Wednesday, January 26, 2005

Lesbians Launch Attack on Nights of Columbus

From the CBC and from The Last Amazon we hear of this Madness on the west coast.

Deborah Chymyshyn and Tracey Smith rented a Knights of Columbus hall in Port Coquitlam for their wedding reception back in 2003. They allege the group cancelled the booking after finding out it was for a same-sex couple. The women claim it's discriminatory to offer a facility to the public and then say a particular group can't use it.

The B.C. Human Rights Tribunal began hearing their case on Monday. The couple's lawyer, Barbara Findlay, said they didn't realize a Catholic group operated the hall when they rented it. She said that after the women paid their deposit and sent out their wedding invitations, the Knights of Columbus backed out. "They got a call saying they had learned the celebration was in relation to a same-sex marriage and they couldn't countenance that, so they cancelled the booking," said Findlay.

The head of the Knights of Columbus in Port Coquitlam, Elemer Lazar, declined a CBC News request for an interview. But he has said in the past that he doesn't understand why a same-sex couple would want to book a Catholic facility.
I know lawyers have the capacity to look you in the eye and tell the most extraordinary tales, the foundation of which is not readily comprehensible to the non-legal brain, but this is a good one. We are supposed to believe Barbara Findlay's assertion that her clients didn't know the Knights of Columbus was an organization of Catholic men dedicated to living their lives in adherence with the teachings of the Catholic faith? Sorry, this is simply not credible, Ms Findlay.
Why even make such a statement? Now that the happy couple does know of the knights' religious convictions, they are proceeding to trample them under in their pursuit of their newly-minted lesbian marriage rights. Is the statement, then, only a ploy to portray your clients as the victims in this tawdry attack dog scenario? One is compelled to wonder.

As for Grand Knight Elemer Lazar, who doesn't understand why a same-sex couple would want to book a Catholic facility, I extend my sincere sympathies. You are evidently not sensitive to the politics of the gay rights agenda. Rest assured that by the end of this affair you and your fellow knights will be. Sensitivity to "rights" is not extended in this liberal society to those who base actions on deeply held religious convictions. Accommodation on that basis is now made grudgingly, if at all.

At the risk of being accused of engaging in the un-Catholic practice of divination, let me make the following prediction. Your KofC council will be ground into hamburger by the human rights commission, the gay rights lobby and most of the mass media. Prepare to repel boarders! When things get nasty, as they most surely will, remember the psalms.

"I shall not fear the dark of night, nor the arrows that fly by day."

The rest of us? Remember this story as you consider the Liberal government's spin that religious groups will not be affected by same-sex marriage. The Liberal bill may protect clergy from having to marry same-sex couples, but human rights commissions operating under entirely separate provincial legislation, will almost certainly demand they hold the receptions for the newlyweds in their church halls. You can count on it.


At 1:42 pm, January 26, 2005 , Blogger Chris said...


What worries me most of all about some of the current trends in global politics is that the most fundamental rights which were fought over and won centuries ago are now under assault.

Self-determination and democracy seems to be a word mouthed in cynicism by half the people who practice it, with only the right in the United States really seeming to keep that flame alive. Althought recent events in Georgia and the Ukraine do give me hope that our old fashioned and quaint "bourgoise" value is still desirable to some who truly know its absence.

Freedom of speach is under assault, in Canada you can be hauled before human rights commissions simply for imparting your religious beliefs as long as your a white christian. Simmilair events have occurred in Australia, and it would seem Tony Blair wishes to legislate any criticism of Islam out of the UK.

Freedom of religious, perhaps the oldest, most blood soaked right to have been won on now ancient battlefields has become "the freedom to believe in some sort of religion but to never talk about it in public or allow it to influence your potential political judgements under any and all circumstances." As opposed to the basic right to practice or not practice as you saw fit, without the state trying to impose a particular religious doctrine upon you. In the name of freedom of religious, religious intolerance at least towards Christians and general anti-clericalism is slowly becoming state policy enthusiastically supported by the Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal media axis.

Not to mention the expansion of the theuroputic state where Dalton McGuinty and company seem intent on removing one's ability to exercise one's own decisions and descretion, but to have one's life wholly regulated by the state. That glimmer secular god of the left.

Basic freedoms are in a sorry state in Canada.

At 11:19 am, January 27, 2005 , Blogger John the Mad said...

I essentially agree with you. The Yanks and Australians are willing to fight for these things.

I have never muched liked human rights commissions, which use a lower standard of proof ("balance of probabilities" rather than "beyond reasonable doubt")to convict people where a court of law would and could not. These tribunals are given far too much power and are staffed with people whose political phiosophy is "progressive" to say the least.


Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home