Hey, kids ... you remember the hysterical breast-beating over the necessity of a Canadian "Defence of Religion" Act, don't you? You know ... the shrieking hyper-ventilation that came from folks like SUZANNE that you can read in the comments section here:
It's clear from the cases of Scott Brockie, Chris Kempling, the Knights of Columbus who were penalized for not renting their hall to "married" lesbians, WE ARE NOT PROTECTED...
We are forced to act against our religious beliefs by the State...
Catholics can lose their jobs for their religious beliefs. It's as SIMPLE as that. You want a Catholic to lose his job for stating homosexual behaviour is wrong?
We are not protected, and there are plenty of cases to show this.
Christians are becoming ghettoized. We won't be allowed to be justices of the Peace, teachers, psychologists, doctors (because we don't deal with abortions) and a whole host of other professions. Because of our religious beliefs.
What's next down the road?
We definitively need protection.
Man, it's gotta hurt when Stevie Boy himself steps on those folks hard:
Nor does [Harper] intend to introduce a "defence of religions" act to allow public officials, such as justices of the peace, to refuse to perform same-sex marriages.
"If there ever were a time in the future where fundamental freedoms were threatened, of course the government would respond to protect them," said the Prime Minister, who voted for the motion. "The government has no plans at this time."
Did you catch that, SUZANNE? Even Harpo implicitly admits that there is currently no fundamental threat to religious freedom. So howzabout putting a sock in it for a change? That's a good little wingnut.
Remember, SUZANNE...!!! recommends ignoring and paying no attention whatsoever to bloggers who indulge in nothing but ad hominem.
Isn't that right, SUZANNE...!!!...?
(you know she lurks)
Anyway, the KofC shot themselves in the foot. I'm sure they've rented out their spaces to divorced people. I suggest the KofC disband or stop engaging in commerce with non-Catholics altogether. And I say this as a good Catholic.
You are SO right Ti-Guy. God bless you.
I fully expect that "DORA" will be quietly introduced as a "private member's bill", rather than by way of one of the ministers.
Unless I'm getting my constitutional law wrong (and let me off easy--though I'm Canadian, I studied law in the US), this would also be unconstitutional. Solemnization of marriage is a provincial responsibility, so you've got a division of powers issue here. It's for the provinces to decide.
And anyway, please--it wouldn't be constitutional for an instant to say it's okay for a civil marriage commissioner to refuse to perform a marriage. A person who is performing a nondiscretionary ministerial task doesn't have the discretion to refuse--and granting licenses is ministerial, not discretionary.
The bugaboo that the nutjobs conflate this with is forcing churches to marry gay people. Please. When has anyone ever sued the Catholics for not marrying the divorced, or gotten up in arms when the United Church won't marry two muslims (though knowing the United Church . . .).
Post a Comment