Knights of Columbus fined over SSM reception refusal
cdncutie @ Tue Nov 29, 2005 7:06 pm
ShepherdsDog ShepherdsDog:
cdncutie cdncutie:
I've read about Ms. Findlay. She is very aggressive on these issues.
tch tch you capitalized the wingnut's last name.
oh yes...i forgot...barbara findlay...lol
hwacker @ Tue Nov 29, 2005 7:07 pm
Lesbian and gay rights attorney, that’s shocking. 
ridenrain @ Tue Nov 29, 2005 7:10 pm
Come on, you need to follow it up with the politically correct,
"not that there's anything wrong with that"
One needs to be careful in these times..
and wash you're hands a lot!
Robair @ Tue Nov 29, 2005 7:10 pm
IceOwl IceOwl:
Robair Robair:
What's next? They have to rent to the Hells Angels or the KKK? If the Catholic Church is against same sex weddings then that is what the Knights are to uphold.
Are you saying that being gay is a criminal act?
Are you saying that belonging to the Hells Angels or the KKK is a criminal act???
cndncutie cndncutie:
Robair, I understand your argument.
I guess I struggle with what the line is between what is a religious organization and an organziation or business with a religious ideology. When the right to refuse 'business' extends beyond the church the issues become blurred.
A business is for profit. The Knights are a charitable organization. That is where the line is drawn... I think...
I guess I struggle with what the line is between what is a religious organization and an organziation or business with a religious ideology. When the right to refuse 'business' extends beyond the church the issues become blurred.
themasta @ Tue Nov 29, 2005 7:21 pm
How can someone be unaware that the KofC is a Catholic organization? Did they not check into the people they were renting the hall from? No bride to be (let alone two of them!) would make such an error unless they were purposely attempting to stir up shit. They knew damn well that the Knights would turn them down once it was discovered the hall would be used for a gay wedding reception. This was just to force their will on an organization they see as hostile to gay marriage. I read an article in the Edmonton Journal (or National Post) and even started a thread on it (if I remember correctly) and with what I read, the Knights not only re-imbursed the couple they found an alternate hall and payed to have new invitations made up. Now I'm not sure which media source is correct but I tend to think the Knights would have done the right thing in finding alternate accomodations for the couple. I'm a Knight and I'm not saying the fine was inappropriate only that this situation seems rather suspect. If they truly didn't know, fair enough, but if they did, they were taking advantage of an organization committed to charity and abused it to further their own agenda. Doesn't get any more immoral in my opinion.
PluggyRug @ Tue Nov 29, 2005 7:40 pm
Our masonic hall is rented out on a regular basis.
No questions asked, we need the revenue.
Jaime_Souviens @ Tue Nov 29, 2005 8:11 pm
PluggyRug PluggyRug:
Our masonic hall is rented out on a regular basis.
No questions asked, we need the revenue.
No questions asked, we need the revenue.
I knew you were in on a global conspiracy, I just couldn't figure out which one.
MaelstromRider @ Tue Nov 29, 2005 9:02 pm
themasta themasta:
How can someone be unaware that the KofC is a Catholic organization? Did they not check into the people they were renting the hall from? No bride to be (let alone two of them!) would make such an error unless they were purposely attempting to stir up shit. They knew damn well that the Knights would turn them down once it was discovered the hall would be used for a gay wedding reception. This was just to force their will on an organization they see as hostile to gay marriage. I read an article in the Edmonton Journal (or National Post) and even started a thread on it (if I remember correctly) and with what I read, the Knights not only re-imbursed the couple they found an alternate hall and payed to have new invitations made up. Now I'm not sure which media source is correct but I tend to think the Knights would have done the right thing in finding alternate accomodations for the couple. I'm a Knight and I'm not saying the fine was inappropriate only that this situation seems rather suspect. If they truly didn't know, fair enough, but if they did, they were taking advantage of an organization committed to charity and abused it to further their own agenda. Doesn't get any more immoral in my opinion.
Sounds like the Knights did the right thing.
Even if the bride to be and her bride to be didn't know it was a religious group, I still think the KoC were well within thier rights to refuse to provide the service.
Istanbul @ Sat Dec 03, 2005 2:42 pm
The Human Rights Tribunal went too far in their ruling. They are not supposed to rule if the Knights were polite enough. The Knights said they were courteous and offered to refund the deposit.
Looks like a win win situation for the lesbian couple IMO. If it went ahead they pulled a fast one over the religious group. If they later found out and pulled the plug old Human Rights could be relied upon to fund the marriage elsewhere.
When I remarry I will ensure it is in a Knights hall. 
Wullu @ Sun Dec 25, 2005 8:25 pm
No one ever said they were a smart SSM couple. I am an atheist and even I know the KoC is a religious organization..........