Atokal wrote:Niffoni I bolded the important parts for you. I realize this is about Canada but I felt it shed some light on the argument I made earlier regarding religious freedom vs gay rights.
Hey, I'm a Canadian too. Non-denominational christian at that. So it's relevant to me at least
"I don't think any priest or minister should be forced to marry gay people, but I do think that if they refuse to do so, there should be certain consequences. They're not observing the spirit, if not the law, of the land and as such we should challenge their charitable tax status. Why should they receive tax breaks if they refuse to marry gay couples?"
This is fringe leftist vomit. I mean, that would be akin to some supposedly tolerant nation banning, say, muslim head scarves!
If this sounds extreme, recall the case of Marc Hall, the young man who wanted to take his homosexual partner to a prom at a Catholic school in Toronto. An Ontario court declared the school had no choice and had to accept the student and his friend at the dance.
While I shed no tears for anyone who tells people where they can and cannot go, assuming the church is private property, I don't see how they were able to force them to allow people in, regardless of reason. Was it public property? If so, that makes sense. If not, then it's a classic case of two wrongs completely failing to make a right.
That case was grotesquely indicative of what will almost certainly happen in the coming months and years concerning churches and gay marriage.
I'm sorry, but this is where I run into trouble with the whole arguement of "I'm tolerant of gay marriage, except that slippery slope, domino effect blah blah blah".
The reason there isn't an uproar (besides the vocal minority) is that one of the key points of the ruling was that churches won't have to marry gays. Assuming public opinion doesn't change over the next few generations, I don't see them being able to challenge that. Canadian christians aren't as batshit loony as some of their american counterparts, but challenge their right to worship as they please, and they'll bare their teeth. In huge numbers. And most on the left would support them. Lefties love the religiously opressed.
Okay, I see it now. Here's the problem:
The court's decision was based on public funding of Catholic schools. In other words, because the school received tax dollars it had to do what it was told. Those tax dollars, of course, come from Catholic parents, who are not allowed to direct their tax money into private faith-based schools.
Unfortunately, that makes it a case of someone telling someone else he couldn't be on public property.
None of us can pick and choose what our tax dollars fund. That's the comprimise of democracy like Canada's. Tax dollars aren't paid exclusively by catholics (gasp!) I don't agree with a lot of things my tax dollars pay for, but I make the concession because I want to keep many of the freedoms and services they DO provide.
Okay, so the government wasted millions on subs that don't float, but at least I can go to a nice hospital when I'm sick, and - within a few short hours - find myself still in the waiting room. God bless Canada!
You can protest and debate the issue, because the court of public opinion is still the most powerful force in Canadian politics, but should you find yourself in the minority, well, there's not much you can do about it besides move elsewhere.
The second part of this text is misleading. Of course you can't direct 'tax money' into private special interests, nobody can. But nothing stops anyone from funding private schools with their own money (assuming they have any left after taxes and beer).
So if a school has to act thus, what makes a church that receives financial help through its charitable status in any way different?
The simple fact that public opinion is such that no one (besides a few leftist jackasses seeking attention) would ask them to marry gays. Pork is legal, but no one passed a law saying jews have to eat it. Know why? Because only a jerkstain would do that.
I strongly disagree with the fringe lefts who think churches should have to marry gays just as I disagree with the fringe rights who think governments can't marry gays. They're two seperate things, church and government, and one shouldn't be able to force the other to do something that they don't want to do.
