Don Martin has an editorial in the Post, Tory Strides Hurt by a Misstep. Martin's argument seems to be that this whole rumour about the government allegedly considering legislation to beef up religious rights is a waste of time, since the rights are supposedly already there.
"...the federal bill was amended by the Liberals to make crystal clear it wasn't just ministers, priests or imams who were inoculated against human rights consequences for passing on a gay or lesbian marriage ceremony.
"No benefit will be denied or sanction imposed under any federal law solely because a person or organization (emphasis mine) exercises freedom of conscience and religion guaranteed by the Charter in respect of same-sex marriage, or expresses their belief in respect of heterosexual marriage based on that freedom," the approved amendment stated.
There endeth the wiggle room on punishing anyone acting or speaking out against same-sex marriages based on religion...."
O.K. I've heard this argument many times already, but on the other side of the fence, I've heard that it is actually up to each province to concur on this framework or else it won't stand up in court. (And even then it is questionable.)
So that is an area where we need some expert input.
Martin goes on:
"But what about gay newlyweds banned from celebrating their happy union in a hall owned by an anti-same-sex church, one official wondered. Good grief. Has it really come to this sort of extreme theoretical? Besides, what happy homosexual pair would want to hold their reception in a deeply religious congregation's hall where, aside from being a sinful coupling in the landlord's eyes, there probably isn't any booze allowed either?"
He's really out to lunch on this one, because it already happened in B.C. when a lesbian couple took the Knights of Columbus to court over their refusal to rent the hall to them for a wedding reception.
Frankly, I'm shocked that this got to press, without someone correctly this outrageous error.
* * * *
Update: Now to prove that the Conservative tent has lots of room, here's a Blogging Tory with a different point of view.
Another excellent post at Phantom Observer. Warning! - We may need a legal expert again.
And thanks to Molarmauler for this tip - Predictable Smears by Paul Stanway.
Also please check out The Good Fight: Don Martin needs to do his homework. That's for sure!!!
14 comments:
joanne, you have been asleep for a long time! Sticking to the facts has never been a policy of those that criticize the right. Checking a story to make sure there is no errors is something the MSM forgot about long ago. Welcome to the real world.
Yes, Swift. I guess that was expecting too much of MSM. I've never seen anything so blatantly incorrect and biased though! And this is the Post! Not the communist Star.
A BC teacher was suspended from his job for speaking out against gay marriage in a letter to a newspaper- not anything he said in the classroom.
Why should people lose their jobs for defending the traditional view of marriage? - a view that seems to be the majority view as well if you take a look at today's G&M poll.
...and P.S. I stopped reading Don Martin a while back in the interest of my blood pressure.
Yeah, I remember that too, Molar. Chris Kempling, I think.
Re: Don Martin. Good advice. I think I'll turn off Mike Duffy when he comes on too. What a sanctimonious twit!
OOPS! I met that Don was the twit; not Mike!!! Mike get well soon.
Here is a much better column on the same sunbject.
Molar, thanks. That's a great article. I like this part:
...letters from those who believe any debate on the subject is tantamount to bigotry.
Right on! Just like so many other subjects...
count me out if there is no booze sheesh no party no booze lol
can I sue them for not allowing beer and popcorn?
Here is a rebuttal by Dr. Ted Morton to an article written slamming the proposed Alberta protection of free speech law.
It is good reading on what should be an interesting piece of legislation if it ever winds it way through the private member bill process.
Thanks, Molar. That is a great read, and speaks to the issue on many levels. Definitely something to bookmark for future reference.
Ah ha! I was wondering about that increase in traffic. Thanks for the link Joanne!
Mon plaisir, Mike. I was very happy to see someone else pick up on this. We need to expose this kind of garbage whenever it surfaces.
Getting back to the Knights of Columbus case in BC, it was stated by the lesbian couple that "they didn't know it was Catholic." I beg to differ.
I think they knew full well it was Catholic and used it as an oportunity to test their new found equality against religious freedom. You see, they don't just want equality, they also want to punish those of us who hold a different view than them.
People working for the government on any level (federal, provincial, etc) who find that their job requirements go against their conscience should be protected as the right to freedom of conscience.
But then again, when people take it upon themselves to decide that "marriage" was a right and not an institution and read into the charter things that were never there to start with, you just open a big can of worms.
Post a Comment