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?
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.”