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

[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..."