First: Some eye-rolling arguments in the hearing over the Molnars’ Bed and Breakfast complaint. Xtra reports that the defence brought up the Knights of Columbus case, in which the operators of a wedding hall were permitted to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation because to do otherwise would violate their religious beliefs.
The complainants’ lawyer (who seemed to be acting in concert with Tribunal member Enid Marion for the most part of the hearing) replied that the Hall’s owner, the archdiocese of Vancouver, has as its mission to uphold the values of the Church; Les and Susan Molnar, as private citizens, cannot use that as a defence since they have no such mission, despite their obvious religiosity.
In other words, religious values must be confined to institutions and cannot be held by private individuals. Laughable.
Second: The Yukon HRC has taken their cue from Ontario and embarked upon their own housing-ad crusade. Yet the human rights soldiers in the North don’t quite have the zeal of their Barbara Hall-led counterparts:
The Human Rights Commission said it’s not trying to dictate who landlords rent to, however it wants to create a level playing field for all people applying for housing.
“They may or may not get selected, that’s the landlords right to select the person…”
What? A human rights commission conceding to landlords the “right to select the person” for their premises? Hell hath installed a skating rink…
Third: Claire Hoy of the Orangeville Citizen on the Whatcott case and the human rights process in general:
The whole process is weighted against those who are subjects of a complaint and any fair reading of human rights legislation shows that to be true.
Fourth: If you have time (and a sense of humour), take the CHRC’s “are you a racist” litmus test over at the Fur!!