Thu Apr 14/05
The Knights who say nay

It's easy to dismiss most of this talk of religious persecution as more slippery-slopeist paranoia — the number of respectable (see Lorne Gunter's recent columns in the Post) and not-so-respectable writers who are asking Canadians to believe that clergy might one day be forced by the government to perform same-sex marriages is astonishing. Common sense dictates that it will simply never happen. It would require a 180-degree turn in policymaking from church/state separation to church/state amalgamation, for one. For another, said clergy would obviously never do it, and they'd have this staunch secularist's support, and millions of others', in taking that stand.

The case of the Knights of Columbus vs. the Two Maidens Fair, however, is more difficult to dismiss out of hand. For the uninitiated, lesbian fiancées Tracey Smith and Deborah Chymyshyn had secured the use of Port Coquitlam's Knights of Columbus Hall for their reception. The deposit was paid and the invitations were sent, but the Knights discovered the true nature of this wedding and withdrew their services for the evening. The case is now before a BC human rights tribunal.

When one reads the Knights' defence (provided by The Ambler), one very quickly begins to suspect that these ladies were looking to make a scene. I quite liked this line of attack:

The Complainants contend they did not know the Hall was "actually a religious place"… The Complainants' evidence… is that neither one of them saw either the cross or the photograph of the Pope… It is not as though those objects were hard to see. The cross is seen clearly at Exhibit 3, Tab 2, photograph 14. The Complainants were standing approximately where the photographer was for photograph 14 when they looked at where the music equipment is stored in the Hall… Moreover, the Complainants, particularly Deborah Chymyshyn, were looking up to see the support cables… to consider hanging things from them. To not see the cross when looking up at the cables was remarkable.

Indeed. Almost miraculous. In any case, Ms Smith and Ms Chymyshyn had no trouble finding another place to hold their wedding, and the Knights agreed to reimburse them for the wedding invitations in exchange for a legal release (quite canny, these Knights!). This offer was not accepted, for reasons that should be obvious enough by now.

My take on this story has always been this: if Ms Smith and Ms Chymyshyn were screwed out of some money, or if they wanted to seek damages for breach of contract, then let them take it to small claims court or whatever other court was appropriate. My understanding has always been that people, organizations and businesses are free to do business, or not, with whomever they choose, for whatever reasons they choose (within reason, which I suppose is precisely the point). This brings us to Section 8(1) of the BC Human Rights Code:

A person must not, without a bona fide and reasonable justification,

(a)  deny to a person or class of persons any accommodation, service or facility customarily available to the public, or

(b)  discriminate against a person or class of persons regarding any accommodation, service or facility customarily available to the public

because of race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, marital status, family status, physical or mental disability, sex or sexual orientation of that person or class of persons.

There are so many avenues of defence in there that it's difficult to know where to start. First, there's the matter of "the public" to which these services or facilities are customarily available. Paragraph 42 of the Knights' defence reads as follows (my emphasis):

The Respondents denied the Complainants the Hall because they do not rent the Hall for uses that are contrary to core Catholic beliefs. With respect to same-sex unions, the Knights' standard of conformity with and support of Catholic belief precludes the Hall where it is to be used to promote, solemnize or celebrate same-sex unions. The standard would not, for instance, apply to deny the Hall to a person simply because he or she is homosexual.

Maybe Port Coquitlam's gay square-dancing club will test that theory in the future, but for now I'm inclined to take the Knights at their word. Even if I wasn't, it's a bit of a neat trick to fit a gay marriage reception into that string of prohibited justifications. It's not exactly sexual orientation — not even Smyth and Chymyshyn are claiming they didn't get the hall because they're gay. I suppose since it was a reception and they would already have "married," the closest thing might have been "marital status," but that was definitely not the thrust of the complaint.

So yes, this one case does seem to be a rather frivolous attempt to force a religious organization to do something against its will, but as it stands it's still just an attempt. If this tribunal finds in favour of the complainants, which the little faith I have left in this country's systems insists it will not, then I'll dutifully express my outrage; but for now, it's just a tribunal hearing a case. It probably shouldn't have gotten this far, but please, to paraphrase Paul Martin of late, let's wait to see the final decision before we fly off the handle.