http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national ... 50124.html

VANCOUVER - A B.C. lesbian couple, who accuse a Catholic men's group of discriminating against them by refusing to rent them a hall for their wedding reception, took their case to a human rights tribunal Monday.

The hearing is sure to further inflame passions over the issue, given that the Supreme Court of Canada ruled last month that religious officials opposed to same-sex marriages do not have to perform them.

Deborah Chymyshyn and Tracey Smith rented a Knights of Columbus hall in Port Coquitlam for their wedding reception back in 2003.

They allege the group cancelled the booking after finding out it was for a same-sex couple.

The women claim it's discriminatory to offer a facility to the public and then say a particular group can't use it.

The B.C. Human Rights Tribunal began hearing their case on Monday.

The couple's lawyer, Barbara Findlay, said they didn't realize a Catholic group operated the hall when they rented it.

She said that after the women paid their deposit and sent out their wedding invitations, the Knights of Columbus backed out.

"They got a call saying they had learned the celebration was in relation to a same-sex marriage and they couldn't countenance that, so they cancelled the booking," said Findlay.

The head of the Knights of Columbus in Port Coquitlam, Elemer Lazar, declined a CBC News request for an interview. But he has said in the past that he doesn't understand why a same-sex couple would want to book a Catholic facility.

The hearing is expected to last four days.



interesting,Isnt there a seperation of church and state in canada?
And IMO they have every right to not let them get married since its their private property.Also,like the guy said,why would they want to get married there?
It seems to me that they want attention.

I don't see any reason why catholic churches should perform them. And frankly, I don't see what right they have to even take this to the court.

Oh wait a minute. Its not a church, its a hall.

Hmm... this is something different. Neo, I'm not sure if that law really applies there. I mean, I'm Muslim, I own a hall, and make it open for public use. I'm not sure if i'm allowed to descriminate then ....

i'll have to reread the article for the 3rd time now ...

Its not performing anything. They aren't fighting to have a Catholic religious leader conduct a ceremony. They're having their ceremony elsewhere, and just want to rent the function hall in the church. Its a public function hall that can be rented for the night by anyone who wants it (in theory) but the Church won't let them book it to host their even. Its like any banquet hall refusing to let someone rent it. Its a bit of a sneaky back-hand act on their part, but they do have an arguement that should hold up in court. Its always a tricky situation. If I owned some nice gardens and people rented them for company functions, wedding, etc, and then some group (religious, cultural, or otherwise) wanted to rent it, I'd have hesitations too. But that's why I would probably never own a public function facility. Because I realize if I advertise it as such, it should be the right of anyone that books far enough in advance and can fork over the cash to use it.

Read my second reply.

If this property is church property, i equate it to getting married inside the church itself in which case, i think they have all the right to disallow something like this. It challenges their very belief.

Then again, this matter looks a little different. And honestly, these women should just go get married somewhere else.

Well, it's Canada so there may be different laws than in the US, so I couldn't say.

In the US, there is no gay rights law so the plaintiffs here would be out of luck. But even in states that do have such a law, there's no guarantee they would win. There are many gray areas.

On on hand, it's private property so they can rent it to whoever they please. I'm not sure the government should be telling groups they have to rent out to others who disagree completely with that group's views. (For instance, should the NAACP be forced to rent its site to KKK members? Should the church have to rent it to satan worshipers?)

On the other hand, if you discriminate, you should not get any tax breaks. Take Jim Jones University, for instance. It's that right wing Christian group that doesn't admit blacks -- they can't get a nonprofit status or other religious breaks from the government that other churches get.

So basically if you are getting tax breaks you have to admit everyone regardless of race, sex, etc. (and sexual orientation in some places) but if you are completely a private group, you don't have to. (That's why you can have Italian-American clubs that don't admit anyone else, for instance.)

The Catholic Owners of the hall have a lot to be proud of. I am sure they have plans to rent the hall for a very religious and moral ceremony like Catholic Priests hosting a party for the altar boys.

Those comments are completely uncalled for

:laugh:


Thats bad though

Double Post

Why? These are exactly the type of comments to show holier than thou evengelicals are such hypocrites. I didn't see them standing up for all those abused altar boys.

Oh ok.

I guess they shouldn't allow blacks on the street as well cause they're bound to cause trouble.

Thou shalt not legislate morality.

Isn't that the 11th commandment? Or maybe it's the 11th amendment?

No its not the 11th commandmant, if you look really closely though, I think its in...well, somewhere else (I was going to come up with something witty, but I haven't had my coffee yet).

Actually I don't know how I feel about this as I said, which is exactly why I tend to lean towards Krem's little quip. bABA, I have no idea what you meant by that last response, sorry. But if I'm assuming properly, you meant that street bums shouldn't be allowed to enter the hall? well if a food pantry rented it for Thanksgiving warm meal (which is what the ones I used to volunteer at did) then yeah, they are allowed in. And jb, I understand your point, but this specific scenario isn't about what the church actually does, so I guess if those priests put down the payment to rent the hall for the night, than yeah, they can have a party. Like I said, I would probably not own a function hall that's available for renting ever because I'm pretty much legally not allowed to deny someone the right to rent the hall if they can pay.

everyplace has them, were I worked at the Historical society there was a huge banquet hall. everytime I left the archives I would see caterers in there setting up. why someone would want to have their sweet 16 or wedding banquet in a museum.library I'm not sure, but it was near the park I guess. Hotels, restaurants, museums, pretty much every large building has at least one hall that can be rented out by anyone. Its just a room. The patrons have to hire their own caterers, music, etc, so pretty much these women are just being denied renting a room for the night because this open access room happens to be adjoined to a church, and the church leaders are fiscally and administratively responsible for its maintenance. They shouldn't really have a say in this. If they don't want anyone to rent it, than they should not make it an accessable function hall, they should incorporate it into the church proper, and just host their own events or events of their congregation in there. They put it on the market for rental its their tough if someone they don't like rents it.

dolce, my comment is actually the exact of opposite of what you're trying to say.

Sure, it's not moral for the hall owners to discriminate on the basis of sexual preference, but it should be their right to do so. It is their private property. The U.S. generally adheres to that principle, except when it is against the law (Civil Rights Act of 1964 or otherwise). I don't agree with those laws.

By the way, it was Barry Goldwater who was famous for using that phrase (well maybe with the "thou").

Oh, then I'll have to disagree with you there. You're either in it for profit or in it for your moral stance (renting out function halls that is). I think its fine for people to say no, but not when they're applied to be a non-discriminatory business (read: open to the public). That's why i said its ok for the church to have an associated hall where congregation members can hold functions, but if one has applied for a business license of this type, than i don't think they should be allowed to do it. Can't have both worlds. I'm sure their are other licenses they could have applied for that are more suited to their demands. I just think they're being silly now, and by your arguements (except when it is against the law, Civil Rights Act) you're saying segregation of denied business on the basis of skin color would have been fine. well I believe their are social and legal pushes that always preceed such a law being drafted (including the civil rights movement) and that adding such things as religious orientation, sexual preference, etc, have already been added to the "hate crimes" list. That clearly means there is a conscious effort to realize there are many ways in which people are denied even their financial rights. You'll see it become a law soon as well. But I guess you are saying they should only be forced to comply ater the law passes and not before. That's a valid arguement, i just think its these kind of court cases that lead to the drafting of those laws, so its a "which comes first" scenario.

Well, in the U.S. you cannot discriminate admission to a place that's open to the public solely on the basis of religion; that's already the law.

Regardless, though, how is it yours or anyone else's place to come to me and tell me what I should and what I shouldn't be doing with my property? Sure, it doesn't make much business sense to not do business with black people, but since when are we making laws to force people into doing what's "right" for their business? Is it good for my company's business that they allow me to post at KJ's? Of course not! Should there be then a law making my company to close access to bulletin boards?

Woah there... the point of those laws is to ensure that access to facilities, goods, etc, is not monopolized by one group based on such things as religious affiliation or skin color. Yeah it might be bad business for you to deny black people your goods, but if everyone in your town did that, it completely isolates and ostracizes another group. Argueing that its your personal right not to allow black people into a "public" function hall, and that's its only your personal discomfort and not a social agenda is completely negating the fact that it is, or dcould easily become, a social agenda. If that's the kind of business you run, than run a private or affiliated function hall, not a public one. That's all I'm saying. There's a fine difference between only allowing one group of people to use your space vs. only disallowing one group of people to use your space. this is coming up at a very sensitive time, and the church is being moronic if you ask me. now its all over the papers whereas if they had quietly said yes because it was just some dinky rental hall, the couple would have kissed and left long ago and they could just keep on doing whatever the hell it is they are doing.

Your company may chose to make a closed access site and inform you of it before you apply. if your company informs you when you apply that it is open access, but that they don't specifically want you to visit KJ's because Kj's "moral" stance isn't what they deem appropriate for their emplyees (but other sites that discuss the coming of Hale-Bop are fine), than they're wrong. If they fire you for surfing Kj instead of Hale-Bop because they only believe in Hale-Bop and not Kj, than they are probably even being illegal.

There is a very efficient way to deal with the problem of "monopolizing based on religion, race, etc.": open up a shop in that same town that WILL conduct business with blacks, atheists, etc. You will make much more money than your "white-only" businesses will do, and in the end the fools will be fools and you will be prosperous. This way you don't force anyone into your "social agenda" and become very rich at the same time. Everyone wins.

Of course you might run into problems with the places that have whites-only LAWS, well it's those laws that should be stricken down. Erecting new laws that still inhibit private property rights is misguided.

And why does it matter what kind of business I run? It is still MY property.


No, they're not. I'm not under contract; my employmer and I both have "employment-at-will" rights. They can fire me for any reason (as long as it's not one of the reasons listed in the Civil Rights Act), and I can quit for any reason.

And sure, they might be wrong for firing me. But it is THEIR property, it is THEIR money; I have no claim to it.

1. Because there are such things as oligopolies that already have such a strong control (like car companies0 that breaking in is already close to impossible. These are broader than a Monopoly, which is just one business with a stick up its ass (in this case). The fact is if all the function halls in the town decided no to lesbians right now, than there is no way to buy a property off, etc and "start your own." There is a previously exisiting structure of ownership, property, and goods. Now we could theoretically wait until someone dies and the property had to be sold two decades from now, but what if in their estate settlement (or whatever) they specified that only someone who is willing to uphold the [revious tenets is allowed to buy it? These things have a way of becoming culturally ingrained. If one group is trated as second hand citizens long enough its not just about the personal preferences of the business owner, its become an inherent part of the social order. hey there were plenty of black businesses during segragation, I don't recall all that many black millionaires in Birmingham in the late 50's regardless. There's a reason, and social constructions when approached from the arguement of personal preference fails to deal with larger problems.

2. Ok, I don;t know the laws all that well and I remember we already had a disscussion about that woman being fired for having a Kerry sticker on her bumper when the factory manager was for Bush. You seemed to think that was fine, so there's no way for me to really change your mind about that. This, as you coach it, is just an extension of that I guess. at-will is at-will. If I remember correctly that woman won in court didn't she? at will is supposed to be one-on-one and not targetting everyone from one specific group. i don;t like you is quite a bit different than saying I don't like you or any of your other fellow *insert skin color, political or social orientation, ethnicity, gender, or sexual preference here.*

Dolce. I was putting forward a comparison only. jb generalized something for all priests. I decided to generalize how black people are perceived as trouble makers and apply it to each and every one of them. Nothing to do with bums or anything ....

1. The scenario you're describing cannot happen in real life, unless the status quo is supported by laws (such as Jim Crow laws). Markets, if left to themselves, does not bear monopolies or oligopolies, because they are not efficient. Basically, a monopoly or an oligopoly, if occured naturally, is a temporary condition. A company that competes with them will always be eager to earn less profit/try new technologies - anything that will let them have some competitive edge.

In the case of the wedding hall - just build your own, and admit lesbian couples there. Nobody is stopping you from doing it. Unless, of course, there is a law that prevents you from doing it.

2. i don;t like you is quite a bit different than saying I don't like you or any of your other fellow *insert skin color, political or social orientation, ethnicity, gender, or sexual preference here.*

That is a moral judgement on your part. I do not agree with it. Basically, you're trying to legislate your moral values, which is what I am against, and what I was referring to when I posted my first comment.

P.S. there was no lawsuit; the woman was hired by the Kerry campaign, and was offered other jobs as well. That's free market at work.

Ok bABA...that's the first clear explanation i've heard. That is too funny. i think what he meant was just questioning values of a group that in general rejects two people that want to love eachother while simultaneously trying to cover-up (so in some ways supporting) such acts as th MA issues three years ago or i believe the problems in Canada in the late 80's, etc. He's questioning where their social outrage is being directed as an institution, not all the individuals within either. I'm sure their were plenty of Priests that were upset by it etc. I think he;s speaking about the higher structure (il Papa) and what he dictates be the focii of condemnation as an organized institution. He's speaking institutional choices, not individual ones, since i would surely state that their were many individuals that were upset.

Sorry if I'm summing up both of your arguements wrong?



Ok, i already know we don't see eye to eye on this. The free market also established such hideous things as slave wage and little kids losing fingers on weaving looms, so I don't necessarily think business works in a vacuum like that. But you know, its an attempt. I'd love to think that if we let everyone do so for a while and saw that conditions didn't imrove that people would re-evaluate their position. and if it does get better, power to you. I just don't think everyone is starting on equal footing, so without government intervention I just see it getting worse. I only have historic precedence for this, i don't know if it was tried yet again if things would go differently, it could. Yeah, I'm trying to legislate my moral judgement I guess, but I'm not in denial that its already being done, and that privitization is already part of the Protestant work ethic. So some cultures are more communal and some more private, they're all still associated with legislating a sense of moral values. Randian individual is a moral value just like anything else.

While that point is fine, there is a mistake here.

Priests may cover things up, just like my mom will condemn the person who hurts another but will protect me even though she knows something is wrong but i'm still her son and she loves me. But that doesn't mean she encourages it, believes in it or anything like that. I do not think that the catholic "central command" issues orders or OKAYs for alter boy molestations. Its viewed as wrong, its even condemned but when the event takes place, they do try to cover it to save face. That isn't right but theres a fine difference here.

@Dolce, Your summation is right on the money.

@bABA, one cannot choose to be moral selectively. Either one is morally correct all the time or one loses that authority be it a priest or someone else. Further, where was the outrage from the evangelicals and the church over this matter? The same people that are so eager to trash movies, other religions and harmless TV shows like Sponge bob showed their true colors during the priest abuse scandal. These evangelicals are so screwed up that they are trying to convert people to Christianity in Tsunami ravaged areas. These are the same people who have termed your religion as " Satan's religion".

I have very little respect for evangelicals, racists and the morally corrupt. As of now the above trifecta is true of a good number of the vocal evangelicals in the US.

Personally I do not approve of homosexuality. That does not mean I am going to discriminate against them or anybody else. Everybody is a sinner and for evangelicals to act as if they are superior to others is simply ludicrous.