[ASLplease]

DerbyX DerbyX:

ASLplease ASLplease:

this is just more liberal BS, how can refusing to marry a same sex couple be any different than a pharmacist that refuses to sell the morning after pill?

They aren't allowed to do that either and the same thing applies. If you can't do your job because of your beliefs then find another job.

i can apreciate what you are trying to say, but its not a universal truth.

[DerbyX]

Yes but its a public service. Would you agree if it were say a muslim pharmacist refusing to serve jews? How about a white refusing to serve a black?

Would you be so forgiving if your wife or child were in an accident and they died because the doctor refused to give them blood or adequate medical care because of their religious beliefs?

[ASLplease]

Yes but its a public service.

a service that has been imposed on the employee long after they enter into a contract of employment

Would you agree if it were say a muslim pharmacist refusing to serve jews?

pobably not

How about a white refusing to serve a black?

probably not

Would you be so forgiving if your wife or child were in an accident and they died because the doctor refused to give them blood or adequate medical care because of their religious beliefs?

no, however, in some countries, that is exactly what would happen, and if you changed the rules, you certainly shouldn't fire the whole lot of them.

[llama66]

ASLplease ASLplease:

Yes but its a public service.

a service that has been imposed on the employee long after they enter into a contract of employment

Would you agree if it were say a muslim pharmacist refusing to serve jews?

pobably not

How about a white refusing to serve a black?

probably not

Would you be so forgiving if your wife or child were in an accident and they died because the doctor refused to give them blood or adequate medical care because of their religious beliefs?

no, however, in some countries, that is exactly what would happen, and if you changed the rules, you certainly shouldn't fire the whole lot of them.

he's Public employee, he hasn't the luxury (or the right) of deciding who to marry or who not to marry, it would be like a cop deciding he will enforce one section of the criminal code, but not another. if the commissioner has such an issue with gay marrage, he can always resign. moreover He violated section 15 of the Charter which reads,

15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.

(2) Subsection (1) does not preclude any law, program or activity that has as its object the amelioration of conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups including those that are disadvantaged because of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.

[ASLplease]

he never denied anyone anything, he simple refused to do it. the couple was free to get married somewhere else, possibly the same office by someone else.

the charter speaks of the right to same sex marriage, not the right to fire someone if they won't marry 2 fags in a job that they have historically held.

allowing 2 fags to marry = good

not providing for a way that people can keep their jobs without violating their religion = sounds like a bitter scheme dreamed up by some religion hating homos.

[DerbyX]

I don't think fags is an appropriate term do you?

As my examples above you would "probably not" be supportive of my examples. This is no different. If you are supportive of him being allowed his religious freedom in such a manner that it adversely affects others then you are all for other religions doing the same?

[llama66]

your choice of words say it all. so refusing to marry these people is not the same as to deny them? lets look at the definition of deny, shall we?

de⋅ny  [di-nahy]
–verb (used with object), -nied, -ny⋅ing.
1.to state that (something declared or believed to be true) is not true: to deny an accusation.
2.to refuse to agree or accede to: to deny a petition.
3.to withhold the possession, use, or enjoyment of: to deny access to secret information.
4.to withhold something from, or refuse to grant a request of: to deny a beggar.
5.to refuse to recognize or acknowledge; disown; disavow; repudiate: to deny one's gods.
6.to withhold (someone) from accessibility to a visitor: The secretary denied his employer to all those without appointments.
7.Obsolete. to refuse to take or accept.

The Commissioner is an uninformed homophobic bigot, and got everything he deserved. He must accept the will of the people, and the will of the people has allowed for same-sex marriage, it doesn't matter if he's historically held a job or not, job requirements change, and if this loser can't change with his job then he doesn't deserve to keep it. Its this type of attitude that led to segregation in the southern US, and its the resistance to change that led to the shit down there and the racial tensions the still exist there today, its time to join us in the 21 century.

[westmanguy]

Agree with the above sentiments.

He`s an employee of the federal government. He has to follow the laws and policies of the government.

We are not talking about forcing ministers or priests to marry same sex couples. This man is employed by the government and paid by public tax dollars to commission marriages therefore he has to follow the government`s laws or find another bloody job.

Christian moron.

[KorbenDeck]

I believe that if you work for the government your own personal opinions should not have any sway with what you can or can't do. You are to uphold the rules and will of the government.

[GreenTiger]

I'm straight and fairly straight laced, but tHe statement "God hates homosexuals" is really off the deep end.

If he feels that way in his private life and Church that's his business, but as a public official his job is to follow the law wather you are talking about the Charter of Right or the Bill of Rights it's the same idea.

[kenmore]

ASLplease ASLplease:

this is just more liberal BS, how can refusing to marry a same sex couple be any different than a pharmacist that refuses to sell the morning after pill?

If you have to ask this question... then ..........
liberal BS? its the guys job to marry people and that includes same sex couples in this country.. his own religious beliefs have nothing to do with it.. I am a Roman Catholic and a nurse. I am taught not to believe in abortion.. I worked in hospitals that did abortions.. If I had a problem with working there I would have quit. This guy had no right to refuse on any grounds as a public civil servant. He should have lost his job!

[kenmore]

PS... sounds more like conservative bullshit to me!

[raydan]

Like a police officer who refuses to arrest a pusher because he believes drugs should be legalized.

[ASLplease]

The mining act in BC says that you have right to refuse to do any work that you feel is unsafe.

There have been cases where people have refused to do something because they felt it was unsafe, and they were disciplined because some other employee(often the stupid guy) agreed to do it.

In such case, government arbitrators have ruled that an employee has the right to refuse to do something that they feel is unsafe even if it is something unique to themselves.

My point is simple....if you have 100,000 employees and you change their job descriptions where 1% are faced with a conflict of interest with their religion......YOU DONT FIRE THEM, AND YOU CERTAINLY DONT FORCE THEM TO DO SOMETHING THAT IS AGAINST THEIR RELIGION. Whenever, a same sex couple comes in for a marriage, let that 1% go down to the archives department to do some filing, or let them push a broom. The other 99,000 is a thousand times more people than we need to perform marriages of same sex.

It's ridiculous to assume that all 100,000 workers need to be willing to perform a same sex marriage.

[llama66]

ASLplease ASLplease:

The mining act in BC says that you have right to refuse to do any work that you feel is unsafe.

There have been cases where people have refused to do something because they felt it was unsafe, and they were disciplined because some other employee(often the stupid guy) agreed to do it.

In such case, government arbitrators have ruled that an employee has the right to refuse to do something that they feel is unsafe even if it is something unique to themselves.

My point is simple....if you have 100,000 employees and you change their job descriptions where 1% are faced with a conflict of interest with their religion......YOU DONT FIRE THEM, AND YOU CERTAINLY DONT FORCE THEM TO DO SOMETHING THAT IS AGAINST THEIR RELIGION. Whenever, a same sex couple comes in for a marriage, let that 1% go down to the archives department to do some filing, or let them push a broom. The other 99,000 is a thousand times more people than we need to perform marriages of same sex.

It's ridiculous to assume that all 100,000 workers need to be willing to perform a same sex marriage.

Are you really that simple? do you really think that this guy has the right to not perform same sex unions? The Commissioners role in government is to provide services to ALL citizens, not just the ones he happens to decide fall in line with his so-called moral code. give your head a shake. He has to serve the will of the people, not the other way around. This is not the BC mining act, its the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms we are talking about (and FYI you must be able to demonstrate a clear hazard or danger to your person for a particular job to be considered unsafe.) If there is a conflict of interest with a job you MUST remove yourself, you can't discriminate against someone especially if you acting on the behalf of the provincial or federal government. Remember PUBLIC SERVANT, not Servant of the Church, if you are a minister and you don't wish to perform a same-sex union, fine, no one can stop you, but if you are a Public or Civil Servant than you obligation is to the people, all people regardless of colour, creed, sexual orientation, male, female, tall, short, fat, skinny, etc. And yes, if there are 100,000 people and their job description changes and 1% can't cope with the change, yes they deserve to lose their job, why should the government keep people unwilling to do their job? If you had a job and your job description changed and you refused to change with the job, would you expect to keep your job? or do you think the company would just instead terminate you as you are not performing the task assigned to you? As I said at the outset, Religion and State do not mix, and Canada is a secular nation. We haven't had Canon Law for about 400 years.