Knights of Columbus versus the Evil Lesbians

[bcholmes]

So, there's a case that was a bit famous during the run up to the same-sex marriage bill: Deborah Chymyshyn and Tracey Smith, a lesbian couple, decided to get married after same-sex marriage became legal in British Columbia. So they booked a hall run by some group called the Knights of Columnbus. They didn't realize that the Knights of Columbus is a Catholic organization, and the Knights of Columbus apparently didn't realize that the two women were marrying each other.

After a bit of time passed, the Knights of Columbus suddenly realized that this was a dreaded, society-destroying same-sex marriage and they cancelled the booking. So Chymyshyn and Smith made a complaint to the B.C. (British Columbia) Human Rights Tribunal saying, basically, we're being discriminated against based on our sexual orientation.

It's a noteworthy case because one of the key protections that the feds talked about during the same-sex marriage debate was the right of religious organizations to refuse to perform same-sex marriage. The fear that the Conservatives were building upon was that gay rights will override religious rights (I wonder where they get that sound byte?)

Last spring, some commentators brought up some interesting wrinkles. They pointed out that if Catholic doctrine completely informed the decision to rent banquet halls, then the Knights of Columbus should refuse to rent their banquet hall to divorcees getting remarried, since divorce is not supported by the Catholic church.

The B.C. Tribunal has ruled that the Knights of Columbus did have the right to cancel the booking on religious grounds, but that they had an obligation to do so respectfully. The Knights should have "met with the couple to explain the situation, formally apologized, and immediately offered to reimburse the couple for the expenses incurred in finding an alternative place, and in notifying guests of the new location". For failing to do so, the Tribunal asked the Knights of Columbus to pay the couple $2,000.

An interesting case. Of course neither side is happy with the outcome, and there will be a judicial review.

Comments

[the-nita.livejournal.com]

An interesting case. Of course neither side is happy with the outcome, and there will be a judicial review.

That's really too bad. It strikes me that the Tribunal came up with a good middle ground, but in this day of "let's sue first", I can see how neither side wants to just walk away.

[elissaann.livejournal.com]

If the Knights of Columbus cancelled the booking with enough time for the couple to find a new place, I don't see how they owe them anything UNLESS they broke a contract. If they broke a contract, hell yeah, they should pay.

[50-ft-queenie.livejournal.com]

Granted, it's not a happy situation, but I think the Tribunal's ruling is fair.

[hellsop.livejournal.com]

Yes. The best judicial results are indicated to be good when both sides feel like things turned out poorly, but not as bad as they might have. In business, the reverse is true. Both side really want to get away from the table before someone changes opinion.

[king-tirian.livejournal.com]

Wow, I think they got it wrong. The KoC is not performing a marriage ceremony at all. They're just renting a room. It's the priest that performs the wedding. This ruling seems like it permits florists or caterers to void the contract once they find out that they don't approve of the circumstances and just pay a modest fine for harming someone's special day (and forcing the couple to go through the hassles of lodging a complaint).

Argh. I wish that we could make a proclamation that renting a room or filling a prescription or whatever does not constitute social endorsement of whatever goes on in that space. I think we all know that on a subconscious level (and you can see how many bar mitzvahs the KoC has rented out to over the years if you don't think they know that), but maybe it would help to say it out loud.

[the_axel]

This ruling seems like it permits florists or caterers to void the contract once they find out

No it doesn't. The ruling specifies that the Knights were guilty of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and had to pay everything the plaintiffs asked for.

[angilong.livejournal.com]

Not as I read it. It basically says they *would* be guilty of discrimination, except that they had circumstances which made it justifiable for them to discriminate. They have to pay not because they discriminated, but because they broke a contract.

[indefatigable42.livejournal.com]

If there was a rental contract that said the KoC reserves the right to cancel any booking at any time for any reason, the ladies would be up the creek. (Ditto if they didn't sign a contract at all.) If there was a contract that didn't say anything like that, the KoC should have to honour the contract either by letting them get married there or finding and paying for alternate space.

This isn't about religion or rights-- it's about legal stupidity. People shouldn't enter into rental agreements without doing research into the people they're renting from or covering their own butts in the case of renters they find 'undesirable'.

[bcholmes.livejournal.com]

I am not a lawyer, but I think it's not legal for a company to say "we reserve the right to cancel at any time for any reason" and also invoke that clause because the clients were black. Human rights override such legalese. Because sexual orientation is also a protected human right in Canada, one could argue that it is equally invalid to cancel because the client is gay/lesbian.

[angilong.livejournal.com]

Could be they would be willing to rent the hall to the same clients for a different event.

[bcholmes.livejournal.com]

That's an interesting argument. Must ponder further.

[angilong.livejournal.com]

Sounds like a good decision to me. I think private organizations should have the right to determine who uses their own private spaces, whether religion is involved or not. On the other hand, if an organization is going to discriminate, then I think they have the obligation to determine whether or not they want to rent to someone *before* they sign a rental agreement.


My dad's been a Knight forever. It's a men's service organization and they're generally Good People. On the other hand, they're (supposedly) the ones responsible for lobbying to get "under God" put into the U.S. Pledge of Allegiance.

Now I wonder what would happen if I tried to use my dad's KofC hall for a wedding or reception. Hehe.

[bcholmes.livejournal.com]

About 15 years ago, I heard this guy on TV talking about hiring and firing. He used a phrase that has stuck in my head ever since. He said: your employer may fire you for any reason, or even for no reason, unless the reason is an illegal reason (e.g.: if, for example, the reason is covered by human rights legislation).

I think pretty much the same thing here. I think that private organizations can (and I'm deliberately avoiding saying "have the right", 'cause I don't think that organizations have rights) refuse to allow anyone to use their own private spaces for any reason, so long as the reason is not an illegal reason.

I think the essence of the Human Rights complaint was to determine whether or not a religious organization can legally use sexual orientation as a reason to refuse. If it had not been a religious organization, I think the answer would clearly be "no".

[angilong.livejournal.com]

If it had not been a religious organization, I think the answer would clearly be "no".

I don't know about that. Can't, for example, a private organization choose to rent a hall only to queer folk? Say, an LGBTQ community center, for example?

(I don't think organizations exactly have "rights", but the individuals who make up the organizations do.)

[the_axel]

My understanding of the Canadian Charter is that up here the answer would be an equivocal 'no' because that would be discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

If the organisation could make the claim that
1) They were not catering to the general public AND
2) That by providing that service to a specific group their constitutionally protected rights would suffer as a result of providing that service
Then they would be allowed to deny service.

[angilong.livejournal.com]

Hmm. Shouldn't "not catering to the general public" be enough? Otherwise, it seems like the law just reduces to "you can't provide this to ANYONE unless you're willing to provide it to EVERYONE".

Or, does the constitution provide for individuals' rights to authority over the use of their private property?

If I lived there, and I decided to occasionally rent -- or just loan -- out my garage, to people of my choice, at times of my choice, for purposes of my choice, then would I be legally obligated to rent to all comers?


(In this case the Knights conceded that the hall *was* available for rent to the general public -- I think that makes a difference. With the Knights hall I'm familiar with, as far as I know, availability of the hall for rental gets around mainly via the church bulletin and word of mouth. So I would think it could easily be argued that that hall is for "church members and their friends/associates", which is not "the general public".)

[bcholmes.livejournal.com]

it seems like the law just reduces to "you can't provide this to ANYONE unless you're willing to provide it to EVERYONE".

No. First, see my response to Axel about the Charter's protection for "reverse discrimination". Also, the problem isn't that they refused to provide the service to someone -- it's that they refused to provide the service based on a reason that is illegal.

It would probably be completely legal to say "I don't rent my garage out to smokers" because there's no legal protection for smokers. You could probably even say, "I refuse to rent my garage out to people who use l337 speak." Again, that's not an illegal reason.

[angilong.livejournal.com]

I guess this is just where my mixed feelings about anti-discrimination laws come into play. I mean, I understand the need for those laws. But. I'm also really uncomfortable with infringing on individuals' rights to do what they like with their own property. Or time/services, or whatever. On the other hand, when it comes to property, I do not think individuals' rights should be absolute, I think property ownership is a convention granted by society and there can certainly be limits on that ownership. On the third hand, there is some degree to which some kinds of property are experienced as an extension of *self* -- and I think that's where I get squicked. I find it a lot easier to say that a big impersonal organization should not be allowed to discriminate on certain bases when providing some kind of goods or services for sale or employment for pay -- strictly business dealings -- than to say that an individual should not be allowed to do whatever they want with their own personal services or with property as close to "self" as, say, a part of their home.

[bcholmes.livejournal.com]

Well, this is where things get a bit cross-eyed. The Charter states:

(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.

Previous Supreme Court decisions state that "sexual orientation" can be read into the charter when it says, "ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age..."

[the_axel]

I read through the whole decision .

The couple got everything that they asked for (except an explicit apology, which the Tribunal deemed was outside of it's scope to compel).

Their lawyers rhetorical question "Does that mean that any merchant in any town in British Columbia can say, 'I have a genuine religious conviction that lesbians and gay men are sinners and I refuse to serve you?' If that's the result of this decision, we have a bigger problem than we had when we started." indicates that she is either grandstanding or didn't read the decision because the tribunal references Brockie vs Ontario (Human Rights Commission), [2002] which explicitly defined that freedom of religion does not extend to the practice of those religious beliefs in the public marketplace.

[angilong.livejournal.com]

They got more than they asked for. If I read it right, they asked for $1000 total in non-material damages, and they got $1000 *each*.

[the_axel]

We're both wrong - read 153.
They got expenses of $444.59 and an award of $1000 each for a total of $2444.59.

As for the offence - section 142 states that there was a breach of Section 8 of the bC Human Rights Code which is the one that deals with Discrimination in accommodation, service and facility, and it was for that breach that the fine was levied.

If KoC had not breached the code, I believe, the Human Rights Tribunal would have had no authority to impose the award, and the plaintiffs would have had to pursue the breach of contract in civil court.

[angilong.livejournal.com]

We're both wrong - read 153.
They got expenses of $444.59 and an award of $1000 each for a total of $2444.59.

Right -- they had their expenses reduced $150 from what they asked for, but they asked for only $1000 total for injury (section 133.3), and were awarded twice that. Net: they got $850 more than they asked for.

As for the offence - section 142 states that there was a breach

Ah, I had misread the previous section and missed the conclusion that the Knights were *not* entitled to protection under code s. 41.

It sounds like the only half-legitimate objection that was raised on the plaintiffs' side, then, was that the $2000 is such a low amount, it seems to give the message that you can feel free to discriminate, as the only consequence you might face is a small fine. But this overlooks the fact that the reason this award was nominal was because the plaintiffs *asked* for only a nominal award, in consideration of the fact that the Knights are a charitable organization.

Were I the judge and deciding on remedy, I might have required the Knights to donate some amount to the GLBTQ charity of the plaintiffs' choice.

[bcholmes.livejournal.com]

Thanks for that link, by the way. It was a fascinating read.

[kat-chan.livejournal.com]

The K of C are not a religious organization. They are a fraternal organization affiliated with the Catholic Church. They are basically the Catholic answer to the Freemasons. If it were a church, or a church hall, I could see preserving their right to deny the use. But this is a fraternal group; like the Freemasons, the Elks, the Eagles, etc. They don't have a religious right being infringed upon here. Otherwise, we could declare any fraternal group that opens meetings with a prayer, has ritual involving religious trappings, etc. to declare themselves "religious" and then they can discriminate because of it. Also, the K of C weren't performing the marriage, they were just providing an accomodation by renting out the hall. They were fine doing so until the found out the purpose for the rental, but it's not like they were being asked sanctify the marriage. If we're to allow them to retroactively withhold services for this reason, what's to stop a "religious" fraternal organization from retroactively pulling someone's membership if they become a party to a same-sex marriage, using the "religious organization" alibi as their grounds?

So, no, churches shouldn't be forced to perform marriages. But if you've rented out your hall, suck it up and deal. Unless you're afraid they might leave gay-cooties laying about that will infect you and your pious membership.

[angilong.livejournal.com]

I don't buy that KofC is not a religious organization. According to Wikipedia, the Freemasons accept members of all religions. To be in the Knights, you have to not only be a Catholic man, but a "practical" Catholic man -- meaning you can't be remarried, be married to a divorced woman, or be married to a non-Catholic.

The Knights' connection to the Catholic Church goes very much deeper than just opening meetings with a prayer. KofC is considered "the strong right arm of the Catholic Church".

"In fidelity to the vision of Father McGivney, may you continue to seek new ways of being a leaven of the Gospel in the world and a spiritual force for the renewal of the Church in holiness, unity and truth.

-- Pope John Paul II,
welcoming Knights of Columbus Board of Directors to Rome in October, 2003"

See

[Error: Irreparable invalid markup ('<www.kofc.org>') in entry. Owner must fix manually. Raw contents below.]

I don't buy that KofC is not a religious organization. According to Wikipedia, the Freemasons accept members of all religions. To be in the Knights, you have to not only be a Catholic man, but a "practical" Catholic man -- meaning you can't be remarried, be married to a divorced woman, or be married to a non-Catholic.

The Knights' connection to the Catholic Church goes very much deeper than just opening meetings with a prayer. KofC is considered "the strong right arm of the Catholic Church".

<i>"In fidelity to the vision of Father McGivney, may you continue to seek new ways of being a leaven of the Gospel in the world and a spiritual force for the renewal of the Church in holiness, unity and truth.

-- Pope John Paul II,
welcoming Knights of Columbus Board of Directors to Rome in October, 2003"</i>

See <www.kofc.org> .

Also, Catholic Church halls are typically administered by the parish's Knights council. The Catholic Church (or at least, one Archdiocese of the Church) owns the hall in this case.

[the_axel]

The KoC as organised in Canada meet the Canadian governments definition of a religious body, as ecplained here - http://www.bchrt.bc.ca/decisions/2005/pdf/Smith_and_Chymyshyn_v_Knights_of_Columbus_and_others_2005_BCHRT_544.pdf .

Your nation states legislation mileage may vary.

evil lesses

[(Anonymous)]

try the following post
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2005/dec/05121302.html