Western Standard

The Shotgun Blog

« Wedge Issue | Main | Excusing Khadr »

Wednesday, June 20, 2007

Edmonton mayor's "Pride Brunch" in Catholic hall

The announcement can be found, here and here, as follows:

Mayor's Pride Brunch
Special Guest Mayor Stephen Mandel.

A fundraiser for Camp fYrefly, a GLBT youth camp.
St. Andrew Centre, 111 Ave & 127 St
Time: 12:30 PM Tickets: $30.00, available at the Edmonton Pride Centre (9540 - 111 Ave, 488-3234)

I'm told that St. Andrew Roman Catholic Church is one of the most conservative parishes in the city.  Evidently, whoever rented the hall on behalf of the event was not entirely forthcoming with the parish priest and administration as to what event would convene.  Then, apparently anticipating (wanting?) trouble, the event organizers arranged for two uniformed members of the Edmonton Police Service to be posted at the entrance to the hall.  The parish priest is said to have advised parishioners who saw what was taking place across from the church sanctuary to pray.

What else could the priest advise?  When the Knights of Columbus attempted to cancel a reservation for a lesbian wedding and offered to pay any costs associated with the change, they were brought up before the human rights commission.

The message that appears to be sent to Catholic Christians who don't accept this "lifestyle" as acceptable is that "equality" means that gay activists can take their agenda not just to your front door, but inside the door to places that are consecrated to the Catholic faith, with uniformed police officers (!) exercising state coercion to defend that right!

Now, will someone please tell me:
What happened to the separation of church and state?

UPDATE:  "Nbob" took issue in the "Comments" with what appears below.  Nbob suggested I hadn't read the ruling.

Although it was awhile ago, I did read the ruling.

On p. 42 of the PDF Nbob linked to, in comments below, the ruling indicates that the Knights were found guilty of discrimination by the Commission.  Lawyers are presently advising churches and religious organizations with premises to rent that they cannot make their premises available for renting to the general public without putting themselves at risk of being compelled to rent to groups with whose aims they foundationally disagree.  As in the Brockie case, this understanding of what constitutes public space represents a departure from what was formerly understood as private v. public space.  The effect is that the state is now intruding on premises used for religious purposes if the religious organization dares to make them available to the general public.

This holds implications for community organizations that have traditionally rented church-owned facilities because they're inexpensive.  Many churches make their premises available to some groups at no charge.  This ruling prevents churches from making their premises generally available.  Lawyers are advising churches to institute policies that may prevent many of these community groups from accessing church premises.

Instead of churches' being in a position to exercise discretion as to whom they shall rent on a case-by-case basis, they must limit themselves . . . unless they want uniformed policemen to show up on their premises.

Posted by Russ Kuykendall on June 20, 2007 in Canadian Politics, Municipal Politics, Religion | Permalink


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Edmonton mayor's "Pride Brunch" in Catholic hall:


Sort of lost me here, was there trouble at the hall? Not sure what the point of this post is.
If I understand this, there was a fundraising event for a gay youth camp and there were cops present. And Catholics were praying for people, they tend to do that.
Not sure where the 'gay agenda' kicks in here. Please elaborate.

Posted by: Robin | 2007-06-20 11:24:27 PM

Do people do parades for things they do in their bedrooms?

Posted by: Winston | 2007-06-20 11:26:38 PM

They should do parades for what they do in their bedrooms. Would make things alot more colourful.

Posted by: Robin | 2007-06-20 11:28:28 PM

I'll tell you what happened to church and state, special interest groups used political correctness to hijack religion among other institutions.

Gays are nothing but useful idiots to the Islamic Jihad and the socialist movement in Canada and the west in general.

They do their work for them breaking down our society and it's moral values. We are divided into political and quasi cultural and deviant groups at each other's throat and the state arbitrates with the idiotic rules of political correctness.

Divided we fall.

Oddly enough it was that old Commie and gay liberator who said "The state has no business in the bedrooms of the nation. Allow me to add that the state has no business in the minds of our children through the current indoctrination that passes as education and they have no business in our room lighting either.

In short, we are as screwed as our incandescent light bulbs. Gays, socialists, greenies and anarchists are all playing their part in this very well.

Posted by: Yanni | 2007-06-20 11:41:40 PM

No sense of humour Rusty? :)

Mother Russia; land of the free, home of the brave.

"Eggs and punches at Russia gay march"


Posted by: DJ | 2007-06-20 11:51:32 PM

Winston: We should have a parade honoring sleep :P

but seriously could the people who booked the hall be sued for fraud?

Posted by: E | 2007-06-21 12:44:17 AM

Uhh.... Russ the precedent set by the K of C case before the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal was that the Knights DID NOT have to rent the hall out. I'm guessing you didn't read it.

Posted by: Nbob | 2007-06-21 2:03:07 AM

Here's the money quote from para 113 of the decision:

[113] The Panel accepts that a person, with a sincerely held religious belief, cannot be compelled to act in a manner that conflict with that belief, even if that act is in the public domain. This conclusion is supported by the Supreme Court of Canada’s decisions in Trinity Western and the Ontario Divisional Court’s decision in Brockie. The Panel accepts that the Knights are entitled to this constitutional protection and therefore cannot be compelled to act in a manner that is contrary to their core religious beliefs. The Panel also finds that, although the Knights were not being asked to participate in the solemnization of the marriage, renting the Hall for the celebration of the marriage would have required them to indirectly condone the celebration of a same sex-marriage, an act that is contrary to their core religious beliefs.

The whole thing is here: ( PDF)


Posted by: Nbob | 2007-06-21 2:32:48 AM


I doubt they are worth it

Posted by: Winston | 2007-06-21 3:08:04 AM

btw, i m gonna leave Toronto this weekend and stay away from it for 48 hrs

Posted by: Winston | 2007-06-21 3:08:48 AM

What is the meaning of a youth homosexual camp? Youngsters should be kept away from homosexuals.

Posted by: Rémi Houle | 2007-06-21 4:52:36 AM

Try having a youth homosexual camp to dissuade youth from becoming practicing homosexuals. Oh, the hubbub that would arise from that free choice!

Posted by: obc | 2007-06-21 5:11:18 AM

Try having a youth homosexual camp to dissuade youth from becoming practicing homosexuals. Oh, the hubbub that would arise from that free choice!

Posted by: obc | 2007-06-21 5:13:10 AM

It's just another movement taking advantage of the Political Correctness that has been forced upon us with the socialist Lefty creep. Many of those, hopefully most, who are unfortunate enough to be homosexual are living quietly and obeying the laws of the land and are treated equally.
The bottom line, who the hell needs to know what anyone's sexuality is? It's only our business in the case of pedophilia and other perverted activities.

As for homosexuals and parades of "Pride", they're anything but something to be proud of.
Parading in various states of nudity, swinging the tools they're so obsessed with is obscene. If straight people did the same they'd be arrested on the spot.

It's part of their agenda to haul the churches in on the act at every opportunity just to draw attention, it's got nothing to do with religion.
They choose Catholic churches because it's the one Church most opposed to homosexual unions.

When we see cities like Toronto raising the Gay pride flag on city hall without a flinch and yet have a problem with keeping support our troops logos on city fire trucks, we know how low we've gone.
David Miller was bombarded with calls concerning the logos and he and his fellow Leftie councillors had to reverse the decision. Then the Mayor had the gall to say it was because of the death of three more of our soldiers he changed his mind. Hogwash, he was going to have his city lose big bucks in tourism if he didn't reverse his decision.

Posted by: LizJ | 2007-06-21 6:54:11 AM

LizJ: "When we see cities like Toronto raising the Gay pride flag on city hall without a flinch and yet have a problem with keeping support our troops logos on city fire trucks, we know how low we've gone."

...that, about sums up Canada today folks.

Sad. Can't wait for the day when the porno cops start arresting for praying in your house.

Posted by: tomax7 | 2007-06-21 10:10:11 AM

City of Toronto has recived about $2 million from the Liberal Government of Ontario Tourism Fund to
promote Toronto as a Homosexual Destination aimed
at the international Homosexual market. Halifax HRM N.S. got caught in the smae situation when Federal plus Provincial taxpayers funds were used to define
the old tarditional City as a homosexual destination
point. Some Canadian Forces officers ran up the Traditional Black Quarantine Flag atop Citadel
Hill anticipating that many visitors who came by Cruise Ship led by Rosie O'Donnell would be infected by Aids. A friend of mine a Lady -Professor at Dalhousie U complained to me about
these crude Military people, but she gave up when I could'nt stop laughing. Nice move by our Fighting Navy. MacLeod

Posted by: Jack MacLeod | 2007-06-21 10:57:11 AM

The Navy has been famous for buggery for a long time.

Churchill's quote about the traditions of the Royal Navy - "rum, buggery and the lash".

Posted by: obc | 2007-06-21 11:00:46 AM

Actually Sir Winston Churchill as First Sea Lord
was talking about the famed Royal Navy. Sir Winston was greatly admired by the world's greatest fighting Navy and when he was appointed First Sea Lord, his second tour, a Signal from RN HQ went to all RN Ships - "Winston Is Back" Most Canadians are unaware
that the renowned Royal Canadian Navy was actually part of the Royal Navy in World War II which controlled all it's operational committments. The Black Flag flew over Halifax HRM for several months
much to the delight of bigots like me -tut, tut. Macleod

Posted by: Jack MacLeod | 2007-06-21 11:53:30 AM

In actual fact major Political Parties in the British Colony and later the Provinces all had
very strong affilitaion with Christian Churches
in particular Nova Scotia and Ontario. The Scots Irish in Nova Scotia founded the Liberal Party of Nova Scotia and became a major Political force to be reckoned with. The Roman Catholic Diocese of Halifax was directly connected with the Nova Scotia Liberal Party and often determined the selection of political candidates. Nova Scotia Conservatives
the Tory Establishment were directly connected to the
traditional Establishment Churches (Anglican) of
the period. The modern Roman Catholic Churches of 2007 are particularly strong in Alberta and other Conservative enclaves. And have considerable political clout if they chose to use it. Candidate choices, boycotts, Christian activism, which I am sure PM Harper and his advisors are well aware of.

Posted by: Jack Macleod | 2007-06-21 2:20:03 PM

"But they got punished anyway, exactly as if they'd been wrong."

Welcome to the new Canada. Bye-bye to the good old one.

Posted by: obc | 2007-06-21 2:20:41 PM

How the hell can the tribunal rule for them and against them?! WTF!!!

The Knights should've fought this to the supreme court.

Posted by: Hoser | 2007-06-21 3:13:23 PM

"The Knights should've fought this to the supreme court."

You mean the Court that finds new laws between the lines of the Charter? Ha! I doubt they would even have accepted to hear the case.

Posted by: obc | 2007-06-21 3:37:08 PM

There is no such thinng as separation of church and state in Canada. to my knowledge, there never has been.

Posted by: Dunny | 2007-06-21 3:57:59 PM

. . . nor in the US. It's a lie that has been spread by the Leftoid media. In fact, in the early years of the US, states collected money on behalf of churches and passed the cash on to them. That policy obviously was changed, but not because it was "unconstitutional".

I offer $1,000 to anyone who can find the mention of separation of church and state in the US Constitution or any amendments to it.

Posted by: obc | 2007-06-21 4:02:02 PM

What's perhaps more offensive in all of this is the fact that St. Andrew's in Edmonton is, if I am not mistaken, the site of perpetual, 24-hour Eucharistic Adoration in their Corpus Christi chapel there.

In other words, it's a very holy site for Catholics in the city of Edmonton, being that the Eucharist is -- within Catholic teaching -- the source and summit of Christian faith.

It's bad enough that this act of political grandstanding took place, but the more I re-read the news here, the more I can't help but think that the choice of St. Andrew's, specifically, as opposed to just any parish hall, was a calculated move designed to give offense in a maximal way.

Posted by: ken | 2007-06-21 4:13:14 PM

Let's see them book a hall from the ultra orthodox Jewish community and see all HELL break loose.

They are all, as my grandmother Konig used to say, completely meschugge!

What kind of in your face up your kilt rubbish is this?

This almost as good as the Hamas nutcrackers using a rocket propelled grenade to "enter the church" in Gaza this week.

A clear textbook attempt to anger parishioners, no more no less.

As if there were no other available halls/hotel convention centers to rent in the entire city.

Posted by: Hans Rupprecht | 2007-06-21 5:39:12 PM

Offensive, calculated grandstanding, that about sums it up Ken. They have it down to a science. In our politically correct society with a sympathetic Lefty media they're on a roll.

As for separation of Church and State in US, don't think so, "In God We Trust".
In Canada we were built on Judeo-Christian principles and our laws reflect that fact.

Our immigration, Charter and multicultural policies are a great threat to us as a unified country. It will be down to the governments we choose just how cohesive we remain as a society with a strong national identity.
Allowing any more influence from the Left of the spectrum will tear us down.

Posted by: LizJ | 2007-06-21 5:46:15 PM

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

"by their Creator" - from the Declaration of Independence.

Posted by: obc | 2007-06-21 6:45:30 PM

Separation of church and state in the US is in the first amendment "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."
That means no state religion and the state cannot control religious freedom. No religious test required for a government post. Of course, tell that to Mitt Romney. That was the tyranny of England that they rebelled against.

The preamble of the Declaration of Independence acknowledging the rights of man is given by his creator and cannot be taken away by a king. Has nothing to do with church/state relations. All about social contracts and stuff.

Posted by: Robin | 2007-06-21 8:38:22 PM

Thank you for your well researched Post Karol which defines the situation between Church and State in Canada which is publicized daily on "Life Site News"
The feminist rant from the University of Toronto is
not only a diatribe it is in the case of the Roman Catholic Churcxh untrue. Women have been venerated in the RC Church for centuries, based on the commitment
by the Church to venerate the Blessed Virgin Mary
known in the Catholic Parochial Schools and Colleges I attended as "Our Lady of Intercession" or on the Football Fields, as "Our Lady of Victory" -followed by "Pray for Us" MacLeod

Posted by: Jack Macleod | 2007-06-22 6:19:13 AM

If the entire world followed the Ten Commandments what a wonderful world it would be!

It would definitely be a new world order. No more hatred, greed and mans inhumanity to man as we witness daily on our TV's.
Ironically, the tinderboxes of the world today are in the Middle East.
It's all to do with the oppressive religion of Islam. In our politically correct terminology it's called radical Islam, but is it?
How has Islam been able to harness it's followers in many areas in a time warp of the Middle Ages with a modern world all around it?

Posted by: LizJ | 2007-06-22 6:28:30 AM

I'm with Ken. I'm in Edmonton; I've gone to Adoration at St. Andrew's and my husband just went to a prayer service there 2 weeks ago. Somebody must have got snookered for this to have been scheduled there - it's not exactly St. Sebastian of the Holy Rainbow Parish! This must have been dropped into the recent interval we just had between archbishops for a few months, when the chancery gets paralyzed etc.

Posted by: Meg Q | 2007-06-22 2:46:42 PM


Yes- the K of C were found to have discriminated but NOT for refusing to rent the hall ( which, again, the tribunal said they had every right to do ) but because of the non-business like manner and disrespect shown in going about the cancellation.

I don't think St. Andrew Centre is "consecrated" like the church across the street. It is a commercial enterprise that openly competes with hotels and other facilities for banquets, meetings, weddings and so on. If it was "consecrated" seems to me the church would be violating one of its own core values - what with JC chasing all the money changers from the temple all those years ago.

All the Brockie case and the K of C case say is that the more something is a commercial enterprise the less it has to do with religion and so less deserving of protection when balancing competing rights. Even so if a "core" religious belief is at stake (e.g. SSM) a person or organization has the right to refuse services.

There has been no " departure from what was formerly understood as private v. public space". I'm sure that long before these decisions came down the K of C 's and St. Andrew's insurance companies treated those spaces as legally "public" for the purposes of occupiers liability.

The Hotel MacDonald is privately owned but "invites" the public in just as St. Andrew is privately owned but "invites" the public. Once you start handing out invites to the general public (i.e advertise the availability of your goods or services) you need a very good reason (i.e. core religious belief) to exclude a certain segment of the general public.

Posted by: Nbob | 2007-06-23 12:41:24 PM

It still looks like grandstanding and a set up to me.

Posted by: canadian freedoms fan | 2007-06-23 7:04:49 PM

cff ~

Join the club!

Posted by: obc | 2007-06-23 7:23:33 PM


Your very assertion that the more that something is a commercial enterprise the less it has anything to do with religion serves to demonstrate:

1. Your acceptance that "commercial" denotes "public" and "religion" denotes "private" or "not public";

2. Your acceptance that "public" has moved from areas of direct state responsibility to including the "commercial." Where formerly human rights codes were about policing the state, now it's about policing commercial AND, I observe, religious foundations.

Contrary to what you insist, this is something relatively new. It is, in fact, a departure.

Posted by: Russ Kuykendall | 2007-06-24 10:40:14 PM

Agreed, Russ, and also consistent with statist philosophies.

Posted by: Brent Weston | 2007-06-24 10:56:40 PM

I'm sorry, but human rights statutes have always been about policing that part of the commercial sphere that provides services, employment or accomodation to the public. The Charter, on the other hand, limits the actions of government and only government. So, no, this is NOT a departure.

And, for the record, Nbob's description of the Knights of Columbus decision is accurate. The tribunal found that the KofC had the right to cancel the booking (which was for a wedding reception, not the wedding itself) but it had discriminated because it failed to compensate the couple for their out-of-pocket expenses or help them to find an alternate venue. You say you've read the decision. Maybe you should try reading it again.

Incidentally, would I be correct is assuming that this fuss(and your understanding of it) originates with Bill Whatcott, the loon who is apparently running for mayor of Edmonton on an anti-gay platform and who was removed by police after marching into the event and railing on about "sodomites"?

Posted by: truewest | 2007-06-24 11:30:09 PM


‘Bill Whatcott, the loon'

Does calling this person a name make you better than him?

If I called you a nickel, would that make your worth one-twentieth that of a loon?

Or are you referring to some attribute of a feathered creature?

Posted by: set you free | 2007-06-24 11:39:20 PM

Loon isn't a name, it's a description. I am suggesting that Mr. Whatcott is crazy, nuts, unstable, a crank.

I am also suggesting that he is an unreliable source of information and that, if he is indeed Russ's primary source of information, this whole yarn should be viewed with some skepticism, particularly since it involves Mayor Mandel, someone Mr. Whatcott apparently views as a political rival.

Posted by: truewest | 2007-06-25 8:04:51 AM

Here's an interesting tidbit found while googling Whatcott (nice catch btw truewest) - According to the Pro Life Pro Family news site Lifesite.net:

" The St. Andrew's Centre, while being partially a PUBLIC building, has as its prime SHAREHOLDER and owner the Archbishop of Edmonton. " (emphasis added )

So far from being "consecrated" it is in fact a corporation. Perhaps the legal repercussions feared by the Archbishop had less to do with the Human Rights Tribunal and more to do from the minority shareholders who might have launched an oppression action against the Archbishop ( that's an action minority shareholders have when they are denied profit or value by a majority shareholder).

Posted by: Nbob | 2007-06-25 1:46:01 PM

See here (http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2005/dec/05121302.html) for a story about the manager of the Knights of Columbus hall, and his version of how the hall came to be rented. See here (http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2005/dec/05120901.html) for photographs of the hall and its geographical relationship with a local Catholic church.

The ruling of the Commission (see p. 42 of the PDF) on the Knights of Columbus hall used the terminology of discrimination. The record is that the Knights offered to assist in, first, finding an alternative hall, secondly, to pay for the new hall rental, and, finally, to pay for any other costs associated with the change of venue. The effect of the ruling is that churches are being advised not to make their premises available to the general public unless they are prepared to find themselves in a similar situation.

There appears to be a wide diversity of versions as to how the hall came to be found, the circumstances of its being rented, and in respect of subsequent events. The tribunal appears to have accepted one side's version of events and to have rejected the other side's version.

Most churches are corporations -- non-profit corporations. That something is a corporation does not by definition make it public -- until recently. Making corporations public domain is a recent development. One of the earliest corporations was the city corporation which came into being in the medieval period. It was a means of protection from the intervention of the political authority of the feudal lord. Now, the situation is inverted -- corporate status has become a pretext for the state's interfering. Nbob helpfully points out that the Archbishop of Edmonton is a majority shareholder in St. Andrew Centre. I would speculate that the Archdiocese is, too, a corporation. Is a "Pride Brunch" consonant with the intentions of the majority shareholder in St. Andrew Centre for the property?

Finally, the Section 15 "equality rights" of the Charter have been used to support cases of the Canadian state's interference. When Delwin Vriend, an instructor, made a complaint against a Christian liberal arts undergraduate institution, King's University College of Edmonton, the claim was refused. Subsequently, he brought a case against the Government of Alberta because its human rights code failed to include Section 15 "equality" protection. The Supreme Court of Canada required the Legislature of Alberta to amend the code to include this protection -- protection that presumably could be used to bring an institution like King's up on a human rights complaint. Clearly, the Charter's reach is not limited to governments. Nice try, though.

Posted by: Russ Kuykendall | 2007-06-25 4:15:30 PM

I know every first year law student thinks the secret to reading a judgment is to flip the last page and see how it turns out but the problem is that you miss out all the important stuff on the other 41 pages.

For example, you might want to read the passage at paras. 112-114, which forms the heart of the decision. It explains the need to strike a balance between the KoC's right to refuse the use of hall for a purpose that offends their core beliefs and their duty, having rented to hall in error, to accomodate the lesbian couple.
The decision goes on to note that the KofC could done this by, for example, apologizing for the error, explaining the situation to them in a respectful way, offering to compensate them for their out of pocket expenses and offering to help them find a new place. Despite your assertions, the record shows the KoC did none of these things; instead it cut them loose, only offering compensation after the couple sent a demand letter and then on the condition that they sign a release without consulting a lawyer. They acted like thugs.

Of course, given the subsequent suggestion that this wasn't a mistake at all, but a plot by devious lesbians to make the RC church look bad (ah, religious paranoia is a grand thing) I guess its hardly surprising the KofC treated the couple like criminals. Unfortunately, it was that behaviour - and not the cancellation of the booking -- that led to the finding of discrimination.

As for your reading of Vriend, the SCC decided that if Alberta was going to have a human rights code, it couldn't discriminate against homosexuals by excluding them from its protection. The decision was entirely about the limits of government power. Incidentally, the fact that Vriend won doesn't necessarily mean that religious schools or other institutions can't discriminate; see Caldwell v. Stuart, [1984] 2 S.C.R 603, in which the SCC said a Catholic school could dismiss a teacher who married a divorced man in a civil ceremony, find that in that case adherence to church doctrine was a bona fide occupational requirement.

Really, Russ, it helps if you read this things before offering your opinion on what they say.

Incidentally, I don't think you answered my question: Is Whatcott your source for this tempest in a teapot?

Posted by: truewest | 2007-06-25 7:30:48 PM


Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2007-06-25 7:34:20 PM

Hi, h2o. How are things?

I noticed that you were busy over on another thread, accusing someone of being a homophobe because they suggested obc might look good in a pink dress.
For the record, I think the literature suggest that many, if not most, men who wear dresses are heterosexual.
Now, I have no insight as to which way obc swings, whether he owns a pink dress and, if he does, whether he can really pull it off, but in any case, I think you jumped the gun in suggesting that Munroe is homophobic merely because he suggested obc might be found in a pink dress (even if was found wearing it on a float in a pride parade, since homosexuality is by no means a prerequisite for participation in those things.)

Sorry to drift off-topic. Since Russ isn't answering, perhaps you'd like to venture a guess. Is Bill Whatcott the sole source of all this "controversy" at St. Andrews?

Posted by: truewest | 2007-06-25 7:57:56 PM

Things are fine. I believe you are mistaken, however. Munroe wanted to see OBC in the pink dress. I merely wanted to know if this was intended as an insult along with him wanting to see OBC in a gay pride parade.

Of course, the other conclusion could be that Munroe likes OBC but I don't tell tales out of school.

Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2007-06-25 8:01:19 PM

Russ -

1. As both truewest and I have pointed out --- it doesn't matter if something is owned and operated by a private individual, partnership, corporation, non-profit society or registered charity. If the entity offers goods and services to the public it is subject to human rights legislation. This is not new or a recent change. Segregated lunch counters, blacks riding in the back of the bus, etc. have been illegal in the U.S. since the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Alberta has had anti-discrimination legislation since 1972 ( although as you correctly point out it did not include sexual orientation until the Vriend case).

2. My point about the St. Andrew Centre is that, contrary to your claim that it is some sort of sacred "consecrated" space, the place is a profit making entity with shareholders.

3. I was going to reproduce paragraph 124 of the K of C decision here ( which sets out how they discriminated , which again was NOT because they refused to rent the hall ) but truewest has accurately paraphrased it above.

4. I don't know why lawyers are telling churches what you claim they are about renting facilities because so far as I am aware (and I'm a lawyer that deals with the Charter and human rights legislation frequently) every time a religious institution has faced a challenge based on that legislation the court or tribunal has come down on the side of religion. These include the K of C case, Bishop Henry's right to speak out against homosexuality and a number of cases that hold that that religious conformance is a bona fide qualification for employment ( once again truewest beat me to the punch on that one).

Posted by: Nbob | 2007-06-25 8:25:55 PM

It strikes me that there are many alternative explanations for the obc/munroe/pink dress situation. Most I'd prefer not to think about. (But hey, be my guest) My point, though, was that Munroe being homophobic was one of the least likely. Anyways, I digress. Have pleasant evening.

Posted by: truewest | 2007-06-25 8:56:38 PM


I'm constantly being reminded how bad my civilization is. Racism, sexism, homophobia and that it is a stain that I can never wash away. I just thought it applied, too, to people who actually used stereotypical references in an attempt to embarass another. Oh, well! Different strokes for different...well, let's not finish that.

Thank you for the pleasant wishes. I wish you the same.

Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2007-06-25 9:04:52 PM

What's with the deafening silence? Since Whatcott is the only person making any real noise about this, I assume he's your source, but perhaps I'm mistaken. Or is this one of the deep dark secrets of the religious right, something you can neither confirm or deny. Either way, come out, come out, wherever you are.

Posted by: truewest | 2007-06-26 6:46:59 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.