GAY TRUTH

Image via Wikipedia OTTAWA, Ontario , - In much of the judicial world today arguments are made which don’t get to the heart of the issue, but are made to fit within judicial precedents and court standards in order to achieve specific rulings.  That reality is often frustrating for the public who are led to wonder if the fullness of truth ever reaches the ears of judges called to provide justice. It’s been nearly two months since the Supreme Court of Canada heard what will likely be the nation’s seminal case on homosexual ‘hate speech’ and religious freedom. The case, Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission (SHRC) v.  William Whatcott  involves a well-known pro-family activist who pushes the boundaries of free speech with what many regard as crude flyers detailing the physical health risks of homosexual sex acts. The Tribunal found that Whatcott had violated section 14(1)(b) of the province’s human rights code, which prohibits speech that “exposes or tends to expose to hatred, ridicul

Image via Wikipedia OTTAWA, October 13, 2011 - A case argued before the Supreme Court yesterday, if decided the wrong way, could result in “a virtual open season on anyone communicating a religiously informed position on any matter of public policy,” according to Don Hutchinson , general legal counsel for the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada , which intervened in the case - Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission ( SHRC ) v. William Whatcott.  The four-hour-long hearing had a record 21 interveners arguing both sides of a sharply divided stance on free and religious speech vs. hate speech and its interpretation by human rights commissions and tribunals. Image via Wikipedia   Hutchinson presented second to last and thus took in all the previous argumentation noting several startling positions. Saskatchewan human rights commission considers reading from Paul in Bible on TV could be hate speech The SHRC brought Whatcott before the Saskatchewan Human Rights Tribunal in 2006 over his prac

Image via Wikipedia Two more Canadian bishops have joined their voices with that of  Calgary Bishop Fred Henry  in condemning a Saskatchewan Court of Appeal ruling that denied marriage commissioners the right to refuse to perform same-sex “marriages.” In a new pastoral letter, Archbishop Daniel Bohan of Regina, Saskatchewan has challenged the government to work protect freedom of conscience rights. “The threat of loss of one’s job and employment certainly raises the spectre of coercion upon a person if it is demanded of that person that he or she do something that they believe to be wrong in order to keep their livelihood,” Archbishop Bohan wrote.  “It will take skillful action on the part of our government leaders to guarantee the freedom of conscience of its citizens.” On the heels of the court ruling, the Saskatchewan government announced that commissioners who refuse to “marry” same-sex couples will be fired. While Archbishop Bohan agreed with the court’s statement that

Image via Wikipedia Marriage commissioners in Saskatchewan will be fired for refusing to “marry” same-sex couples, the province’s government announced Tuesday. Justice Minister Don Morgan said he’s sending commissioners a letter promulgating last week’s Saskatchewan Court of Appeal ruling, which found that commissioners’ Charter rights to freedom of religion and conscience are outweighed by homosexuals ’ right to freedom from discrimination. Allowing commissioners to refuse performing same-sex “marriages” would send “a strong and sinister message” that “gays and lesbians are less worthy of protection as individuals in Canada’s society,” the court had said. The ruling from the province’s top court came in response to a reference from the government, prompted by the case of marriage commissioner Orville Nichols, who was fined $2,500 in June 2008 by the Saskatchewan Human Rights Tribunal for refusing to marry a same-sex couple.   The Tribunal decision was upheld by the province’s

Image via Wikipedia The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal declared this morning that proposed legislative amendments that would have allowed Saskatchewan ’s marriage commissioners to refuse to perform same-sex “marriages” on religious grounds are unconstitutional. The Saskatchewan government had proposed two potential legislative options to deal with situations where some marriage commissioners were called before the Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission or the Courts for refusing to perform same-sex “marriages”: one amendment would have permitted marriage commissioners appointed before November 5, 2004 to refuse to solemnize a marriage contrary to their religious beliefs, and a second would have allowed any marriage commissioner, no matter when they were appointed, the same right. The court said that its decision was based on section 15(1) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms which prohibits discrimination based on characteristics such as race and sex.  Though the Charter makes no m