Knights of Columbus fined over SSM reception refusal
ShepherdsDog @ Tue Nov 29, 2005 5:29 pm
http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national ... 51129.html
The Knights of Columbus have been fined $ 2 000.00 by a Human Rights tribunal, over there refusal to allow a lesbian couple to use their hall for a wedding reception. The money is to be paid to the two women for the embarassment caused to them. Do you agree with this fine or do you think it's the first step towards forcing religious organizations to accept SSM?
hwacker @ Tue Nov 29, 2005 5:30 pm
What made them pick that place ?
ShepherdsDog @ Tue Nov 29, 2005 5:39 pm
I remember them being interviewed and they claimed that they were unaware that the KoC was a religious organization.
cdncutie @ Tue Nov 29, 2005 6:02 pm
How is a hall owned by the KOC different than a room in a restaurant owned by a Baptist? The restaurant owner shouldn't be able to refuse to rent it for SSM celebrations and neither should the KOC.
There is a difference between churches and property and businesses owned by religious groups or religious individuals. Fine is appropriate.
ridenrain @ Tue Nov 29, 2005 6:14 pm
Shesh.. didn't anybody read that?
The girls give a deposit and sign a contract to rent the hall. The Knights realize that this is a SSM and cancel the contract. They are within their rights to do so, but the judge gives the girls $1000 each for the humiliation, and because the church has deep pockets.
Most of us agree that religion and the gov. should be seperate but the flip side is the gov. cannot dictate that the church accept SSMs. This is where the wicket gets sticky indeed.
Pesonal: The knights broke the contract so they should pay. They should have been more observant but there's no telling if the girls were hiding their intentions. If there was deception involved, that might cancel the contract and it might be a draw.
Robair @ Tue Nov 29, 2005 6:15 pm
The fine is wrong.
The Knights of Columbus is a Catholic organization dedicated to fundraising for charities and promoting Catholic ideals. The hall in question is the "headquarters" of that Knights of Columbus chapter. They rent their "headquarters" out to events that are within Catholic boundries.
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.
I'm all for same sex unions, but don't force them on my church and my organization.
I am a Knight.
*edit*
oops, I posted the same time as ridenrain. No I didn't read the article, just Sheps summary. My response was to cdncuties reasoning. Sorry. Yes, I now understand the fine.
cdncutie @ Tue Nov 29, 2005 6:29 pm
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.
bossdog @ Tue Nov 29, 2005 6:35 pm
I'm on the fence with this situation. I feel the KoC was right to refuse service however, they had rectracted a binding contract. For that reason, not becuase it a homosexual event, the patrons should be compensated or bought out of the contract just like any other business relationship.
ridenrain @ Tue Nov 29, 2005 6:50 pm
Just as we thought.. there was more to this:
The Judge ruled that if the Knights had helped the couple find an alternate location, she would have thrown it out with no charges.
The lawyer for the couple, Lesbian and gay rights attorney barbara findlay, said that would still be unnacceptable. It sounds like she has a huge axe to grind. (not that there's anything wrong with that.. 
)
barbara findlay
Angry in the Great White North
ShepherdsDog @ Tue Nov 29, 2005 6:58 pm
$1:
The Human Rights Tribunal suggested that had the Knights found an alternate location sufficient for the needs for the reception, they would have met the burden of accommodating them.
Seems fair, given that the Knights had initially agreed to host the reception (apparently when the women originally showed up to rent the hall, the person who took the book assumed that they were relatives representing a heterosexual couple).
But for findlay, that would have been unacceptable. For her, the "war" is about making sure that gays and lesbians have the right to go anywhere and at anytime and celebrate their homosexuality. A Gay Pride Parade 24/7. And if anyone tries to lock a door to a hall, a school, a church -- well, that door is going to get kicked down.
Seems fair, given that the Knights had initially agreed to host the reception (apparently when the women originally showed up to rent the hall, the person who took the book assumed that they were relatives representing a heterosexual couple).
But for findlay, that would have been unacceptable. For her, the "war" is about making sure that gays and lesbians have the right to go anywhere and at anytime and celebrate their homosexuality. A Gay Pride Parade 24/7. And if anyone tries to lock a door to a hall, a school, a church -- well, that door is going to get kicked down.
So it's not about equal rights for all, it's about a minority being able to impose its own agenda and beliefs on others.
cdncutie @ Tue Nov 29, 2005 7:00 pm
I've read about Ms. Findlay. She is very aggressive on these issues.
ShepherdsDog @ Tue Nov 29, 2005 7:02 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?
No, he's saying that the Church shouldn't have to accept individuals and groups who engage in morally reprehensible acts according to their doctrine.
ShepherdsDog @ Tue Nov 29, 2005 7:03 pm
cdncutie cdncutie:
I've read about Ms. Findlay. She is very aggressive on these issues.
tch tch you capitalized the wingnut's last name.