I'd like to note that this topic has gone to hell and off course and yet Trevor still keeps it here and doesn't bitch like he does in the Liberal section.

I said it would happen and I was right. Damn that was quick.

This has gone off topic has it? The only one off topic here is you.

I refer to the Scott Brockie case, although there are other cases before this nation's courts that I could cite as equally effective illustrations.

In April 1996, Scott Brockie and his family's Toronto printing business, Imaging Excellence, were approached with an order for letterhead, envelopes and business cards for the Canadian Lesbian and Gay Archives. Mr. Brockie, who is a Christian, refused to accept the order as it contravened his religious conscience to assist an organization's activities that directly promoted homosexuality, which he believed to be a sin.

Two months later, a representative from the Archives filed a complaint with the Ontario Human Rights Commission, asserting that Mr. Brockie had denied the individual commercial services based on the man's sexual orientation.

In September 1999, Mr. Brockie and Imaging Excellence were found guilty of what was called discriminatory conduct. He was forced to pay a penalty to the Archives of $5,000 and to provide the printing services he had originally refused; in other words, to perform an act that he regarded as being unethical or immoral.

(1250)

All of this occurred despite the fact that Mr. Brockie was able to demonstrate in court that he had provided printing services to homosexuals in the past and that his objection was to the policy objectives of the organization seeking the use of his services rather than to the sexual orientation of the representative who approached him.

Later, the Ontario Supreme Court rejected Mr. Brockie's request to overturn the decision. The Superior Court had initially awarded Mr. Brockie $25,000 in costs, a decision that the Human Rights Commission and the archives successfully appealed to the Court of Appeals. As a result, Mr. Brockie must now foot a legal bill of $40,000.

In upholding the initial decision of the Canadian Human Rights Commission, the Ontario Superior Court engaged a logic that, if fully applied, would mean that freedom of conscience has no meaning under Canadian law, except that with which it is endowed by judges who more often than not will not share the religious or ethical beliefs of those upon whose right to act according to conscience they are ruling.

The court started in paragraph 51 of its ruling by citing with approval an earlier case in which the Supreme Court of Canada had “expressed some of the elements of freedom of religion and necessary limits on it”, that is, freedom of religion. It went on to state:

The further [a given] activity is from the core elements of the freedom, the more likely the activity is to impact on others and the less deserving the activity is of protection. Service of the public in a commercial activity must be considered at the periphery of activities protected by freedom of religion.


The court went on to say, “Mr. Brockie's exercise of his right of freedom of religion in the commercial marketplace is, at best, at the fringes of that right”. It then made an argument in paragraph 56 of its decision that deserves to be quoted at length:

If any particular printing project ordered [of] Mr. Brockie...contained material that conveyed a message proselytizing and promoting the gay and lesbian lifestyle or ridiculing his religious beliefs, such material might reasonably be held to be in direct conflict with the core elements of Mr. Brockie's religious beliefs. On the other hand, if the particular printing object contained a directory of goods and services that might be of interest to the gay and lesbian community, that material might reasonably be held not to be in direct conflict with the core elements of Mr. Brockie's religious beliefs.


Let me start by making the obvious observation of the astounding arrogance of this claim. How can the court know what Mr. Brockie's core religious beliefs are? How can it determine what is core and fundamental to his conscience? When he says certain things are core to his beliefs, how can the court say that no, they are not, that he misunderstands what his own beliefs are and the court will dictate them to him?

Not sure if this is on topic or not....

I know there is a group of Muslims in the London Ontario area that have been buying up abattoirs around Southwestern Ontario and they have stopped the processing of pigs even though they aren't actually at each abattoir doing the work. I also understand they have been trying to find farmers to supply them with lamb....

Your not sure if this is on topic? I'd say not.... what exactly are you saying anyways? I dont really understand...

Just a small "Defense of Religion" example that is already happening. I know people that have been refused butchering services for pork by a abattoir location that had processed their pigs for years...decades even...

Will people be able to refuse service to Muslim women that refuse to show their face?

Can I refuse to serve someone that refuses to remove their headwear, baseball caps included, when they enter my place of business?

Can I refuse to serve a goth(they might worship Satan)?

Could a Muslim refuse to serve a woman that isn't accompanied by a man?

Could a white supremist refuse to serve a 'person of colour'?

Could a Christian refuse to serve a single mother?

Hardy mentions a line but why should that line only apply to homosexuality?

I completey agree. But your thinking in reverse. IF this was ok then those things might become reality. The opposite view point would used. Such as "if its ok for me to deny business to gays, then I can refuse business to all goths". That sort of thing.