tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12391603.post2750529708699970812..comments2024-03-24T23:41:23.944-07:00Comments on Talk Wisdom: Freedom of ConscienceChristinewjchttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18434229284833642438noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12391603.post-7242059233004761622008-04-18T09:49:00.000-07:002008-04-18T09:49:00.000-07:00Second Update 4/18/08Finally found the decision!HT...Second Update 4/18/08<BR/><BR/>Finally found the decision!<BR/><BR/>HT: <A HREF="http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2002/jun/02061802.html" REL="nofollow">LifeSiteNews.com</A><BR/><BR/><I>MIXED REACTION TO RULING ON HOMOSEXUALS VS CHRISTIAN PRINTER<BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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."<BR/><BR/>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><BR/><BR/>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.<BR/><BR/>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?<BR/><BR/>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!<BR/><BR/>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.Christinewjchttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18434229284833642438noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12391603.post-90247249168319427122008-04-18T09:22:00.000-07:002008-04-18T09:22:00.000-07:00Found this today:Board of Inquiry HearingsBrilling...Found this today:<BR/><BR/><I>Board of Inquiry Hearings<BR/><BR/>Brillinger and the Canadian Lesbian and Gay Archives v. Imaging <BR/>Excellence Inc. and Scott Brockie<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>Board of Inquiry Decision: Sept. 29, 1999<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>The complainant, Ray Brillinger, sought printing services - envelopes, letterhead and business cards - from the respondent Imaging Excellence Inc. for the Canadian Lesbian and Gay Archives (the “Archives”). The president of Imaging Excellence, Scott Brockie, denied the service on the basis of his religious beliefs. Scott Brockie believed that homosexuality is contrary to the teachings of the Christian Bible. Mr. Brockie argued that his right to freedom of religion under Section 2(a) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (the “Charter”) acts as a defence to the denial of services.<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>The hearing proceeded in two stages: the first stage dealt with an infringement of the Code and the second stage addressed the Section 2(a) Charter defence. <BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>Result at Board (First Stage): The Board held that the Canadian Lesbian and Gay Archives is protected under the sexual orientation ground of the Code. She held that organizations like the Archives are “so imbued with the identity or character of their membership, or so clearly representative of a group that is identified by a prohibited ground under the Code, that they cannot be separated from their membership and the organization itself takes on the protected characteristic”.<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>The Board held further that both Ray Brillinger and the Archives were denied printing services contrary to Section 1 of the Code. She held that Ray Brillinger was discriminated against indirectly as a member of the Archives, as was its then president, because of his association with the Archives. The Board held that the Archives was discriminated against directly and by way of association. <BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>Current Status: Argument on the Charter proceeded on November 1, 1999. The Board reserved her decision.</I><BR/><BR/>But it still doesn't answer the question about how it was finally resolved. I'll keep searching.Christinewjchttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18434229284833642438noreply@blogger.com