Freedom of Conscience

Freedom of Association is a Constitutionally protected entity.

freedom of association
: the right guaranteed esp. by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution to join with others either in personal relationships or as part of a group usually having a common viewpoint or purpose and often exercising the right to assemble and to free speech
Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law, © 1996 Merriam-Webster, Inc.

It hails from the concept of Freedom of Conscience. Freedom of Conscience results from Freedom of Religion and is related to Freedom of Speech.

This morning, I found an essay that speaks about the original meaning and intent of "Freedom of Conscience."

Excerpt:

In 1682, William Penn, the Governor of Pennsylvania, ratified a law calling for "freedom of conscience" in religious matters. The act included multiple provisions, including penalties for swearing in the name of God and setting aside the Sabbath as a day of scriptural study. But the central purpose of the act was to protect religious conscience for the many denominations and branches of Christianity. It provided for protection of "Christian liberty" and stated that none would be "molested or prejudiced for his or her conscientious persuasion or practice" of religious worship. It stated, in part:



Almighty God, being only Lord of conscience, father of lights and spirits, and author as well as object of all divine knowledge, faith, and worship, who can only enlighten the mind and persuade and convince the understandings of people. In due reverence to His sovereignty over the souls of mankind;



Be it enacted, by the authority aforesaid, that no person now or at any time hereafter living in this province, who shall confess and acknowledge one almighty God to be the creator, upholder, and ruler of the world, and who profess him or herself obliged in conscience to live peaceably and quietly under the civil government, shall in any case be molested or prejudiced for his or her conscientious persuasion or practice. Nor shall he or she at any time be compelled to frequent or maintain any religious worship, place, or ministry whatever contrary to his or her mind . . . 1

This 324 year old act recognized that government and the people have a duty of obedience to God and His moral commands. Yet it also conceded differences in religious practice, and accordingly, it safeguarded freedom of individual religious expression.

Notes

1. An Act for Freedom of Conscience, December 7, 1682 (as quoted from Donald S. Lutz, Editor, Colonial Origins of the American Constitution, A Documentary History (Liberty Fund, Inc., Indianapolis 1998).

It is precisely because the original definition of "tolerance" has been turned towards meaning complete, total and utter "acceptance" that the aforementioned freedoms (i.e. freedom of: "association," "conscience," "speech," and "religion") are at risk of being trumped by secular liberalism and their ideologies. Such ideologies are being forced upon Americans through the main-stream media, public schools, colleges and universities, and liberal-leaning judicial decisions which now dominate in many of the courts.

If you read the WND article link above, you can plainly see the dilemma currently happening in Canada when the "tolerance" laws trump the freedom of conscience liberties what should be afforded in this case.

"You should be able to refuse business to anyone who comes to you," he said. "It doesn't matter what your reasons are. If you don't want to do a job for someone you don't have to."

Sincere's group supported the Boy Scouts of America when the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled in 1999 that a law prohibiting discrimination against homosexuals in public accommodations applied to the Scouts. Sincere said he disagrees with the Scouts' policy of not accepting homosexuals as troop leaders, but argued that the New Jersey ruling erodes freedom of association, including the right of homosexual organizations to set standards for their own members. In June 2000, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned the New Jersey decision by a 5-4 vote.

"The Gay and Lesbian Archives is arguing that they have a right to exist and hold their beliefs, and we need to recognize that," said Buckingham. "But they are refusing to recognize that others have a right to their beliefs."

Inevitably, a clash of ideologies, such as this one in Canada, erupts when one groups rights are allowed to trump another group gains rights over and above others. How can such a dilemma be resolved?

Notice that the gay person felt that he was "shamed" by the refusal of service:

Brockie's backers note that Brillinger was able to go to a nearby printing shop to get his work done. Hughes maintains, though, that this is not relevant. His point of contention is that Brillinger went into Brockie's store with a reasonable expectation of service but instead was shamed.

"I mean, this is a business called Imaging Excellence, Inc.; it is not called Christian Ethics, Inc., or Christian Printing," Hughes said. "Mr. Brillinger went in quite innocently. When he was denied (service) he knew that he had been discriminated against, humiliated, and he felt very demoralized."

But also notice, the man was able to go to a nearby printing shop to get his work done.

Was this just an effort to destroy the shopkeeper's freedom of conscience rights?

Does a person have the "right" to never get his/her feelings hurt?

If we go back to the beginning of the article we read:

Ontario business owners lack freedom to choose their clients according to conscience, contend supporters of a Toronto printer who was fined for refusing to serve a homosexual advocacy group.

Last week, Scott Brockie, the owner of Imaging Excellence, Inc., appealed to the Ontario Divisional Court to overturn a $5,000 penalty assessed by the province's human rights commission. A decision is expected in a few months.

Does the penalty fit the "crime" here?

Since the article is from 2001, I don't know what the results were of the lawsuit. When I have time, I will research it. If anyone reading has the answer, please feel free to post it.

"You should be able to refuse business to anyone who comes to you," he said. "It doesn't matter what your reasons are. If you don't want to do a job for someone you don't have to."

Hyper-tolerance laws tend to take such a right away. What do you think?

*******
Update 4/18/08

More detailed [PDF] information about the Ontario, Canada case from Christian Legal Fellowship.org :

[PDF]
BRILLINGER v. BROCKIE Ontario Human Rights Commission and Ray ...
File Format: PDF/Adobe AcrobatArchives, (Complainants) and Scott Brockie and Imaging Excellence Inc., ... This appeal requires the court to consider again the coexistence of ...

*******
Second Update 4/18/08

Finally found the decision!

HT: LifeSiteNews.com

MIXED REACTION TO RULING ON HOMOSEXUALS VS CHRISTIAN PRINTER
TORONTO, June 18, 2002 (LSN.ca) - The Ontario Divisional Court released its ruling yesterday in the controversial case of Brillinger vs Brockie. The case involves Scott Brockie, a Christian printer from Toronto who was fined by the Ontario Human Rights Commission after a homosexual activist group claimed discrimination when Brockie refused to publish their materials.

The Court found the Human Rights Commission judgment to be overly broad in its application to Brockie by failing to accord sufficient weight to his right to freedom of religion under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It found that a February, 2000 decision of a Board of Inquiry requiring Mr. Brockie and his company, Imaging Excellence Inc., to provide printing services to the Canadian Lesbian and Gay Archives, and to award damages of $5,000.00, was flawed.

In recognition of Mr. Brockie's religious and conscientious rights, the previous order was amended to provide that Mr. Brockie and his company would not be required to print "material of a nature which could reasonably be considered to be in direct conflict with the core elements of his religious beliefs or creed". Accordingly, Mr. Brockie would not be required to print materials which proselytized the gay and lesbian lifestyle or ridiculed his religious beliefs. However, a request to print letterhead, business cards, or conceivably a directory of goods and services of interest to the gay and lesbian community could not be refused.

However, the Catholic Civil Rights League (CCRL), one of the interveners in the case, points out that the disheartening news is that the Court's approach will invite the Human Rights Commission to review matters of conscience, or to assess one's core religious belief or creed in order to assess one's defence to charges of discrimination by activists within the homosexual community. Rather than recognize Scott Brockie's earnest belief that the provision of his company's services would link him with the promotion of sinful behaviour, the Court has limited that exercise of conscience to the particulars of what has been requested.

CCRL President Tom Langan, commented: "Mr. Brockie sought not to be involved in an organization which promotes sinful behaviour. It is inappropriate to force Mr. Brockie to participate in such demands with a service which was recognized as being readily available throughout the City of Toronto." Langan continued: "Mr. Brockie did not refuse to provide his services to Mr. Brillinger because he was gay, but because the Canadian Lesbian and Gay Archives advocated a gay lifestyle. The Court's ruling remains a substantial intrusion into Mr. Brockie's religious freedom, as it expects him to turn a blind eye to the very objects of a potential customer's enterprise."

The CCRL intervened as part of the Canadian Religious Freedom Alliance, in conjunction with the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada, and the Christian Legal Fellowship in support of Mr. Brockie to advance arguments of religious freedom and protection of conscience as it related to a commercial activity. It is worth noting that the Canadian Civil Liberties Association also intervened on this appeal in support of Mr. Brockie's position.

I can certainly see why there was a mixed reaction to this decision. On the one hand, the court partially upheld Mr. Brockie's freedom of conscience, association, and religion when they ruled that he should not be forced (via his business) to print literature that he views as condoning and promoting a sinful lifestyle. However, the fact that the court ruled that he should still be obligated to print business cards and letterhead for gay organizations remains a "substantial intrusion" (as the article states) into his religious convictions.

I just wonder. Would the court have ruled differently if this had been porn-related matter? That's a sexual sin too. People can be addicted to porn and it can become a part of their lives that they constantly identify with. Why would refusal to print porn business cards be any different from refusal to print homosexual organization cards?

We still see the fundamental flaw that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms created when it added a hyper-tolerance form of "sexual orientation" to it's laws!

Freedom of conscience, association, religion, and speech must be held above such hyper-tolerance laws. Period. When they are not, we get confused and unsatisfying rulings like the one described in this case.