Likely the first of many
The first of what will likely be many "I TOLD YOU SO" posts... from the CBC... "Official refused to marry gay couple, rights tribunal hears".
When I worked at a local Hospital, I once got a call from the "Gyne-Specialty Clinic". Two guesses as to what that was a code-word for. Anyway, it was just an information call, I didn't actually have to do anything to assist them. That day, I said to my co-worker, "If I EVER get a call from that department again, I'm putting them on hold, and I'm transferring the call to you." Why? Because I REFUSED to actively assist a department that I knew to be performing abortions. Was it in my job description to help them? Yep, it sure was. But if push came to shove, I wasn't going to budge... I would NOT lend any assistance in the murder of human beings. Thankfully, the situation never arose again.
The Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission is presently reviewing a review of a decision (yes, three steps there, a review of a review of a decision) that says that a man of faith has no right to refuse to marry a same-sex couple if it violates his religious beliefs.
Yes, he is an employee of the Crown, employed to perform civil marriages. But here's the problem... when he was hired, he was hired knowing what his job description was. There was no problem back then in regards to his religious beliefs. Now, they've gone and changed the law, and with it, his job description, which now requires him to violate his religious convictions, should the need arise... and they won't make any accommodation for him. (By the way, can an employer legally do that? Just asking)
For the record, he didn't seek to prevent their marriage... he simply indicated that he would be unable to perform the ceremony, and referred them to someone else. That was the right thing to do... allowed him to not violate his conscience, and allowed them to legally marry. That should have been the end of it.
But of course, activism just doesn't know when to quit.
h/t to thePolitic (who also says "I told you so"... like so many of us...)
When I worked at a local Hospital, I once got a call from the "Gyne-Specialty Clinic". Two guesses as to what that was a code-word for. Anyway, it was just an information call, I didn't actually have to do anything to assist them. That day, I said to my co-worker, "If I EVER get a call from that department again, I'm putting them on hold, and I'm transferring the call to you." Why? Because I REFUSED to actively assist a department that I knew to be performing abortions. Was it in my job description to help them? Yep, it sure was. But if push came to shove, I wasn't going to budge... I would NOT lend any assistance in the murder of human beings. Thankfully, the situation never arose again.
The Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission is presently reviewing a review of a decision (yes, three steps there, a review of a review of a decision) that says that a man of faith has no right to refuse to marry a same-sex couple if it violates his religious beliefs.
Yes, he is an employee of the Crown, employed to perform civil marriages. But here's the problem... when he was hired, he was hired knowing what his job description was. There was no problem back then in regards to his religious beliefs. Now, they've gone and changed the law, and with it, his job description, which now requires him to violate his religious convictions, should the need arise... and they won't make any accommodation for him. (By the way, can an employer legally do that? Just asking)
For the record, he didn't seek to prevent their marriage... he simply indicated that he would be unable to perform the ceremony, and referred them to someone else. That was the right thing to do... allowed him to not violate his conscience, and allowed them to legally marry. That should have been the end of it.
But of course, activism just doesn't know when to quit.
h/t to thePolitic (who also says "I told you so"... like so many of us...)
Labels: activism, I told you so, rights, SSM
posted by Christian Conservative @ 9:03 p.m.
12 Comments:
At Thu Feb 01, 08:32:00 a.m. EST,
Anonymous said…
I agree that the government shouldn't be allowed to force non-government employees to perform gay marriages, but as a government employee he is obligated to fulfill his duties, whatever they may entail. If he believes that he shouldn't because of his religious beliefs then he should go find another job. And yes, I'm pretty sure that new duties can be legally added to one's job. If he refuses then he should be fired (just as you should be if you don't perform your duties if helping the Gyne-Specialty Clinic happens to be part of your duties).
And it would be nice if you'd stop calling abortion murder seeing as it technically isn't. Murder is "illegal killing" and since abortion is legal it can't accurately be called murder. Whether it should be murder or not is another issue, but as it stands it isn't currently murder. How about calling it immoral instead? That would be a more accurate label since it falls under that category in your personal moral code.
At Thu Feb 01, 09:29:00 a.m. EST,
Christian Conservative said…
Just because our laws permit things that ought not to be allowed does not make them right.
Abortion is murder... not in the Canadian legal sense, but in the Heavenly sense. Adultery is against Heaven's laws... last time I checked, that was legal... and rampant in this nation. Lying? Let's not even go there... we'd all be "guilty as charged".
You of all people should know better Drew... you know that there is our law, and then there is God's Law. Though we may differ on it's points, you know that they are two different things.
At Thu Feb 01, 09:42:00 a.m. EST,
Luke Coughey said…
I find it very annoying that the "religious" rights of a gay couple supersede the "Religious" rights of a Christian minister.
As to the using the term "murder" to describe abortion, I'm in agreement with Mr. Prescott. God is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow and so are His laws.
At Thu Feb 01, 10:44:00 a.m. EST,
Christian Conservative said…
"For I, the LORD, do not change; therefore you, O sons of Jacob, are not consumed." Malachi 3:6
He does not change, nor do his laws... and it's in our best interest that He not change, lest we all die.
At Thu Feb 01, 03:17:00 p.m. EST,
Anonymous said…
"Abortion is murder... not in the Canadian legal sense, but in the Heavenly sense. Adultery is against Heaven's laws... last time I checked, that was legal... and rampant in this nation. Lying? Let's not even go there... we'd all be "guilty as charged".
You of all people should know better Drew... you know that there is our law, and then there is God's Law. Though we may differ on it's points, you know that they are two different things."
Whether or not God has a law, to go calling abortion "murder" when it isn't from a secular perspective (at least here in Canada) is disingenuous (IMO). Again, call it "immoral" if you want, but calling it murder will not help the anti-abortion cause because the only people it will mean anything to are already anti-abortion. Calling it murder just demonstrates to the rest of us that the anti-abortion side doesn't even know the definition of "murder" so how can we trust them on anything else they're trying to convince us of?
And all that being said, I've read all the Christian anti-abortion defences and have found nothing in there to support the idea that the Bible or God actually condemns abortion. And as far as "God's law" goes, my understanding is that we are not under the law so saying it is against God's law doesn't hold any weight either.
At Thu Feb 01, 04:50:00 p.m. EST,
Anonymous said…
Several points,
I occasionally work for the Federal Government and I can assure you all sorts of "accommodations" are made for people of different faiths, including some teams not scheduling meetings on Fridays as that might conflict with others religious obligations.
In Canada, there is the concept "reasonable accommodation" which implies that officials will bend or change the rules to accommodate someones beliefs. Why does that concept seem to vanish when it comes to Christianity.
Drew;
And as far as "God's law" goes, my understanding is that we are not under the law so saying it is against God's law doesn't hold any weight either.
I have seen some strong arguments that we, as Christians, are under Noahide law. There is also the Didache which some people still consider relevant.
Looking forward to your response...
At Thu Feb 01, 11:51:00 p.m. EST,
Brian in Calgary said…
drew
I agree that the government shouldn't be allowed to force non-government employees to perform gay marriages, but as a government employee he is obligated to fulfill his duties, whatever they may entail. If he believes that he shouldn't because of his religious beliefs then he should go find another job. And yes, I'm pretty sure that new duties can be legally added to one's job.
So by your line of reasoning, we should be able to force non-Christian teachers to participate in Christmas or Easter pageants or face firing?
At Fri Feb 02, 10:43:00 a.m. EST,
Anonymous said…
"So by your line of reasoning, we should be able to force non-Christian teachers to participate in Christmas or Easter pageants or face firing?"
I don't think that Christmas or Easter pageants should even happen in a public school, but I'm fairly sure that participating in them isn't part of anyone's job description apart from, perhaps, a drama teacher.
At Fri Feb 02, 10:56:00 a.m. EST,
Anonymous said…
"I have seen some strong arguments that we, as Christians, are under Noahide law. There is also the Didache which some people still consider relevant.
Looking forward to your response... "
I'm not really sure what to say to that. I don't consider myself to be under any religious law (and as secular laws are nothing more than rules that other humans make up I don't consider myself to be under them either even if I do follow them since I prefer not to go to jail or pay fines. There's nothing ontologically wrong with breaking the law or ontologically good about following it, it all just comes down to power and who has it).
At Fri Feb 02, 04:16:00 p.m. EST,
Brian in Calgary said…
I don't think that Christmas or Easter pageants should even happen in a public school, but I'm fairly sure that participating in them isn't part of anyone's job description apart from, perhaps, a drama teacher.
Good job sidestepping my question. That was a response truly worthy of a leftist. Why don't you believe such pageants should happen in a public school? And, while you're at it, please also answer the question in my previous post.
At Fri Feb 02, 04:35:00 p.m. EST,
Anonymous said…
"Good job sidestepping my question. That was a response truly worthy of a leftist. Why don't you believe such pageants should happen in a public school? And, while you're at it, please also answer the question in my previous post."
I'm not going to try to answer a strawman question (a question truly worthy of a rightist :D ). You asked if "we should be able to force non-Christian teachers to participate in Christmas or Easter pageants or face firing" except that this isn't even an issue in public schools that I'm aware of since teachers aren't currently being forced to do these things (that I'm aware of).
And as a "leftist" I'd think it would be obvious why I don't believe such pageants should happen in a public school.
At Fri Feb 02, 05:30:00 p.m. EST,
Brian in Calgary said…
I'm not going to try to answer a strawman question (a question truly worthy of a rightist :D ).
It wasn't a strawman question at all. I was just trying to see how far you are willing to take your reasoning. By the way, thanks for the compliment (you did call me a rightist).
And as a "leftist" I'd think it would be obvious why I don't believe such pageants should happen in a public school.
It did seem obvious to me, but I knew that I could be wrong. If I was, I didn't want to take the chance on insulting you.
Post a Comment
<< Home