Tuesday, January 11, 2011

Proposals a 'step backward'

Proposals a 'step backward'

"The decision confirms that people have their religious beliefs, and they may entertain that -- there's complete freedom of religious beliefs," said Robertson in an interview. "It's only when your conduct, on doing something, might have an effect on somebody else, which has a discriminatory effect on them."

So the question I have, is what happens when the couple's conduct has an effect on the commissioner they are trying to force to marry them?

I am going to be honest here - I couldn't care less if gay people marry. They should all get married - go ahead.

I don't even view the court's decision as being necessarily wrong - they are right that a discrimination of this sort probably does violate charter rights. What I view as wrong are the questions that were asked in the first place.

The Provincial Government asked the wrong questions, and necessarily got the wrong answer. The Provincial government asked the court whether marriage commissioners could opt out - whether in a grandfathering situation or in a blanket situation. Asked those two questions, of COURSE the judges had to say no. What the province SHOULD have asked is whether a marriage commissioner can opt out with reasonable accommodation. That is, they can opt out but only if they help find someone else that will do it. Were that the question, I would hope that the court's answer would have been an unqualified yes.

No comments:

Post a Comment