Letter to Justice Minister

[c9]

Oooo, I'm in a snit tonight.

Dear Minister Cotler:

I read in the Toronto Star that you will be allowing civic officials the option of refusing to provide equal services to same-sex couples in the area of marriage, despite your claim that the government sees this as an equality and human rights issue. Can you please explain for me the difference between refusing to marry same-sex couples, and refusing to marry interracial couples? Why is one acceptable to your government and not the other?

I await your reply.

Sincerely
Cameron MacLeod

Comments

[nihilicious.livejournal.com]

I've commented in this thread too much already. But I have another thought.

I've looked closely at Cotler's quoted statements a few times, and from what I can tell, all he's said is that civic officials who choose not to serve same-sex couples will be "accommodated".

"Accommodation" could mean that they are given a right to take a different job, one that doesn't require them to deal with marriage at all. It doesn't necessarily mean that they get to stay in the same job, but pick and choose which couples they serve.

I'd still be interested to see the specifics of the plan here. There are many different "civic officials" affected, who get involved in marriage in various ways, and "accommodation" could mean many things. And, who knows what the federal government even has power to do here.

Anyway. More thoughts.

[c9.livejournal.com]

Also, municipal officials ("civic") are a provincial responsibility. Cotler is promising to come up with an agreement with all provinces to consistently allow intolerant people to shift into some different role.

Example: small town, only one justice of the peace. Can that justice of the peace say "no way" and thereby deprive the whole town of equal service?

[nihilicious.livejournal.com]

Well, now looking at the debate in the light of "accommodation", my opinion might be changing ...

There's at least a decent argument that human rights laws require the employer to accommodate an employee who refuses to do something that they sincerely believe to be in violation of their religious beliefs. (It's probably debatable whether or not it violates any religion to officiate over a smae-sex civil marriage--but I don't see a human rights commission wanting to get too deep into that argument.)

The requirement to accommodate is balanced against a protection from undue hardship. Where there is no accommodation possible without causing the employer undue hardship, then accommodation is no longer required.

So, arguably in your one-town-one-official scenario, we've got undue hardship, and the guy could be fired.

All speculative of course. Also consider: the one official in the one town could always quit rather than go against her conscience, which in practical terms leads you to the same place.

I feel ok spending some time typing on about this because it is work-related for me. :)