Talk:Egale Canada

message: I oppose what EGALE lobbies for, but I would not descend to the contemptible level of deleting all kinds of descriptive text and inserting profanities and insults.
However, I believe EGALE would not stand against, or EGALE would itself actively support, actions that would deny people of deep Godly faith the right to stand on their beliefs, practice their beliefs, speak of their beliefs, and maintain their beliefs. I defend Chris Kempling; I defend the Toronto printer who was ordered to print homosexual literature that violated his beliefs; I defend the PEI couple who had to close their B&B to not admit homosexual men to share a room; I defend Christian churches that rightly (in the sight of God) refuse to perform same-sex marriages.
How long will EGALE (or people that EGALE accepts as members) wait before supporting a challenge against these expressions of the right of freedom of speech and thought?
GBC 07:03, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I defend the Toronto printer who was ordered to print Jewish literature; I defend the PEI couple who had to close their B&B to not admit black men to a room;
It would be quite different wouldn't it? Or would it be just as offensive. A basic principle of our society is that someone running a business cannot discriminate against black people, or Jews, and now, the same is true for gays and lesbians, because our society has evolved.
Gcapp's second point is not supportable -- the "slippery slope" argument is an old and feeble debating trick. If you can't win convince people of your position in an argument, you try to switch the argument to one where they will agree with you. Egale has never, ever argued that churches should be forced to marry anyone. Never. Not once. Saying "Oh well, that's what they'll do next" is baseless speculation. Furthermore, since no-one has ever used the Charter of Rights and Freedoms to force a synagogue to marry a non-Jew, or a Catholic church to marry a divorced person, there is no reason to believe that anyone would be able to use it to force a church to marry same-sex couples. Freedom of religion is protected in the Charter as well, and that is the freedom that would prevail in determining whether a church should marry anyone. A restaurant, a print shop, a B&B -- that is a different matter. There, freedom from discrimination by a licensed business prevails over the religious views of its owners. 
I find it interesting that the opponents of Bill C38 wrap themselves in the banner of "religious freedom" while campaiging to get the Government to prohibit United Churches, Reform Synagogues, Quaker assemblies, and so on, from performing legal marriages of same-sex couples, even though these organizations believe that doing so is consistent with their faith and interpretations of their scriptures. "Let's protect religious freedom by having the Government -- and not the churhces -- decide who they cannot marry." Odd. Ground Zero | t 20:13, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: We can oppose without being goofy vandals

message: On April 11, 2006, NTK replaced the Canadian flag in this template with a rainbow version of the Canadian flag. 
Since this is only one of the articles affected, please give your comments at this central location: Template talk:GR-C 
Wuzzy 03:40, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Is rainbow Canada flag better?

message: As a law student who has studied the Supreme Court case of Little Sisters Book and Art Emporium v. Canada (Minister of Justice) [2000] 2 S.C.R. 1120, I take issue with the statement "decried the heavy-handed censorship practices of Canada Customs and helped Little Sisters Bookstore win their court case" in 2.2 of this article.
First of all, it's not exactly accurate to say that Little Sisters "won" this case.  The Supreme Court did say that the border practices were discriminatory, however, the court neither struck down nor read down the legislation as Little Sisters had requested in their factum (See paras. 156-157 of Little Sisters' factum, available at http://www.bccla.org/othercontent/lsfactum.html).  In fact, the only constitutional violation the majority of the court found with respect to the legislation was the "reverse onus" provision of s.152(3) of the Customs Act.  Given the huge difference between what Little Sisters had asked from the court and what was granted, I think it's entirely inaccurate to say that they "won" their case.  
More than that, though, it's arguable as to whether any victory that Little Sisters did achieve was supported by Egale.  Some scholars have actually argued that Egale's intervention in the case in fact undermined Little Sisters' submission that the obscenity law are discriminatory and a violation of s.15 equality rights.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Horpy (talk • contribs) 23:25, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Re: Little Sisters case