If an individual must surrender their religious freedom when acting on “behalf of government”…
The Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission agrees with that decision saying the commissioners are appointed to perform civil marriages and when they are acting on behalf of the government have an obligation to carry out that duty.
Why aren’t they paying his legal costs?
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.