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]

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. :)