Thursday, April 24, 2008

The stupid must be contagious.


Apparently, a small number of Blogging Tories have their tampons in a twist over a recent court ruling right here in K-W that ... oh, hell, let's let BT JoJo start things off:

HRC in the news again

The Ontario Human Rights Commission has ruled that Christian Horizons has violated the rights of a previous employee who had revealed that she was gay - Christians Horizons Rebuked (Record): ...

Personally, I'm on the fence on this one. If this was a case of a Catholic parish hiring a staff member who turned out to be gay, would they have the right to ask that person to resign?

Would they be forced to hire an openly gay person even if it conflicts with the church dogma?

It certainly indicative of the ongoing dichotomy between freedom of religion vs. the state.

Whatever. Now let's check in on Victor over at the Phantom Observer, who writes a reasonable post, only to get infested by drooling retards like Shane from The Politic among others. And everyone has a good old time agonizing over religious freedom and coercion and Christian compassion, while no one has the sense God gave a Tupperware bowl to notice the most relevant detail at the original Record article:

Christian Horizons rebuked
Employer ordered to compensate fired gay worker, abolish code of conduct

A provincially-funded Christian group ...

And right there is where you can stop reading since that tells you everything you need to know. "Provincially-funded." As in, with public tax dollars; therefore, subject to all provincial laws. End of discussion. And just in case you missed that, we have (emphasis added):

The agency, which was started by a local couple in 1965, is now the largest of its kind in Ontario. It's funded almost entirely by the Ministry of Community and Social Services and has a payroll in excess of $63 million, according to Revenue Canada.

Public money. Taxpayer money. Your money and my money; therefore, subject to provincial laws. One would think this wouldn't be a difficult concept, and yet we have commenter Shane (emphasis added):

The part I have a problem with is the injunction to prevent a private company from operating with a code of conduct.

Holy fuck, Shane. What part of "provincially-funded" left you behind? Honestly, it's almost painful to read this stuff and try to imagine the thinking that went on behind it. Excuse me while I take a break and go sit outside in the sun. The stupid is finally getting to me.

LET ME CLARIFY SOMETHING. The fact that a religious organization is getting public money is not, in itself, a problem, as long as that money is clearly being used for secular purposes. Situations like that generally require a very careful keeping of the books, to ensure that public funds and church funds never meet.

In addition, it's also essential that the secular activity follow all relevant laws and regulations, such as fair employment laws and so on. It's when the church lets its dogma spill over into the public activity that there's going to be trouble, and that's precisely what happened here.

18 comments:

KEvron said...

are you gonna clue-in shane, cc? yeah, i know: what's the point....

KEvron

Mike said...

Hey, uhm, why the fuck is a Christan group getting $63 million of my tax money in the first place?

HT said...

I'm with Mike. Just had to send $2.5K to the government because I took a part time job and it sent me into a higher tax bracket (both federal and provincial). If this is what my taxes are supporting, then where can I sign up to opt out of that portion?
Why is the Charter so difficult to understand?

liberal supporter said...

ey, uhm, why the fuck is a Christan group getting $63 million of my tax money in the first place?

The article explains:
Heintz's case provided an inside look at the practices of Christian Horizons, an evangelical organization that operates more than 180 residential homes in Ontario for people with developmental disabilities.

So they run group homes, and the government pays for it.

This of course points to the problem of funding any faith based organization. Sooner or later, they try to impose their "values" on everyone.

ht, it should be true that you pay the same taxes on all income that fits in the lower bracket. Only the part that puts you over should be taxed higher. Still, if they did not withhold any tax, it is a bigger bite than you would expect...

¢rÄßG®äŠŠ said...

cc: "Excuse me while I take a break and go sit outside in the sun. The stupid is finally getting to me."

You know, it's nowhere near too early to start drinking heavily, just in case you somehow overlooked that. I'll do my part.

toujoursdan said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
toujoursdan said...

Speaking as one of Teh Gays (who also happens to be a practising Anglican), the problem with these so-called Christians is that they can't get their wee little heads around the fact that being gay has nothing to do with being sexually active or not.

For these folks all being gay is about having "unnatural" sex. They won't understand that it is an identity, an outlook or a worldview, because then they would have to regard gays as people instead of reducing us to nothing more than walking sex acts.

Some gay people are single, some are partnered, some are married and some are celibate. Gay people, who through choice or circumstance are celibate, will still self identify as gay. It's really no different than with straight people. Ya knew you were hetero before you kissed someone of the opposite sex, right? And that doesn't just disappear if you are going to bed alone every night.

So what a religion's dogma about which slot you put your tab into doesn't matter here. Whether one believes that the Bible condemns homosexuality or not is completely irrelevant (and many of us don't believe the Bible addresses gay relationships at all.) It's not like anyone is going to have sex on the job anyway.

As far as I am concerned it doesn't matter whether these people believe homosexual activity is sinful or not and it doesn't matter whether they receive public money or not.

This is an action against a person based on who they are, not what they do and the law says it's illegal.

I believe in freedom of religion, but I don't believe in discrimination against people based on who they are.

liberal supporter said...

It's five o'clock somewhere.

mikmik said...

One up on ya, ¢rÄßG®äŠŠ. Make that two I mean a double.

AFAICT, Shane and others have not heard of separation of church and state. It is a relatively new idea, 2000+ yrs old,
although Locke only coined the term recently in the 1600s(John Locke. Finally, Thomas Jefferson in 1802.

Public, private, what's the diff? Hey, Shane, my taxes (>2500, HT) shouldn't fund your psych appointments or your or your use of public roadways. It is against my religion. (My)Private money I pay means you should be subject to my beliefs.

In any event, so many troglodytes of the r-wing bent seem unaware of the difference between reason based decisions which our western gov't is based on. They only concieve of their petulant view of how society should function. Little do they understand that they are a fucking insipid minority and if they didn't have the majority(of folk) to respect their minority right to their tawdry bleatings, and if their tawdry bleatings were subject to court decisions - like Dover - they would have to shut the Fuck up.

One more thing, I am a Habs fan, so I know what it is like to be wrong. Not perpetually stupid, but sometimes wrong.

Not this year (haha)

Buht said...

When you get a job with them, they make you sign an agreement that says you will not participate in pre-marital fornication or any homosexual activity.

Just wanted to put that out there.

KEvron said...

from the article:

"Heintz began working at a Waterloo home operated by the group in 1995. She came from a traditional Mennonite family, considered herself a devout Christian and studied theology in college.

"By 1999, Heintz was beginning to question her sexuality, according to the tribunal's 73-page ruling."

also:

"It must also begin basic human-rights training for all employees and adopt an anti-discrimination and anti-harassment policy"

also:

"A provincially-funded Christian group"

just wnated to throw that out there....

KEvron

liberal supporter said...

When you get a job with them, they make you sign an agreement that says you will not participate in pre-marital fornication or any homosexual activity.

Just wanted to put that out there.


Yes, this condition of employment should have been prosecuted as illegal a long time ago.

CC said...

buht:

I'm aware of that contract. It is, of course, illegal and unenforceable, and has no value. You cannot be held to the terms of a contract that violates the law.

Buht said...

I know its illegal. When someone I know works there told me about it just a few weeks ago, I wondered how the fuck can they get away with this shit. Yay, I guess they can't.

liberal supporter said...

That may explain why they were not ordered to get rid of it a long time ago. Only when they tried to enforce it.

Ti-Guy said...

AFAICT, Shane and others have not heard of separation of church and state. It is a relatively new idea,

Just to be wicked, Canada does not have a constitutional separation of Church and State. We just don't have an established State religion. I actually don't support the principle, and how it's interpreted is exactly the problem to the south of us, where people believe the State is godless and the everything else is godly.

Teddy said...

Result at the Superior Court of Justice: The Court dismissed the claim, finding that there was no reasonable cause of action. The Court restated an earlier Court of Appeal decision that held that the Commission is not an entity that can be sued for damages. This also excludes the Commission from an action of vicarious liability for the actions of its employees.

Taxpayer money. Your money. Just a difficult concept for you, our little blogging fool.

-- Down With Everybody

Shannon said...

Thank you for pointing that out ti-guy. We don't have separation of church and state here. There are prayers in parliament. God is mentioned in a number of oaths. We have publicly funded religious schools.

LiberalSupporter said: This of course points to the problem of funding any faith based organization. Sooner or later, they try to impose their "values" on everyone.

Nice use of scare quotes. *applause* :)

Okay. This is true. But it isn't always a problem. If their values are social justice, equality, and respect. For example, check out http://www.ourplacesociety.com/

Never have I come across an organization so devoted to helping people help themselves.

Don't paint them all with the same brush. This is a fantastic organization, and they don't deserve to be lumped in with fundie insanity.