And So It Begins

(Note: I’ve done a slight revision in construction, not content of the original post.)
Globe And Mail;

The B.C. Human Rights Tribunal has just finished hearing Ms. Chymyshyn and Ms. Smith’s claim that the Knights, a Roman Catholic men’s fraternal and philanthropic society, discriminated against the couple by refusing to rent the hall to them after learning it was for a same-sex wedding reception.
The Knights, adhering to church teaching, which is against homosexual marriage, cancelled a rental contract that had been signed, returned the couple’s deposit and paid for both the rental of a new hall and the reprinting of wedding invitations after Ms. Chymyshyn and Ms. Smith complained that invitations listing the hall’s address for their reception had been mailed.
That was in September, 2003. In October, the couple complained to the Human Rights Tribunal, which heard the case last week. A decision is not expected for months.

I like this part;

Both sides agreed that freedom of religion could be a “bona fide and reasonable justification to discriminate” but lawyer barbara findlay, representing Ms. Chymyshyn and Ms. Smith, says it wasn’t operable in this case.
Ms. findlay, who does not use capital letters in the spelling of her name…

(Sounds like Ms. findlay has some “issues” … is there some exotic pheromone that draws moonbats to argue these cases?)
I hold no particular religious beliefs. My support for preserving the traditional definition of marriage is rooted in basic anthropology and solidified by a suspicion that same-sex marriage has more to do with forwarding the agenda of the extreme left than it does with concerns about minority rights. If minority rights were truly the issue at stake, there would be full-out legislative war between the Federal Government and province of Quebec over minority language rights.
The secular left advancing same-sex marriage legislation in Canada purports to have a deep commitment to protecting religious freedom from erosion by homosexual rights advocacy. In reality, that commitment amounts to little more than a winking promise to allow people to “believe in something that doesn’t exist”.
So, when push comes to shove, the “truth” of state-defined equality rights will always trump the “false” God-defined morality. For those who are merely unconvinced of the existance of God, it’s a conclusion based on logic. For the left, however, the question of religion is much more problematic, for it strikes at the heart of their own belief system. Freedom of religion acknowledges the possible existance of an authority higher than that of the state, and as far as the left is concerned, that’s a notion dangerous to their own ideology.
When one views religious freedom as nothing more significant than “tolerance of those who believe in something that doesn’t exist”, it goes a long way in explaining why the secular left sees no contradiction in public policy makers who claim to be devout followers of their faith, and in the next breath declare it is possible – even preferable – to “set aside their personal religious convictions” to enact legislation that is in flat contradiction to the teachings of their church.
To a person who holds strong moral principles – be they based upon divine teachings, or be they based on a profound sense that certain principles are fundamental to a stable and just society – such a contradiction is not possible. One does not compromise on one’s core moral values. You either adhere to them, or you didn’t have them in the first place.
When an individual’s principles come into opposition with the demands of public office, one of two options are available. The honourable one is to fight to uphold them in the debate over public policy, and if the two prove to be incompatable – to step aside.
The dishonourable, and far more common solution is to declare that core principles are subject to a public policy time clock – that they can be punched out at the door and punched back in when you leave, that devotion to one’s religion can be toggled like the on/off switch of a church organ.
It is not by accident that we have in public office a preponderance of individuals of the latter variety, whose principles are conditional – conditional on the party whip, conditional on the latest polls and focus group findings, conditional to the pressure of lobby groups and party fundraisers.
Just some advice from this ambivalent atheist – it is folly to trust such people with your religious freedoms. If they’ll set aside their own fundamental beliefs for political gain – they’ll set aside yours.