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.