Human Rights --- Gay vs Religious Freedoms

Atokal · Post by **Atokal** » September 29, 2003, 12:52 pm

I submit the following article for comment. I find it interesting that religious rights and freedoms are being trampled in favor of gay rights. Where should the line be drawn in this instance. This case is still before the courts as Brockie was awarded costs and in a show of complete idiocy still expected to pay the fine of $5000.00. The Gay and Lesbian Archives are appealing the costs portion of the decision.

Gay group singles out small businessman
Whose rights are being trampled if printer is forced to betray his faith?

Scott Brockie enjoys his printing business. He likes the people he employs, likes his clients, likes the fact business is good. Never good enough, of course, and work is something he does not turn down. Except on one occasion. Two and a half years ago a man came to see Brockie and asked for some printing to be done. Brockie looked at the work and explained as he was a Christian, and as the material was from the Gay and Lesbian Archive, he could not in good conscience proceed. A disagreement ensued, and the man left the office insisting Brockie was wrong and that this was a human rights issue.

Perhaps not really a human rights issue, but apparently an Ontario Human Rights Commission issue. Less than two weeks later Brockie received a letter from this organization stating that if he were to send a cheque for $5,000 to the complainant and make an apology the case for discrimination would be dropped. Otherwise he would be investigated for his crime.

Brockie is not a wealthy or a famous man, but he is a man with a strong faith. He believes he has a right to have and hold an opinion just as homosexuals have a right to have and hold opinions. He explained he has several homosexual clients and that the sexuality of those from whom he takes work is not the issue. The point is the material to be printed was offensive to his religious faith, and that surely such faith is protected by Canadian law.

Apparently not. But, argued Brockie, there are plenty of printers who would have taken this work and he was even willing to provide a list of names. There was no hatred in his heart, no malice, no anger. Only a desire to act on his beliefs, the same beliefs as, for example, those of Martin Luther King. It did not matter.

Nor did the argument that Brockie’s fundamental rights would be directly dented if he betrayed himself and his God and bowed to such pressure. He would not expect a homosexual printer to accept material from a group that said homosexuality was sinful, or presume an Islamic printer would be obliged to print material denying the truth of the Koran. Why was he being singled out like this? Why, why, why? Answers we-re not forthcoming, so Brockie said he would not give in to what he saw as extortion and blackmail. He hired a lawyer, he lost a great deal of sleep, he worried abo-ut his future. He thought about his decision and knew he could not bend. And he waited.

The wheels of injustice grind as slowly as those of justice, and it took two years for the case to move further along. Brockie was indeed "investigated". The Ontario Human Rights Commission asked for a list of his homosexual clients, and for their home addresses and telephone numbers. Brockie thought this was extremely unfair to these people and that in a free world a person’s sexuality was their own business. He would not dream of keeping such records and the commission had no right to request them in the first place.

Again, he was wrong. As he was when he assumed the proceedings would be fair. He learned that the complainant was accusing him of making remarks that had never come out of his mouth. This was all like something in a book by Orwell or Kafka, a ghoulish nightmare that surely would end when he woke up into the bright, light world of reality.

The dark dream continues. The commission has, in its wisdom, decided this case is so serious it will go to a full board inquiry. If Brockie is found "guilty" he will be fined and if he refuses to pay the fine he could, and probably will, go to prison. His family and friends would, naturally be devastated.

But that is the price we have to pay for freedom. For the freedom for one small group to dictate to a much larger group that some rights are more important than others, and that some people matter much more than others. Welcome to Canada.
Michael Coren is an author and broadcaster
Reprinted from the Financial Post - October 8, 1998

Chidoro · Post by **Chidoro** » September 29, 2003, 1:05 pm

Cutely slanted commentary, unless it's not considered a news article but only an opinion piece.

Maybe I'm not understanding something about Canadian law but why would the guy have to print it regardless of the reason? If it's a privately run operation, why would anyone have a say in what he decides to print? Was it advertising print in a paper or jsut flyers for distribution or something else entirely?

To me, i doesn't seem like this has a single damn thing to do with gays or christians, but rather a privately run business vs unwanted clients.

Vetiria · Post by **Vetiria** » September 29, 2003, 1:41 pm

Religion does not supercede the law. Simple as that.

Chidoro · Post by **Chidoro** » September 29, 2003, 1:47 pm

What's the law you're referring to? What was broken?

Vetiria · Post by **Vetiria** » September 29, 2003, 1:48 pm

Refusing to serve someone based on sexual orientation.

Chidoro · Post by **Chidoro** » September 29, 2003, 2:00 pm

If I'm a privately run company, I can turn away whomever I want to. I'm not obligated to accept business from anyone. I can pick and choose any contract that I wish and take on any client I decide to based on my resources.

If it's a public company, that's a different story

Vetiria · Post by **Vetiria** » September 29, 2003, 2:02 pm

You can turn away anyone you want as long as it's not on a discriminatory basis.

A privately owned restaurant cannot turn away black customers simply because they're black.

Chidoro · Post by **Chidoro** » September 29, 2003, 2:08 pm

A magazine does not have to print an ad w/ regards to anything they may find offensive. Your store example doesn't apply to a company that can pick and choose their business with regards to things deemed offensive.

Aabidano · Post by **Aabidano** » September 29, 2003, 2:11 pm

If he'd have just told the customer "No" and left it at that he'd problably have been fine. Explaining himself was a mistake, he didn't even have to lie to them. As long they couldn't demonstrate a pattern of discriminatory behaviour he'd be OK.

*Edit - Restated - If he'd used any reason other than christian beliefs this never would have gone to court I suspect.

*Edit 2 - No, I don't agree with him, or the other parties for that matter. Both are being equally stupid.

Vetiria · Post by **Vetiria** » September 29, 2003, 2:14 pm

Chidoro wrote:A magazine does not have to print an ad w/ regards to anything they may find offensive. Your store example doesn't apply to a company that can pick and choose their business with regards to things deemed offensive.

Who said he was printing an ad in a magazine? He wanted copies made.

Chidoro · Post by **Chidoro** » September 29, 2003, 2:20 pm

Who said he was a black trying to eat at a restaurant? It's called using examples.

He needed a printing job done. The owner of the company didn't want to do it bacause he was offended. He's not obligated to do anything if he doesn't want to.

Tegellan · Post by **Tegellan** » September 29, 2003, 2:21 pm

Exactly, his crime was turning them away based on their sexual orientation. I completely agree with him and think the whole case is a bloody farce, but the law is the law.

Had he turned them away without giving a reason, then he would have been in the clear.

Kguku · Post by **Kguku** » September 29, 2003, 2:23 pm

I think the point being made in the article is not the fact that he turned the person away for being gay/lesbian, but the material itself for being that which he found offensive.

This is not discrimination based on that persons sexual orientation, but that of what they wanted printed, which I would think is well within his rights to print, or not to print.

Sionistic · Post by **Sionistic** » September 29, 2003, 2:25 pm

He should of just said the pictures were offensive to him, would of avoided a lot of trouble.

Kilmoll the Sexy · Post by **Kilmoll the Sexy** » September 29, 2003, 3:24 pm

Business law is a very interesting subject. Even in large publicly held companies, they do not have to sell anything to anyone if they do not want to. Even if they advertise an item they can refuse to sell even a single item at the price listed. Advertised pricing, in print or on the shelf, is merely an invitation for the consumer to make an offer to the store for that price. That contract can either be struck or denied at the store's discretion. You will just not see anyone turn down those sales or you can be guaranteed that the backlash would be horrific for them. Most stores would rather give something away for free than lose a potential of 10 customers. (Retail stores see bad publicity get to an average of 8-10 other consumers while good publicity gets expanded to one additional consumer)

Atokal · Post by **Atokal** » September 29, 2003, 3:26 pm

He did not refuse to print the material because of the sexual orientation of the client, he refused to print the material because it offended his christian beliefs.

Here is another related article written by a woman who is not quite as partisan as the first author.

The Mark of an Intolerant Society
Donna Laframboise

Scott Brockie is a born-again Christian and an owner of Imaging Excellence Inc., a Toronto printing business. Last week, the Ontario Human Rights Commission fined him $5,000 for refusing to print letterhead, envelopes and business cards for the Canadian Lesbian and Gay Archives.

Being denied employment, or a place to live, solely because of the colour of your skin, your gender or your sexual orientation is no small matter. Any society that believes in equal opportunity must declare such discrimination unacceptable. But cases such as this make it difficult for those of us who support human rights codes to continue defending them.

Mr. Brockie believes the Bible condemns homosexuality. Therefore, it runs counter to his Christian faith, he says, to assist in promoting the "gay and lesbian agenda." I may disagree with Mr. Brockie's religious beliefs, but our Charter of Rights and Freedoms gives him the right not only to hold them, but to be free from being compelled to do things that violate them.

While someone of Mr. Brockie's persuasion might be expected to treat gays and lesbians badly, the human rights commission acknowledges this is not the case. In her 13-page ruling, adjudicator Heather MacNaughton points out that Mr. Brockie "provided printing services to a company called Body Body Wear, which produces underwear marketed to the gay male population" - despite his personal feeling that such advertisements were "detestable."

In other words, Mr. Brockie knows how to make crucial distinctions. He does not refuse to do work for individuals just because they are homosexual. He does not refuse to do work for gay-oriented businesses. He does, however, believe that doing work for an organization whose only reason for existence is the celebration and promotion of homosexuality violates his religion.

It is no credit to Ms. MacNaughton that she was unable to appreciate the nuanced and principled nature of Mr. Brockie's position. Her own sim-ple-minded analysis amounts to: If he works for some homosexuals, he should work for them all.

Following the announcement of the $5,000 fine, as well as an order forbidding him from turning down Archives business in future, the unrepentant printer told the National Post: "I didn't discriminate against the person. I discriminated against the philosophy, the lifestyle, the cause. I'm not prepared to compromise my beliefs for the sake of a printing job."

Ray Brillinger, the former president of the Archives who filed the complaint, and Edward Tompkins, that organization's current head, believe the gay community has won a big victory. "The days are long gone since a business can choose who they will do work for," Mr. Brillinger told the media. "It is a mark of an increasingly tolerant society," Mr. Tompki-ns declared.

But can a society prepared to coerce small business people into violating their religious beliefs be described as tolerant? If we're willing to trample on religious beliefs for the sake of a print job that could have been performed by dozens of other companies, why wouldn't we trample on the religious beliefs of pacifists the next time we're conscripting into the Armed Forces? Surely the needs of a country at war supersede the desire to have one's letterhead handled by a particular print shop.

Moreover, would Mr. Brillinger and Mr. Tompkins be so pleased if the shoe were on the other foot -if a printing business owned by a lesbian couple was compelled to do work for a pro-life group, an anti-gay organization or the Canadian Alliance? People who have been denied jobs or housing due to their sexual orientation are experiencing long delays in having their complaints addressed by human rights commissions - precisely because time and money is being spent on trivial matters such as this.

The Canadian Lesbian and Gay Archives was perfectly free to tell its friends not to give Mr. Brockie any more work, to urge his other clients to take their business elsewhere, to picket his office and to complain loudly about him at every opportunity. Instead, it chose to turn the power of the state against him. How disappointing that the gay and lesbian community, which itself has historically been victimized by state coercion, now believes this is the way to a better society.

Aaeamdar · Post by **Aaeamdar** » September 29, 2003, 4:02 pm

From both articles it oes not appear tht the distinction between content and person are in fact being made. Both articles indicate that he refused to print the material because of the group it was coming from, not because of the content of the material (still unknown).

I am somewhat torn, because on one hand I like to see bigots suffer as a consequence of their bigotry - thus the thought of this guy being put in jail is attractive, yet on the other hand I really hate government sticking their noses in where it does not belong.

I think it is pretty clearly the case that gay organizations are not cut off from access to printing, generally, just because this one bigot won't print their stuff. As such, the government really has no need to step in and guarantee this. Go to someone who will and get it done. Then, come back the next day with a line of picketters and hurt this guy where it counts - his business. Protest him outside his stores, send letters to his clients, etc. That sort of thing will cost him a lot more than $5,000 in the long run.

Vetiria · Post by **Vetiria** » September 29, 2003, 4:26 pm

explained as he was a Christian, and as the material was from the Gay and Lesbian Archive, he could not in good conscience proceed.

I'm looking at this quote when I'm making my opinion, which is basically the same as Aeamdar.

I agree that if he had not said anything, he would have been fine. But he gave his reason, and it was because of the organization the material was from, not the content.

Chmee · Post by **Chmee** » September 29, 2003, 4:53 pm

In my opinion he should have the right to do business, or not do business, with whoever he wants for whatever reason. Even if I disagree with that reason. Of course, people who disagree with his reasons have every right to choose to not to do business with him on that basis, and to use their freedom of speech to indicate why they think he is in the wrong.

Sheryl · Post by **Sheryl** » September 29, 2003, 5:25 pm

Aaeamdar wrote:From both articles it oes not appear tht the distinction between content and person are in fact being made. Both articles indicate that he refused to print the material because of the group it was coming from, not because of the content of the material (still unknown).

from the first paragraph of the second article:

Last week, the Ontario Human Rights Commission fined him $5,000 for refusing to print letterhead, envelopes and business cards for the Canadian Lesbian and Gay Archives.

if that's the case, then there was -no- content. and his defense is moot. unless that was some damn offensive stationary!

masteen · Post by **masteen** » September 29, 2003, 6:22 pm

He apparently doesn't mind running stuff for businesses that are gay oriented (he respects their lifestyle choice), but has issues with an organization that's sole purpose is promoting "the gay agenda."

Xyun · Post by **Xyun** » September 29, 2003, 10:18 pm

WTF does that mean? I can't see how a distinction can be made between the two.

This thread is two notches below retarded.

dipshit wrote:I find it interesting that religious rights and freedoms are being trampled in favor of gay rights.

WTF ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? WHAT RELIGIOUS RIGHTS? the right to discriminate? please tell me exactly what "religious right" is being trampled upon.

This kinda shit is precisely why I can't stand people like you. You MAKE SHIT UP to validate your fucked up views. You say he has a right to discriminate against gays? and then when I say I discriminate against christians you talk up a shit storm, and sadly, you can't even fucking tell the difference. You stupid fucking monkey.

Marbus · Post by **Marbus** » September 29, 2003, 11:00 pm

Most of the people on this thread seem to be arguing against him... BECAUSE he is a Christian? Most of those same people usually promote a more libertarian viewpoint of peoples rights yet when the person who needs protection is a Christian they turn against him... intersting.

I agree that if the guy had not put his religious views into the mix he probably would have been ok but maybe not. Hell he had done work for people that "disgusted" him but he still did the work. He refused this business because it wasn't selling clothing (underware) but just selling / promoting something he dosen't agree with.

Lets turn the tide here. Lets say some vegan freak owned a printing shop and I come in to get 10,000 flyers promoting the cheap steaks I have from the slaughter of half my herd. In the same situation the vegan would tell me... YUCK I don't eat meat but I'll print your stuff... how can you eat that? But when I go back to print flyer saying "Come to the free seminar on 'Why you should eat BEEF' or "Celebrate being a Conivore" they decline because it's against their philosopy. There is NO WAY IN HELL the person complaining would get a lawsuit out of that and you know what? They shouldn't get one... just like these people shouldn't be able to force that guy as well.

The cattleman would have the same ability to tell his friends not to go there but for some groups these days that isn't enough. Guess the Christians won't get that until they are a minority again...

I hate whiners. I don't care what their "issue" is, freakin' grow up and deal with that fact that you can't force you way into or onto everything. If I was that guy, even though I don't believe that way, I would fly to San Fransico and try to print flyers for a rally of people with the Title of "Right-Wing Fundamentalists Unite! Gay and Lesbians... BURN IN HELL" First shop that wouldn't print it... BAM, lawsuit.

See how stupid that is? Damn everyone is intitles to their own beliefs, he found the material offensive. I don't see, and I KNOW the gay and lesbian community don't want, a definition of what offensive is... it's to each his or her own. At least that is what most of us argued when they repealed the sodomy law... it wasn't anyone's business. The same thing goes for this as well.

I also know a bunch of Gay people who are as sick with the whiners as I am. In any population of people you will have a few freaks who think nothing is ever their fault... STFUDTP

They G&L community has been persucuited on a number of things and NEED to fight for those, printing a flyer is not one of them though, and thus NO I don't see it as indicitative of a larger issue... the guy just didn't want to print it. He might have said the same to another "Christian" wanting to sell Dildos disguised at "massage toys"... his right.

Enought ranting...
Marb

Xyun · Post by **Xyun** » September 29, 2003, 11:35 pm

Your example is petty. One of the head chefs at a place I used to work at was a vegan. Everyday he would cook steaks and chicken and everyday he would talk shit about meat eaters, but he still cooked the shit, you know why? He was there to do a job, not to dictate morality.

There are times and places for people to voice their opinion, to push for their views and what not. This guy simply chose the wrong time and place (see DixieChicks). Worse still, he is refusing to do business with someone based PURELY on sexual orientation. That, sir, is discrimination no matter how you try to disguise it.

Drasta · Post by **Drasta** » September 29, 2003, 11:41 pm

religion shouldn't be mixed with human rights ... or else we get another middle east

Atokal · Post by **Atokal** » September 30, 2003, 12:36 am

Xyun wrote:Your example is petty. One of the head chefs at a place I used to work at was a vegan. Everyday he would cook steaks and chicken and everyday he would talk shit about meat eaters, but he still cooked the shit, you know why? He was there to do a job, not to dictate morality.

There are times and places for people to voice their opinion, to push for their views and what not. This guy simply chose the wrong time and place (see DixieChicks). Worse still, he is refusing to do business with someone based PURELY on sexual orientation. That, sir, is discrimination no matter how you try to disguise it.

Xyun once again you show your complete ignorance for the rights of the individual. The distinction is subtle and principled as noted in the second article. Easy enough for you to stand up and call a Christian a bigot or accuse him of discrimination. Grab the BIG brush and paint everyone with it.

I guess the words subtle and principled are not found in your repertoire. You will note HE IS NOT refusing to do work for someone based upon sexual orientation rather he is refusing to print material whose sole purpose is the promotion and celebration of the gay lifestyle, something he is opposed to because he has a deep belief in his religion.

Xyun wrote:WTF does that mean? I can't see how a distinction can be made between the two.

This thread is two notches below retarded.

dipshit wrote:I find it interesting that religious rights and freedoms are being trampled in favor of gay rights.
WTF ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? WHAT RELIGIOUS RIGHTS? the right to discriminate? please tell me exactly what "religious right" is being trampled upon.

This kinda shit is precisely why I can't stand people like you. You MAKE SHIT UP to validate your fucked up views. You say he has a right to discriminate against gays? and then when I say I discriminate against christians you talk up a shit storm, and sadly, you can't even fucking tell the difference. You stupid fucking monkey.

a quote from the second article that you obviously chose to not read or more likely did not comprehend

Mr. Brockie believes the Bible condemns homosexuality. Therefore, it runs counter to his Christian faith, he says, to assist in promoting the "gay and lesbian agenda." I may disagree with Mr. Brockie's religious beliefs, but our Charter of Rights and Freedoms gives him the right not only to hold them, but to be free from being compelled to do things that violate them

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » September 30, 2003, 1:46 am

Interesting,

The gay moment is trying to legislate morality.

Take some advice from the Christains, it hurts people, and it doesn't work.

Aaeamdar · Post by **Aaeamdar** » September 30, 2003, 2:05 am

So if Mr. Brockie believed the bible condemns Blacks, would it be ok to tell the Black Student's Caucus to piss off as well?

A quick aside - btw - my own belief are far more in alignment with Chmee's. I would personally answer the question above as "yes." I would also personally never send any business to someoen who did that and would be willing to take my own personal time encoraging others to not give such a person business either. I personally think the law should not say a thing one way or the other about this, though again I really do wish ill on Mr. Brokie and think it would be a great thing if he lost his business, his family and everything else he loves. But, the State should not be the instrument of his undoing.*

That said, what really bothers me is 1. the terrible arguements being presented on behalf of the rights of Mr. Brockie and 2. the huge double standard those supporting him are applying.

This has nothing to do with the title of the thread. What is at stake here is not a conflict between religious freedom and gay rights. If ever there comes an issue where those two things are at issue, then the choice is easy - religion can shove it. But this has nothing to do with religion, IMO. It has to do with a much more important right - the liberty to act as one pleases (so long as that liberty does not interfer with another person liberty to act as they please). This guy is running a business and he ought to be able to turn away customers for any reason - even discriminatory ones.* But that has nothing to do with religion. Religion is a tangential issue at best here as religious based bigorty happens to be Brockie's reason for turning away business, but that is mostly irrelevant. The only thing relevant here is that a businessman is being told by the government which customers he can and cannot turn away.*

Secondly, protests from Atokal to the contrary, Brockie did not draw a distinction based on the content of the material he was being asked to print, but rather on the nature of the group asking to have the work done. This is similar to Justice Scalia's suggestion that laws against same-sex sexual conduct do not discriminate agaisnt homosexuals because the law forbids both gays and straights from engaging in same-sex conduct. It is clearly a specious distinction. If it had been a true content distinction - the difference between printing letterhead and printing politcal action fliers - then the arguement would make more sense. This lack of distinction is made more clear by the fact that he will print material he finds reprehensible when the organization itself is not necessarily a gay organization (both gays and straights running underwear businesses like it when people by their products and will market to gays), but won't print prefectly innocent material (I assume there was nothing on the letterhead he refused to print that was in and of itself reprehensible) when by the nature of the organization itself makes it clear his client is gay. It is very obvious the Brockie makes his decisions on the status of the potential client, not on the nature of the job.

Finally, and going back to how I opened up this thread, with the exception of people answering this like Chmee, there is a huge double standard being applied here. It's the same one that comes up in all these threads. It is somehow ok to discriminate against gays on the bases of religion but not ok to discrimate against blacks (or other recial moniroties) on those same grounds. Using the logic of those supporting Brockie's "religious rights," blacks would still be property in America. That whole slavery thing was based on religion. It could only be justified by labling them "savages" "souless" "not a person" etc. You people out here spewing non-sense about religious freedoms are putting forth the same arguements slave owners, and later (to this day, sadly) anti-misconginists and other racial bigots.

*Just wanted to note that if the facts of these privately run businesses indicated that such discrimination was rampamt such that it effectively cut off that sort of business from a minorities (the best examples of which exist in the United States south from until just after the 1960's of Blacks pretty much being welcome at no businesses) then I think the government can and should infringe on the liberty interests of the business owner. There is, however, no reason to believe that is the case here.[/i]

kyoukan · Post by **kyoukan** » September 30, 2003, 7:05 am

white christian heteros should have the right to discriminate against whoever they want because they are perfect. jesus was a white hetero (ignore the fact he was born in the middle east he was white as the driven snow and I will start a war with whoever disagrees). also if christianity was around then I bet he would be a christian.

discrimination is only bad if people I like are being discriminated against. I have no problem at all with selectively discriminating against people who I've been trained to dislike via years of having a fucking bible beat over my head by a bunch of fat rednecks that wouldn't even be able to get a job pumping gas if they weren't in the clergy.

I mean imagine printing up some flyers for a bunch of fags. Sure one day its printing flyers for them and the next day they are having anal sex with your son in church and spray painting those pink fag swastikas all over grandmas cat.

but hey I'm not homophobic white trash or anything once I even had a gay friend which totally proves how non-biased I am against those people. the fags I mean. I mean homosexuals. did I say disgusting fucking faggots because I meant homosexuals.

Chidoro · Post by **Chidoro** » September 30, 2003, 7:32 am

I don't disagree however, you can accept the work from whomever you want to. Legally, the guy is in the right, even if he is a god-fearing, bible twisting, sack of shit.

Sionistic · Post by **Sionistic** » September 30, 2003, 11:02 am

I wonder if the gay guy had just a flyer of normal party, if the man would of copied it

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » September 30, 2003, 11:14 am

Lets say the printer was a rabid Cowboys fan and refused to print material for the local Redskins club? Does he have the freedom to deny service based this preference?

Lets say the printer, is asked to print material for the local telemarketer's guild and refuses because he dislikes the annoying phone calls they generate. Does he have the freedom to deny service based on this preference?

Lets say the printer volunteers as a family counselor and is asked one day to print material for the local "How to cheat on your husband and get away with it" club. Does he have the freedom to deny service on this preference?

Lets say the guy thinks that endorsing the gay lifestyle is harmful to society and is asked to print some materials that celebrate the very thing he sees as harmful. Does he have the freedom to deny service on the preference?

Given the fact that the people wanting the printing could walk across the street and get it done at another shop, equal access to opportunity is sustained. The guy should not be fined. There was space for both his moral stance, and for the other guy to get his materials printed.

Marbus · Post by **Marbus** » September 30, 2003, 11:26 am

Xyun, If he worked for someone else then he would be doing a job and thus have to do whatever the owner wanted. And in my example the person who was a vegan DID do the printing to sell steaks and complained about it. But didn't print when it was a rally against their beliefs... but Xyun I do agree the example is petty, just as I think the entire ordeal for this guy is pretty damn petty.

This is HIS business not someone elses and if he believed that God told him not to sell to anyone and close his business... he could do that.

Marb

Kilmoll the Sexy · September 30, 2003, 11:29 am

Just for the sake of argument, how about if the KKK goes into a print shop owned by a black man and asks for printhead and cards to be printed up. Or flyers for a rally. If the black man refuses to print their garbage, should he be fined and forced to print it? You know the answer to that as well as I do. You people are so anti-Christian that you automatically go to the defense of anyone that has a conflict with them.

Ashur · Post by **Ashur** » September 30, 2003, 11:30 am

/nod Kilmoll

Chmee · Post by **Chmee** » September 30, 2003, 11:44 am

In my opinion its similar to the arguments for freedom of speech. I believe in freedom of speech, even though some of that speech will be things that I disagree with (in some cases very strongly). But even though I disagree with what they are saying, I think they have the right to say it. I don't think that we should allow the government to decide what speech should or should not be allowed.

Deijah Vu · Post by **Deijah Vu** » September 30, 2003, 12:34 pm

If the bible condemned ignorance, my dear Mr. Brockie wouldn't be a Christian. When you have a business serving the public, no matter what kind of bussiness, you have to deal with the public views and wants. Before Mr. Brockie expressed his devoute beliefs in Christianity he should have picked up his bible and read the part where is says 'Love thy neighbor as thy self' it doesn't say 'Love thy neighbor as thy self unless he's a fag'

Adex_Xeda · Post by **Adex_Xeda** » September 30, 2003, 12:48 pm

You analogy breaks down when your neighbor asks you to help out with a theft, or to tell a lie, or to aid him in promoting something that God has said was wrong.

Love him? Yes.
Aid him in doing something wrong? No.

Atokal · Post by **Atokal** » September 30, 2003, 12:52 pm

Deijah Vu wrote:If the bible condemned ignorance, my dear Mr. Brockie wouldn't be a Christian. When you have a business serving the public, no matter what kind of bussiness, you have to deal with the public views and wants. Before Mr. Brockie expressed his devoute beliefs in Christianity he should have picked up his bible and read the part where is says 'Love thy neighbor as thy self' it doesn't say 'Love thy neighbor as thy self unless he's a fag'

Unfortunately you obviously missed the point. Mr. Brockie does NOT care that the individual is gay. He has done printing for other gay customers. It was the material he found offensive.

I know another printer in Toronto that refused to print pornography because it conflicted with his values as a muslim. He was not dragged in front of the Human Rights Commission. Although he did discriminate against a certain type of work based upon his beliefs.

Deijah Vu · Post by **Deijah Vu** » September 30, 2003, 12:57 pm

Atokal wrote: Unfortunately you obviously missed the point. Mr. Brockie does NOT care that the individual is gay. He has done printing for other gay customers. It was the material he found offensive.

I know another printer in Toronto that refused to print pornography because it conflicted with his values as a muslim. He was not dragged in front of the Human Rights Commission. Although he did discriminate against a certain type of work based upon his beliefs.

I didn't miss the point hun, all I'm saying is if you claim to be a devout Christian, then you better realize that it is NOT your job to judge, but that of your God. He is not aiding in killing people or taking over the world, he just wanted some things printed. It all goes back to that saying 'Do unto others... you know how it goes.

~Edit~

Brockie looked at the work and explained as he was a Christian, and as the material was from the Gay and Lesbian Archive, he could not in good conscience proceed.

And he wasn't offended by the material hun, he was offended by where the material came from.

Xyun · Post by **Xyun** » September 30, 2003, 1:08 pm

This is HIS business not someone elses and if he believed that God told him not to sell to anyone and close his business... he could do that.

True, but god only told him not to sell to fag organizations. Of course god also tells him that anyone who denounces god is a heretic and should be put to death, but he doesn't follow through with that one does he? Being anti-fag is popular right now for christians, it's like the new fad. First it was pagans, then blacks, now fags. I'm sure over time this too will fade and you people will find a new group of people to denounce as infedels and inferior to you. However, it was never right and it never will be.

You people are so anti-Christian that you automatically go to the defense of anyone that has a conflict with them.

god damn right about that. its a 2000 year old mythological belief system that has hindered society since its inception. If your only defense for this guy refusing someone's business is "God said it's wrong" then I say slap a $5k fine on his ass, he deserves it.

Wulfran · Post by **Wulfran** » September 30, 2003, 1:14 pm

I think this case is absurd and troubling at the same time. I think it is a classic example of the political correctness of Canadian Society run amok. I'm not gay or a bible thumper and I detest the way both of these groups seem so determined to push their agendas on others. I could give a shit if you're gay: what you do in your bedroom is your business. I could give a shit what you believe: its your right to believe whatever you want.

My opinion is like Chmee's in that I find it ridiculous that a business is being in essence legislated into doing business with customers they don't want. It becomes even more ludicrous in that we, in Canada, expect corporations to uphold certain ethical standards (i.e. don't exploit situations and profiteer in foreign conflicts i.e. Talisman Energy in Sudan) yet when a business takes a moral stance (albeit not a very bright one given some of their past clients) we slam it.

The Canadian Lesbian and Gay Archives was perfectly free to tell its friends not to give Mr. Brockie any more work, to urge his other clients to take their business elsewhere, to picket his office and to complain loudly about him at every opportunity.

To me the above would have been the most logical and responsible approach rather than go on a legalized vendetta against this idiot, but what do I know...

Dexail · Post by **Dexail** » September 30, 2003, 1:18 pm

but Xyun, if someone forced you to do something to promote these Christian beliefs that you are so adamantly against, you would raise hell *pardon the pun* wouldn't you?

Would it be fair to force you to do something that you thought was wrong?

All in all, I would say I hold the same viewpoint as Chmee.

Xyun · Post by **Xyun** » September 30, 2003, 1:20 pm

the gigantic misconception throughout this thread is that being gay is a belief system, or a philosophy, or an agenda.

Drasta · Post by **Drasta** » September 30, 2003, 1:39 pm

so not aiding your neighboor in something wrong .... being gay falls under that right adex?

Deijah Vu · Post by **Deijah Vu** » September 30, 2003, 1:43 pm

Xyun wrote:the gigantic misconception throughout this thread is that being gay is a belief system, or a philosophy, or an agenda.

The light!! Xyun hit it on the head. Unlike your beliefs, your sexual preference can't be presuaded to change sides. In your actions you may be able to portray it, but in your heart YOU know.

Marbus · Post by **Marbus** » September 30, 2003, 1:54 pm

While I firmly believe that some people ARE born gay I belive it's a continum from totally straight to totally gay based on genetics. So I believe that Yes for some people it IS a choice, but not for everyone.

Hence some straight people could not choose to be gay and be happy just like some gay people could never be straight and be happy. Which is why I don't hold with the Store owners understanding of his faith. However I do believe there are people who's genetic structure predetermins them where they could be happy being either straight or gay.

Please note this is Marb's Theory based on personal experience, counseling experiences, and my Educational background.

This is a very difficult topic, although I've been arguing one way each argurment has a lot of implications. Some of which I'm still considering. Not the consideration would change my mind but a descision about one are, like the above story, can have far reaching consequences.

Marb

masteen · Post by **masteen** » September 30, 2003, 2:20 pm

Deijah Vu wrote:
Xyun wrote:the gigantic misconception throughout this thread is that being gay is a belief system, or a philosophy, or an agenda.
The light!! Xyun hit it on the head. Unlike your beliefs, your sexual preference can't be presuaded to change sides. In your actions you may be able to portray it, but in your heart YOU know.

So gay groups don't have agendas? Bullshit. They exist to lobby for gay friendly legislation (hate crimes), gay rights, ect. If you don't think that's an agenda, you're fucking deluded.

Deijah Vu · Post by **Deijah Vu** » September 30, 2003, 2:32 pm

As do every race in this country! From Blacks, Mexicans, Asians, Samoans, etc... Does this mean the color of their skin is a belief? No! It's what they are and how they were born.

Marbus · Post by **Marbus** » September 30, 2003, 2:35 pm

But like the color of someone's skin their are varying degrees... of course I don't think it's truly that simple though.

Marb