into the job knowing that gay marriages would be part of the gig; however, if he became one before gay marriage (something implied but not explicitly said in the timelines) then should he not be excepted from being forced to perform them?

And really, what does this yahoo MJ want? He got his marriage. Are we now looking at, as Ezra says, freedom not to be offended?

Follow the money.

It's never enough for these types to have an opportunity to go on with their own lives. What they want is to f@ck with other people's lives and IMO ... that earns them all the contempt they get.
None of them have the dignity to stand up for themselves but rather depend on others to do their dirty work for them.

Enter the HRCs .... enablers to society's detritus.

Mr Nichols has stated he enjoyed what he did. When someone goes out of thier way to impinge on someone else's pleasure in a vindictive manner then they proved a point. The point in this case is they are attention seeking arses and not much more. They could have gone elsewhere, they chose not to. That is thier right..the right to be a moron protected by the Charter.

like MichaelSavage says: "The Homosexual Mafia"

If we must go back to the catacombs, so be it. We've been told we will be persecuted for Jesus, maybe the time has arrived; the whirlwind is a comin'.

Well boo hoo hoo, Larry feels persecuted because he can't impose his bigoted beliefs on public policy.

Why all the bigotry toward a person's religious beliefs?Stupidstition? Is that a tolerant viewpoint in your world?

I'm not being bigoted, I'm merely mocking superstitious nonsense. I have no tolerance for belief in sky gods or flat earth theories, water witching or African witch finders, when these stupidstitions are used to justify discrimination in public policy.

You and Larry and anyone else are totally free to subscribe to any belief system you choose, but keep it where it belongs... in your heads and your homes and in those places where you worship your gods.

From the general sentiment expressed on this thread, I suppose most here would find it appropriate for a business owner to post a sign that said NO DOGS/ NO NAGGERS/ NO JEWS....or for Rastafarians to legally smoke ganja... or some cult to engage in the blood sacrifice of virgins to appease THEIR gods???

Gotcha Philboy, very memorable! Now as Richard John
Neuhaus noted: Whenever orthodoxy becomes optional, it will sooner or later be proscribed. Ever hear of the Roman tyrant Sulla?

what a load of crap(this post and most of the response that is).

he's not a religious figure; he's an employee of the Crown and as such MUST uphold the law as it is written.

If he can't marry people according to the law of the land then he needs to get another job.

His religous scruples don't enter this situation at all. Period. End of story.

BackseatBlogger: Crawl into the decrepit, dark dreary, horrid chasm known as der hrc at SOMEONE elses whims, and unfortunately, no fault your own, your stacked inhuman fate via Ilsa the states prima he-wolf. muahaha

Hey philboy - if the virgin wants to be sacrificed, what grounds do you have to prevent her?

Its simple to me. If a government employee refuses to do his job, he should be fired. Just as in any other business.

No way should the Human Rights commission be involved at all. Can't make the point without swearing.

No way should a gay who has access to other commissioners who will willingly wed him be allowed to file a human rights issue.

In short, all sides should be spanked. The commissioner by his employer, and I assume the gay by his Mother/Father or "wife/husband" for being such a suck.

The judge for not throwing out a frivolous case.

The HRC. Can't make the point without swearing.

Whatever happened to adult behavior?

By the way, I think it was an obvious setup. What a shame it got taken seriously by all sides.

The ability to fire government employees would solve everything.

John Luft @ 6:05
Thank you for that, very succinct, very true.

When you work for the government and a client or customer disagrees with how you handled a situation then a Supervisor or Manager is called in to resolve the problem, not the HRC. In any case a commissioner was found who would perform this ceremony and I believe the devastated MJ is a load of crap who likely has for years bemoaned people persecuting him for his views and then turns around and returns the persecution. He is an a##hole who unfortunately is laughing all the way to the bank.

He isn't a government employee

many taxis drivers are "licenced" and are self employed

towtruck drivers...ditto

hotdog venders...ditto

if the gay wanted to get "married", he could, just not by that self-employed individual

and maybe pillboy lefturd can pontificate on the sihk-cop-turbin thing

It is up to the employer to make reasonable accommodations for religious beliefs.

Not when that religiously based bigotry is in violation of the law. And frankly, I cannot think of any circumstance where an employer should accommodate religious beliefs.

maybe pillboy lefturd can pontificate on the sihk-cop-turbin thing

Two wrongs don't make a right. However, the act of wearing a turban as part of an RCMP uniform does not discriminate against another individual.

Whether you call the commissioner a civil servant or an agent of the government is irrelevant.

Though the government was obligated to ensure the SSM service was provided, it was also obligated to protect its civil servants/agents from prosecution - especially those who had the potential to be challenged.

The government should have changed the system of how a couple can apply for a civil service.

This is how it should have changed, and should be now. Couples should not be able to approach a marriage commissioner directly, but must apply through a central Provincial Officer. They can request a specific commissioner, but the Provincial Officer has no obligation to ensure the requested commissioner is assigned, and has no obligation to explain why a specifc commissioner was or was not assigned. You get the one you're given. This would protect all of the commissioners.

Even though it was a total set up and the commissioner was sought out in order to make this gay couples' point (which is wrong in my eyes to go after somebody like that), he should not be a marriage commissioner if he holds such beliefs so strongly that he cannot marry a gay couple. He should become a minister or whatever allows him to marry people in accordance to his beliefs. He could have been dishonest and said that he couldn't marry them for other reasons but he stood up and took it on the chin. I think that is great in some ways because I don't think enough Christians stand up for what they really believe in the face of this ever-more intolerant world for Christians. Even so, I have to agree with those who say if you work for the government then you must leave your religion at home (and I mean all religions). The whole situation is regrettable and I HATE that people can be persecuted over hurt feelings.

Philboy - tolerance - look it up in the dictionary.

I always thought that the gay marriage issue would sooner or later come to a showdown between religious rights and sexual preference "rights". It seems it has and sexual preference rights win the day. I don't think this is strictly Kosher with respect to the Charter -- but there you have it. Too late. Also, very predictable. I think they may as well take religious rights out of the Charter as on many fronts, these are no longer tolerated in Canada.

Backseat booger: The laws of this land are based on the Christian faith and those previous going back through common law for centuries and based on the authority of anointed Kings and Queens; anointed by the holy chirsm by those ordained in a straight line from the Holy Fathers and the Bishops and prelates and even from the time of Christ's death and the apparitions thereafter.

I wonder how these star chambers still continue to try making social policy out of Charter antagonists given all the recent bad exposure. It's like their preceived judicial power is a crack cocaine and they're so far gone that they believe tossing out crap decisions in plain public view is of no direct consequence to them.

People aren't blind and when they get the chance I believe that they'll vote for a conservative majority to cure this runaway abuse of power once and for all.

What do you think I should be tolerant of, Jared?
Bigotry?...Discrimination?... Ain't gonna happen.

The laws of this land are based on the Christian faith

Really? Which ones??

philboy

How long did you have to study to be that stupid?

If freedom of expression and religious objections has to go in Canada, why restrict such practice to forcing all marriage counselors to perform gay marriages?

Dr. Henry Morgentaler M.D., for all that we know, is a G.P. (general practitioner) who does not hold any medical specialization in Obstetrics and/or gynaecology (for all that we know, he obtained his medical license by fraud and deception, see; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Morgentaler ) and despite of that in his medical practice he performed thousands of abortions (many of them late term abortions).
In the whole scheme of things timely abortion is much more essential service than performing marriage as it cannot be postponed (not for long).
Instead of sending all Canadian women who require late term abortions to a clinic in US should we not demand that all current and future general practitioners in Canada performed at least one late term abortion in their medical career and one surgical (early term) abortion a year as a condition of retaining their medical licenses??

Who needs a homo doctors who refuse to see for themselves how they came to this World?? Who needs a homo doctors who refuse to perform an abortion when genetic tests clearly show presence of a homo gene? Who needs a homo doctors who claim some religious objections while refusing to terminate lives of next generation of homosexuals??

This suspense is killing me, as I cannot wait to see reliable scientific data proving that homosexuality is a genetic disorder. I cannot wait for reliable tests of amniotic fluids that will give every Canadian woman an early indication that the “blob of cells” that invaded her uterus will one day engage in sodomy.

I cannot wait to hear homosexuals scream that selective abortion of future homosexuals and other sexual deviants is a perverse form of discrimination based on “future sexual orientation” that is also allegedly prohibited under Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

I largely agree with Darrell@12:18 p.m., the third comment near the top. There's a big difference between forcing the churches to marry gay couples -- which would be a clear violation of the Charter right of freedom of religion, any way you slice it -- and the state recognizing the unions on its own.

I agree that a grandfather clause could have been implemented for the recalcitrant commissioners, but even then it would have to be temporary, for 18 months or a couple of years, and the time would be up by now.

Does anybody remember when former Prime Minister Paul Martin said that gay marriage would not interfere with religious convictions? Or something to that effect.

There was a time in history when the same people became powerful enough to cause the demise of the Greeks and the Romans empires, history repeats itself for the people to dull to learn from it.

I'd like to know why MJ gets to remain anonymous, no one else goes to court and has this right unless you are a minor or possibly in this case because the issue is so bogus MJ is worried he may get some bad publicity.
Religious and cultural beliefs seem to be okay if you are a minority such as wearing daggers to school, turbans or long braids if you join the RCMP etc. This issue is entirely a load of crap and the courts judgement reeks.

"There was a time in history when the same people became powerful enough to cause the demise of the Greeks and the Romans empires, history repeats itself for the people to dull to learn from it."

Aw, c'mon, you're over-reacting. The Christians were a LOT more powerful when they brought down the Roman empire - more along the lines of the current trend in the US. I don't think we have anything to worry about here in Canada .... yet.

pillboy's shrieking is quite amusing on this thread. He's all in favor of the state oppressing people he doesn't like, I guess.

See pillboy, you ignore the fact that Orville Nichols was denied a hearing by the HRC. His claim was dismissed. MJ's claim was upheld. The appearance of favoritism is unseemly.

It is true that if Nichols works for the government and gay marriages are legal then he is required to perform them. However it is also true that if anyone has a right to "consideration" of their duties due to religious concerns, then Nichols does as well.

Additionally you are 100% wrong about the turban issue. You said: "...the act of wearing a turban as part of an RCMP uniform does not discriminate against another individual..."

The RCMP has a uniform. It is the job of RCMP officers to -wear- that uniform, just as it is the job of Mr. Nichols to marry the gay couple. Sikhs won the right to wear the turban based on purely religious objections, which is not the uniform, one would think Mr. Nichols would at least get a hearing, yes?

Therefore the appearance of bias against Christians in favor of Muslims, Sikhs, gays or indeed -any other religion or group- becomes more of a policy than just an appearance. Only Christians have their concerns ignored, all others are heard.

Any shrieks from you in reply?

"Sex" is clearly meant to indicate gender. Specifically meant to protect females from workplace discrimination which was a highly politically charged discussion at the time the charter was written. Even fashion for women in the 80's was figure hiding box style suit jackets and women were reminded they no longer had to stay at home with their children, but should go out and get a career - this was a HUGE movment at the time - I remember it well. Sex - does not refer to what one does in the bedroom with their genitalia, but what type of genitalia one has. Otherwise, it could be argued there is no protection for women in the charter. I have noticed in the last several years that the term "gender" is now being used as opposed to sex. One rarely comes accross a form that asks "sex" anymore-now states gender, in both questions an F or M answer was indicated - circle one or enter appropriate letter in the space. The term "sex" in the 70's and 80's and well into the 90's was understood to mean Male or Female without exception.

"15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, SEX, age or mental or physical disability.

There you go Matt. SEX is in section 15."