Thomas adobe village graham inn and Eadie filed a complaint with the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal, which ruled in their favour on Tuesday. Tribunal member Enid Marion ordered the Molnars to "cease and desist the discriminatory conduct," though they closed the B B down in September 2009 as a result of the incident.
Marion agreed with the two men that the Molnars violated section 8 of the B.C. Human Rights Code, which states that it is a discriminatory practice to "deny to a person or class of persons any accommodation" because of "sexual orientation."
This entry was written adobe village graham inn by NOM Staff , posted on at 11:00 am , filed under Canada , MarriageADA , Religious Liberty . Bookmark the permalink . Follow any comments here with the RSS feed for this post .
Suppose the owners denied an interracial couple accommodation because, according to their religious beliefs, interracial relationships adobe village graham inn are forbidden by God. Should the owners be allowed to discriminate against interracial couples? Yes or no?
Before someone answers Spencer's hypothetical with the "You can't compare race to homosexuality" dodge, you actually can compare the two. Especially here, where it against the law to deny public accomodations based on either race or sexual orientation. Obviously, this happened in Canada, but many states in the US have similar laws. Religous beliefs are not a defense against the practice of illegal discimination.
All people of faith including non-believers should take notice of the overwelming evidence of how SSM/ gay identity-poitics will destroy our communities and goverment from the inside out... if we don't take heed to examples like Canada with their currupt centralized thought and behavioral control adobe village graham inn system, the US will be just another big dictatorship Country on social issues like Canada.
@ Bruce, and Spencer, please STOP with the ridiculous Apples and Oranges comparison, and the extremely insulting remarks against people of color... You add no ground to your defense adobe village graham inn for immorality, when you continue attempting to give comparison of one's sexual adobe village graham inn behavior with the color of one's skin, but only highlight your desperation to protect your weak position. Or, maybe it's just that you lack intelligence, rational thinking, and a sense of what is right and what is not?
You really need to stop basing your position on flights of fancy. Any law the violates adobe village graham inn the right of conscience and free exercise thereof as expressly provided for in the 1st Amendment of the United States constitution is not a valid .
Suppose a person answers 'no' to my hypothetical -- the owners could not discriminate against the interracial couple. Although religious discrimination based on sexual orientation should be tolerated, religious discrimination based on race should not be. But what is the distinction between the two? Why should religious liberty trump in one case and not the other?
Appealing to the "race is different" adobe village graham inn rationale won't help, because such a move implies that one set of religious beliefs are right and the other are wrong, and that judgment - that one set of religious beliefs are wrong - cannot be made in our courts. Courts are obligated to take a "neutral stance" towards adobe village graham inn religious beliefs. Judges in our democracy are not there to say: "Religion A is correct and religion adobe village graham inn B is incorrect." But if the "race is different" rationale applied, courts WOULD be forced to make judgments between adobe village graham inn religious beliefs.
Specifically, judges would be forced to say: "Although the discrimination in both cases violates religious beliefs, the discrimination in the interracial case is inappropriate because the religious belief that God is against interracial relationships is wrong." But as I said, in our democracy, judges cannot make these kinds of judgments. The better stance, consistent with "religious neutrality," is simply to be consistent: violations of religious beliefs should be treated the same. If religious liberty cannot trump in the interracial case, then it cannot trump in the sexual orientation case.
So what's the difference between denying an unmarried hetero adobe village graham inn couple a room, a prostitute and a John a room, and a homosexual couple a room? None. It's a question of whether the hotel owner is required to provide an opportunity for people to engage in conduct that is against one's religion.
Typical - when argument becomes too difficult, resort to insults and personal attacks. Let's see how "intelligent" you are, Leo. How would you respond adobe village graham inn to my previous post, which addresses the "race is different" move?
So how would you answer my hypothetical? Suppose the owners denied an interracial couple accommodation because, according to their religious beliefs, interracial relationships are forbidden by God. Should the owners be allowed to discriminate against interracial couples? Yes or no?
Spencer, you are stuck on stupid, again! Where in the Bible does it say that blacks and whites cannot marry? Besides, religions are based on the regulation of behavior, not skin color. For the government to demand everyone to treat every single behavior and relationship type as though it were a physical racial trait and act tlike they are all the same comes dangerously close to the establishment of thought crimes and the abolition of religious liberties.
A youngster (among the 80 to 97 percent who were not born that way) can be educated to enjoy sex with someone of the same sex; easy, easy. But a youngster adobe village graham inn cannot be educated to become another skin color nor, to become the opposite sex than that which he is.
In my post #6, I explain why the "race is different" move - which is the one you're making - doesn't work. If you have an objection adobe village graham inn to my argument, one without personal attacks, I'd like to hear it. A valid objection would force me to revise my argument
I am not aware of any religious group or organization that is against or attempting to stop interracial coupling. Or, if I was aware of any, I have no knowledge that these groups adobe village graham inn have attempted and succeeded in creating public policy for their ideology, are you? Likewise, I am not aware of any interracial coupling movement advocating for "special adobe village graham inn rights", " special legal considerations", trying to legally force others to think the way they do to make them feel go, do you? Can you say the same for SSM advocates?
I personal would not condone such practice and or behavior on both sides of the issue. I think most if not all religious groups, believe in the betterment of society in general, and their principles are not only rooted in nature but also in the laws of the land.
The bottom line to your query: what is morally right and wrong? What will hurt our Nation and what will contribute to it? Same sex sexual advocates cannot as an issue in nature and morality, defend or insinuate that, homosexual behavior in all its forms, is or has been beneficial adobe village graham inn to society in any way.
Interracial relationships do not hinder or hurt others, it is rooted in nature; whereas, the other topic is just the opposite. IT IS OK TO DISCRIMINATE FROM WHAT IS GOOD, AND BAD...DISCRIMINATION IS PART OF NATURE.
Your scenerio has nothing to do with with religion, but rathar racism masquerading adobe village graham inn as religion. Since there are laws against racial discrimination, then no, the owners adobe village graham inn do not have the right to deny services based on race, regardless on how they rationalize it with arbitrarily invented religious principles.
But that is not the case with Brian Thomas and Shaun Eadie. Their situation has nothing to do with racist beliefs but genuine adobe village graham inn moral and religious convictions that the Canadian government is now hostile to with the passing of SS"M".
Whether or not there is a religious organization against interracial coupling is besides the point: the same "religious toleration" principle should apply to both race and sexual orientation. If religious discrimination on the basis of race is forbidden, adobe village graham inn then religious discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation ought to be forbidden as well. To hold otherwise would require -- and here's the *key point* -- courts to adjudicate among religious beliefs, which they cannot do. Judges are not in the business of deciding which religious beliefs are correct and which ones are false.
So what's the alternative? I see only one. Treat race and sexual orientation equally when it comes to religious discrimination: if the owners cannot adobe village graham inn discriminate against interracial couples, even though accommodation would violate adobe village graham inn their religious beliefs, then they cannot discriminate against same-sex couples, even though accommodation would violate their religious beliefs. "Religious adobe village graham inn liberty" is thus given EQUAL level of deference in both cases.
Basically, the courts treat actions adobe village graham inn that discriminate against race as "suspect" because there is rarely (if ever) a legitimate adobe village graham inn reason to discriminate between races. I would also think that these protections have something adobe village graham inn to do with racism of times past.
So, when a court says that a B B cannot discriminate against interracial couples, it is saying adobe village graham inn that religiously-motivated race discrimination is legally impermissible--period. Yes, the court is, in effect, making a judgment about a religious belief.
adobe village graham inn In this area where the B B is located, if sexual orientation has been put on the same pedestal as race via discrimination statutes, then for NOMers, this issue is less about what can be done for the business owners, and more of an impetus for us to fight against the enactments of such special protections elsewhere.
Although you don't believe that others here have answered your question, I'd say that, based on your reasoning about courts, Overcame brought up an interesting question that you should answer. If courts take a "neutral" stance in the way that you describe (i.e. they are "neutral" so any religious-based discrimination is impermissible) then any type of conscience considerations are out of the window. B B owners couldn't adobe village graham inn discriminate against prostitution gambits, adulterous liaisons, etc. And since the fundamental nature adobe village graham inn of the
No comments:
Post a Comment