Cdn. Supreme Court rules on gay marriage tomorrow

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-12-09 02:03pm

That whole bit about not forcing religious institutions to perform marriages was never anything more than a conservative rhetorical bogeyman. Religious institutions are all exempt from hate-speech laws, religious discrimination laws, and gender discrimination laws already.

Justforfun000 · Post by **Justforfun000** » 2004-12-09 02:59pm

Gordon Young, pastor of the First Assembly of God Church in St. John's, Newfoundland, was highly disappointed.

"It's a sad day for our country," Young told CBC television news. "God is in the DNA of this nation. We believe that changing the definition of marriage is changing the divine institution that God put in place for the order of our society."

What, did they have to go all the way to Newfoundland to find a provincial-minded pastor fundamentalist enough to quote the "Woe is our Godless world" crap?

If so, that's pretty good that people that extreme are hard to locate.

What really annoys me is this fucking assumption that GOD put marriage into place. He didn't do any such thing. MAN created the ceremony. What a bunch of bullshit. Why don't news stories make this point after they quote preachers?

It's irritating that religious people can just spout off any sentence they want and it's rarely critically analyzed.

when it's anything ELSE reported on, the news is quick to say "this statement is not supported by evidence..." or something along that line.

Why this fucking protection against what the church people say? It's irresponsible. People reading this, particularly kids, don't know any better. They might see that quote and assume it's true. After all, the paper isn't contradicting it.

Aaron · Post by **Aaron** » 2004-12-09 06:44pm

Ma Deuce wrote:
Cpl Kendall wrote:This issue more than any other is rapidly turning me away from the Conservative Party.
Same here, but where are we going to turn to? Canadian federal politics stink like pigshit, as they have for the past decade: lets review the choices that were on my local ballot last federal election:

Liberals: Arrogant, corrupt sleazebags who just can't get enough pork and seem to want our military to vanish. 'nuff said
Conservatives: Socially regressive religious retards. 'nuff said
NDP: The Communist Party. 'nuff said
Green Party: No expanation needed

With choices like this, I might not even vote at all next federal election.

I'd like to see a new party consisting of people who are neither left nor right. Preferably lead by either Lewis McKenzie or Romeo Dallaire.

Aaron · Post by **Aaron** » 2004-12-09 06:48pm

Darth Wong wrote:That whole bit about not forcing religious institutions to perform marriages was never anything more than a conservative rhetorical bogeyman. Religious institutions are all exempt from hate-speech laws, religious discrimination laws, and gender discrimination laws already.

Considering that a church and priest can already refuse to marry a straight couple if they feel that they aren't "faithful enough". In fact they can refuse to marry someone based on any criteria they want,as you and Rebecca experianced Mike. I'm kinda confused as to where they got the idea that they would be forced to marry gays. I don't recall any gay rights organization even suggesting it, nor was it part of the Supremem Court Decision.

Imperial Overlord · Post by **Imperial Overlord** » 2004-12-09 07:03pm

From Cpl. Kendall:

Considering that a church and priest can already refuse to marry a straight couple if they feel that they aren't "faithful enough". In fact they can refuse to marry someone based on any criteria they want,as you and Rebecca experianced Mike. I'm kinda confused as to where they got the idea that they would be forced to marry gays. I don't recall any gay rights organization even suggesting it, nor was it part of the Supremem Court Decision.

I personally think some anti-gay guy came up with this idea to drum up support/scare/mobilize people to oppose gay marriage. They are the only people I have heard bring this up.

Aaron · Post by **Aaron** » 2004-12-09 07:04pm

Imperial Overlord wrote:
I personally think some anti-gay guy came up with this idea to drum up support/scare/mobilize people to oppose gay marriage. They are the only people I have heard bring this up.

Your probably right. Fearmongering seems to be a standard tactic for these people.

Jetfire · Post by **Jetfire** » 2004-12-09 07:54pm

I particularly liked the Slippery Slope that was brought up today on the ATV news.

The host was interviewing a Halifax Rabi to get the against side, and the rabi went over how "One of the big things for our religion is the continuance of the species, and this now opens things up to the eventual extinction of humanity".

I don't think there's a device invented yet to measure how slippery THAT slope was. Had me rolling my eyes to say the least.

White Cat · Post by **White Cat** » 2004-12-10 04:04am

Here's how the court ruled on each of the four questions (from CTV):

* First question: Does Parliament have the exclusive legislative authority to change the legal definition of marriage?

Supreme Court's answer: Yes

* Second question: Is extending the capacity to marry persons of the same sex consistent with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms?

Supreme Court's answer: Yes

* Third question: Are religious leaders protected under the Charter of Rights from having to marry same-sex couples?

Supreme Court's answer: Yes

After taking over from the Chretien government, Prime Minister Paul Martin added a fourth question:

* Fourth question: Is the traditional definition of marriage between a man and a woman constitutional?

Supreme Court's answer: The Court exercises its discretion not to answer this question.

RedImperator wrote:I don't see how anyone could possibly believe the state would force religions to recognize gay marriages unless he was completely paranoid. Religions are private organizations with no special legal standing save tax exemption. There's no need to force them to recognize anything--it's not as if it means something if they refuse, and it's within their rights to do so. Nobody forces the Catholic Church to recognize divorces and second marriages, do they?

The third question was about whether a pastor/church could get in legal trouble or be stripped of their license to perform marriages if they refused to perform a gay wedding, not whether they have to "recognize" gay marriage.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-12-10 08:56am

White Cat wrote:The third question was about whether a pastor/church could get in legal trouble or be stripped of their license to perform marriages if they refused to perform a gay wedding, not whether they have to "recognize" gay marriage.

And how does that change the point at all? It's still a ridiculous bogeyman cooked up by right-wing morons.

White Cat · Post by **White Cat** » 2004-12-11 04:41am

RedImperator was apparently mistaken about the nature of the issue, so I corrected him.

You're right that it's doubtful that a pastor/church would have been charged if the SC hadn't ruled this way, but the situation isn't entirely unprecedented. I recall a story about a print shop owner who was dragged in front of one of our "human rights tribunals" because he wouldn't print pamphlets for a gay rights group.

GySgt. Hartman · Post by **GySgt. Hartman** » 2004-12-11 08:32am

Surely there must be some references on this. Maybe you would be so kind as to provide a link?

White Cat · Post by **White Cat** » 2004-12-12 09:48am

Brillinger v. Brockie Ontario Human Rights Case Summary
Editorial from the National Post
Editorial from FFwd Weekly (left-wing alternative newspaper)

(You can also check out everything Google has on the subject.)

Slight correction to my earlier post: the printing job was for "envelopes, letterhead, and business cards," not pamphlets.

Some exerpts from the above sources (emphasis mine):

The HRC judge wrote: ¶ 4 On April 4, 1996, as the then president of the [Canadian Lesbian and Gay] Archives, Brillinger sought a quote for the printing of Archives envelopes, letterhead and business cards from Imaging Excellence. The request was made to Brockie, who was willing to provide the quote and carry out the service, until he learned the name of the organization which Brillinger represented.
¶ 5 On learning that Brillinger was requesting the service on behalf of a gay and lesbian organization, Brockie refused to quote on, or to provide, the printing service. He testified that he is a born again Christian and that he refused the work on the basis of his deeply held conviction that homosexuality is contrary to the teachings of the Christian Bible. In particular, he relied on two verses from the book of Leviticus, which describe homosexuality as "detestable". Neither of the Complainants disputed that Brockie's belief was sincerely held. Certainly, his sincerity was apparent from the manner in which he delivered his evidence.
¶ 6 As a result of the denial, the Archives were required to locate another source for the printing services and there was a resultant delay in the production of the materials.

...

¶ 20 It was Brockie's evidence that Imaging Excellence did not deny printing services to individuals who were known to it to be lesbians or gay men. Accepting his evidence on this point, I can conclude that, if Brillinger as a gay man, sought personal printing services for a purpose unrelated to the Archives, he would have received the service. The only reason for the denial was the direct association between Brillinger and his organization, the Archives.

The National Post wrote:While someone of Mr. Brockie's persuasion might be expected to treat gays and lesbians badly, the human rights commission acknowledges this is not the case. In her 13-page ruling, adjudicator Heather MacNaughton points out that Mr. Brockie "provided printing services to a company called Body Body Wear, which produces underwear marketed to the gay male population" -- despite his personal feeling that such advertisements were "detestable."

In other words, Mr. Brockie knows how to make crucial distinctions. He does not refuse to do work for individuals just because they are homosexual. He does not refuse to do work for gay-oriented businesses. He does, however, believe that doing work for an organization whose only reason for existence is the celebration and promotion of homosexuality violates his religion.

...

Moreover, would Mr. Brillinger and Mr. Tompkins be so pleased if the shoe were on the other foot -- if a printing business owned by a lesbian couple was compelled to do work for a pro-life group, an anti-gay organization or the Canadian Alliance?

...

The Canadian Lesbian and Gay Archives was perfectly free to tell its friends not to give Mr. Brockie any more work, to urge his other clients to take their business elsewhere, to picket his office and to complain loudly about him at every opportunity. Instead, it chose to turn the power of the state against him.

How disappointing that the gay and lesbian community, which itself has historically been victimized by state coercion, now believes this is the way to a better society.

FFwd Weekly wrote:We know three things for certain about Scott Brockie’s beliefs: they are profoundly offensive to most, predominantly religious in nature, and absolutely sincere to the core of his soul.

These are exactly the beliefs freedom of religion was entrenched to safeguard. Opinions and beliefs which are popular need no protection – it’s the hard and unpopular ones that people get stoned and burned at the stake for.

...

The Human Rights cops took it as a mark of hypocrisy that Brockie had done print jobs for obviously gay-oriented businesses. In fact, he was demonstrating the subtlety they so sorely missed. By drawing the line at assisting an advocacy group, he recognized the special fact that printing can be inherently political. (If anyone doubts this, ask a vegan whether printing an Alberta all-beef cookbook would be ordinary business.)

It’s right and reasonable to demand that a person not discriminate in his ordinary daily dealings, but to conscript him against his own religious beliefs amounts to the imposition of one intolerant orthodoxy for another. That is not what human rights legislation was meant to do.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-12-12 11:17am

Hey dumb-fuck, that's because he's a business, not a church. It's well-known that businesses can get in trouble for discriminating on gender, but churches are pretty much immune. Or did that whole "priest/nun" thing about Catholicism completely escape your attention, genius?

Justforfun000 · Post by **Justforfun000** » 2004-12-12 05:05pm

hmmmm. Looking at the editorials on that piece they made me wonder.....

Is it fair to make the man print those things? That's a real tough issue...

I guess the simple question would be, is there laws stating that if you go into business you have the right to refuse service to anyone based on your discretion? For example, bars here in Canada are like that. For no reason they can bar you.

So there is apparently some degree of this in place. I was extremely surprised because I thought it must be illegal. Wrong. They had every right to if they wanted.

So in that case I wonder what the laws are like in the States.....

I think personally I would fall right in the middle here. That's a really tough call. I wouldn't think it was fair for a vegan to have to print things in support a meat eating group....Or at least that's my emotional reaction....

But on the other hand, it's a business and why should your personal feeling be involved at all? It's almost like a microcosm of government. If they followed the same policies, we'd be fucked...

Hmm. Tough one. I could enjoy a debate on this one because I have no idea how to make up my mind...

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-12-12 07:00pm

Imagine a black family being refused service at a restaurant and then ask yourself again whether you think businesses should be able to refuse service to anyone they want, based on any criteria they want.

Justforfun000 · Post by **Justforfun000** » 2004-12-13 03:32am

Imagine a black family being refused service at a restaurant and then ask yourself again whether you think businesses should be able to refuse service to anyone they want, based on any criteria they want.

Yes, put THAT way I can definitely say it's wrong.

I guess the analogy of a vegan versus meat eating would be inaccurate as it is something you are CHOOSING to do as opposed to homosexuality as an issue which is essentially promoting who you are, same as someone black might distribute anti-racist literature.

It's back to that age old argument of born that way and "chosen" lifestyle.

So if the Christian person refuses that kind of business they are basically judging that issue as being a "choice". So I guess it would be wrong.

There we go. I knew there had to be an answer I just didn't see clearly.

White Cat · Post by **White Cat** » 2004-12-13 04:15am

Darth Wong wrote:Hey dumb-fuck, that's because he's a business, not a church. It's well-known that businesses can get in trouble for discriminating on gender, but churches are pretty much immune. Or did that whole "priest/nun" thing about Catholicism completely escape your attention, genius?

What part of "You're right that it's doubtful that a pastor/church would have been charged" didn't you understand?

I mentioned this incident because although they're not exactly the same, the situations have a fair amount common (a religious person being forced to perform an activity that goes against his beliefs).

And businesses can get away with discriminating based on gender. Ever heard of Hooters?

As far as the Brockie incident goes, I think the two most important points to consider are:

1) He did not refuse service just because the customer was gay (he had done printing jobs for gay businesses in the past), but because he disagreed with the political/social views of the advocacy group.

2) If you think that he should be forced to do the job, would you also think that a gay printer should be forced to print stationary for a fundamentalist Christian group? What about a Jewish printer and a neo-Nazi group? A Democrat printer and a Republican group (or vice-versa)?

Post by **Lagmonster** » 2004-12-13 10:06am

White Cat wrote:And businesses can get away with discriminating based on gender. Ever heard of Hooters?

There's a certain amount of difference between not hiring someone because they are not qualified to work in your establishment (and at Hooters, having no boobs, a dick, or a sense of moral outrage disqualify you from working there), and refusing service to a paying customer.

1) He did not refuse service just because the customer was gay (he had done printing jobs for gay businesses in the past), but because he disagreed with the political/social views of the advocacy group.

He refused service because of his personal opinion on homosexuality, in other words. So, he's been asked to push the button on a printer, not stick the posters up in his house. And before you say, "But he couldn't print up a poster advocating Nazism!", I would point out that a poster talking about how being gay isn't directed hatred, slander, or treason.

2) If you think that he should be forced to do the job, would you also think that a gay printer should be forced to print stationary for a fundamentalist Christian group? What about a Jewish printer and a neo-Nazi group? A Democrat printer and a Republican group (or vice-versa)?

Whoops, you were too damn fast for me, lad. And here I thought you'd know the difference between Nazi propaganda and gay rights.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-12-13 10:18am

White Cat wrote:What part of "You're right that it's doubtful that a pastor/church would have been charged" didn't you understand?

The part where you promptly tried to (falsely) prove that there was legal precedent for churches being forced to drop their gender-discrimination policies.

I mentioned this incident because although they're not exactly the same, the situations have a fair amount common (a religious person being forced to perform an activity that goes against his beliefs).

Ah yes, the "religious people are not 100% immune from the law, so THE GOVERNMENT OPPRESSES THEM!!!!!" logic.

And businesses can get away with discriminating based on gender. Ever heard of Hooters?

They can also get away with discriminating based on race. Ever heard of a Broadway play that would cast a white guy as Martin Luther King? However, those cases involve the definition of the job being directly tied to the characteristic in question. That is not even remotely analogous to your absurd assertion that businesses should be allowed to arbitrarily refuse to give service to a class of people.

As far as the Brockie incident goes, I think the two most important points to consider are:

1) He did not refuse service just because the customer was gay (he had done printing jobs for gay businesses in the past), but because he disagreed with the political/social views of the advocacy group.

What is a "gay business", exactly?

2) If you think that he should be forced to do the job, would you also think that a gay printer should be forced to print stationary for a fundamentalist Christian group?

Not if it's hate literature, which a lot of fundie Christian propaganda is lately.

What about a Jewish printer and a neo-Nazi group? A Democrat printer and a Republican group (or vice-versa)?

Neo-Nazi literature should not be published anywhere, dipshit. That's why enlightened nations have hate-crimes laws. And yes, a Democrat Kinko's should print literature for a Republican group if paid.

White Cat · Post by **White Cat** » 2004-12-14 06:40am

Darth Wong wrote:
White Cat wrote:What part of "You're right that it's doubtful that a pastor/church would have been charged" didn't you understand?
The part where you promptly tried to (falsely) prove that there was legal precedent for churches being forced to drop their gender-discrimination policies.

"The situation isn't entirely unprecedented" is a far cry from "there's proof of legal precedent."

Ah yes, the "religious people are not 100% immune from the law, so THE GOVERNMENT OPPRESSES THEM!!!!!" logic.

Plus, as far as I'm concerned, religion shouldn't even factor into this. An atheist who is opposed to gays (or a gay businessman who is opposed to Christianity, etc.) should be allowed to do exactly the same thing.

That is not even remotely analogous to your absurd assertion that businesses should be allowed to arbitrarily refuse to give service to a class of people.

Are you delibrately ignoring how he had previously given service to that "class of people" in the past, or has it been too long since you went off to see the wizard?

1) He did not refuse service just because the customer was gay (he had done printing jobs for gay businesses in the past), but because he disagreed with the political/social views of the advocacy group.
What is a "gay business", exactly?

According to the second link, Brockie "provided printing services to a company called Body Body Wear, which produces underwear marketed to the gay male population."

2) If you think that he should be forced to do the job, would you also think that a gay printer should be forced to print stationary for a fundamentalist Christian group?
Not if it's hate literature, which a lot of fundie Christian propaganda is lately.

If we're sticking to direct comparisons, it would just be "envelopes, letterhead, and business cards" for the fundamentalist group.

What about a Jewish printer and a neo-Nazi group? A Democrat printer and a Republican group (or vice-versa)?
Neo-Nazi literature should not be published anywhere, dipshit. That's why enlightened nations have hate-crimes laws. And yes, a Democrat Kinko's should print literature for a Republican group if paid.

Under penalty of law if they don't?

Another scenario, and it's flip side:

- A fundamentalist magazine (or perhaps just a normal newspaper run by a fundamentalist) refuses to print an ad for a gay advocacy group. Should the government force him to run the ad?
- A gay advocacy magazine (or perhaps just a normal newspaper run by a gay advocate) refuses to print an ad for a fundamentalist group. Should the government force him to run the ad?

And just for fun, a real-life example: Should the FCC have forced CBS to run MoveOn.org's anti-Bush Superbowl ad?

BTW Mike, since I don't think I've seen you state your position, do you think that churches should be allowed to refuse to perform gay marriages?

SecondStorm · Post by **SecondStorm** » 2004-12-14 09:14am

Darth Wong wrote: Neo-Nazi literature should not be published anywhere, dipshit. That's why enlightened nations have hate-crimes laws. And yes, a Democrat Kinko's should print literature for a Republican group if paid.

I guess you consider Denmark to be an "un-enlightened" nation then. Our freedom of speech is such that if you can print nazi propaganda as long as you dont incite to violence.

Just a fact-check for you as I consider Denmark an enlightened country.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-12-14 09:14am

White Cat wrote:"The situation isn't entirely unprecedented" is a far cry from "there's proof of legal precedent."

Ah yes, appealing to carefully written language in order to pretend you never meant anything of the sort. I see you are resorting to dishonest fucktard behaviour. What a shock for a right-wing idiot.

Plus, as far as I'm concerned, religion shouldn't even factor into this. An atheist who is opposed to gays (or a gay businessman who is opposed to Christianity, etc.) should be allowed to do exactly the same thing.

Why, asshole? Care to actually present a REASON for your bullshit? Perhaps people who were opposed to civil rights should be able to discriminate against blacks too, right?

Are you delibrately ignoring how he had previously given service to that "class of people" in the past, or has it been too long since you went off to see the wizard?

Oh yes, he has no problem with gays as long as they "know their place", right?

Under penalty of law if they don't?

Obviously, you've never had the experience of being discriminated against in any substantive way, ie- one that actually keeps you from being able to do something.

- A fundamentalist magazine (or perhaps just a normal newspaper run by a fundamentalist) refuses to print an ad for a gay advocacy group. Should the government force him to run the ad?

If the situation makes it extremely difficult for him to get his ad in print (for example, if all the newspapers in town are controlled by fundies), yes.

- A gay advocacy magazine (or perhaps just a normal newspaper run by a gay advocate) refuses to print an ad for a fundamentalist group. Should the government force him to run the ad?

Again, if all of the newspapers in town are run by gays and this means the guy can't get his ad printed, then yes.

And just for fun, a real-life example: Should the FCC have forced CBS to run MoveOn.org's anti-Bush Superbowl ad?

Not letting people have a particular placement is a different situation than refusing to run it altogether, dipshit.

BTW Mike, since I don't think I've seen you state your position, do you think that churches should be allowed to refuse to perform gay marriages?

Sure. I also don't think they should get a dime of government money or a tax exemption.

Frankly, if the hate-crimes legislation were actually applied fairly, a substantial number of church groups would be rotting in prison.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-12-14 09:17am

SecondStorm wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:Neo-Nazi literature should not be published anywhere, dipshit. That's why enlightened nations have hate-crimes laws. And yes, a Democrat Kinko's should print literature for a Republican group if paid.
I guess you consider Denmark to be an "un-enlightened" nation then. Our freedom of speech is such that if you can print nazi propaganda as long as you dont incite to violence.

Why is this a good thing? State your ethical reasoning (I presume you will resort to "absolute rights" talk).

SecondStorm · Post by **SecondStorm** » 2004-12-14 09:35am

Darth Wong wrote:
SecondStorm wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:Neo-Nazi literature should not be published anywhere, dipshit. That's why enlightened nations have hate-crimes laws. And yes, a Democrat Kinko's should print literature for a Republican group if paid.
I guess you consider Denmark to be an "un-enlightened" nation then. Our freedom of speech is such that if you can print nazi propaganda as long as you dont incite to violence.
Why is this a good thing? State your ethical reasoning (I presume you will resort to "absolute rights" talk).

Pretty much.
You can hate who you want and you can even congregate with who you want. To a point.

By making the propaganda visible you can more easily fight it. Refute their silly arguments, nipping it in the bud.
This does require a populace with an intelligence greater than a goldfish though.

Although there was a case of german neo-nazis using Denmark to print german nazi-propaganda to be distributed in Germany.
That was a time where I didnt like the law as it was obviously being used to desiminate propaganda to other countries which did have such laws. It was a case of bad neigghborship but IIRC the Danish SC ruled that only material that was intented to be published in Denmark were to be printed.
The Danish Police Intelligence is now watching those printers who were printing the crap on paper.

Justforfun000 · Post by **Justforfun000** » 2004-12-14 01:23pm

Pretty much.
You can hate who you want and you can even congregate with who you want. To a point.

But hating someone is NOT the same as inflaming other people to hate WITH you. When you allow platforms for such discriminatory and bigoted people, then they simply attract other people with ignorant notions and give them strength. They feel like "OH, if others think this I'm not the only one, so my views must be correct".

I don't believe this a very productive thing for a society. When you have certain views that most people would agree are wrong (if they were properly educated), then I think it's reasonable to not allow for people to publicly promote these viewpoints.

Should they be allowed here in Canada to buy a billboard on the highway and put a sign saying "God hates gay people. Remember that and treat them accordingly"?

By your example that could be allowed in Denmark because it doesn't actually SAY how to incite violence, in fact they could easily argue like an apologist Christian and say "Oh that just means treat them with loving indifference and help then return to the fold of heterosexuality".

Yeah right.

No, I do believe many things should be outlawed. Free speech has to be guaranteed to a degree, but like anything, it's not black or white.