Commissioner who refused to marry same-sex couple loses appeal

"To allow a public official to insert their personal beliefs into decisions about who should and who should not receive a public service would undermine the protection of the Saskatchewan Human Rights Code," said Human Rights Commission manager Rebecca McLellan.
This is the most BS statement I've read in a while, we bend over backwards for minoprity religions in this country but this guy can't refuse based on his "personal" beliefs?
I thought he had a right to believe what he wants and to practice however his religion deems he should but I guess the double standard hit him in the guts.
The should have thrown this case out and told these guys to stop whining, they did get married anyways.

If Orville Nichols was not a Christian and was a Muslim or a Jew I would be willing to bet a large sum of money that he wouldn't have lost

When you're a public servent/official, you do your job as you're supposed to, regardless of your religion or personal beliefs.

Everybody has the right to practice their own personal religious beliefs at home, on your own personal time or at your own church/religious community, but when you work for the government and the government is supposed to offer a paticular service, and a citizen seeks that service, you provide the service or you don't do the job.

Churches and various religious groups in Canada currently have the right to refuse marriage of same sex couples based on their religious beliefs..... but the government who made it legal in the first place should back up their claims by providing the service.... religious hang ups should not apply.

If you work for the government or some public system run by the government, you're there to provide a service to every citizen of this nation seeking that service, whom all have differing beliefs, practices and lifestyles and thus should not be denied these services based on your personal beliefs.

If you can't seperate business with personal, then you shouldn't be doing the job.

"To allow a public official to insert their personal beliefs into decisions about who should and who should not receive a public service would undermine the protection of the Saskatchewan Human Rights Code,"

^ Which is bang on and they're right.

If it doesn't break Canadian law, then you have no excuse not to provide the service. If you can not get beyond this simple process because of personal feelings or beliefs, then don't bother applying for the job because you would be unfit to carry it out.

Oh and this is rich:



No where in the Bible does it even state that God hates Homosexuals.

The only argument I have ever heard in the Bible was against Sodomy (Anal Sex)

Whoever said all homosexuals perform Sodomy? Who'd going to be the one to prove this?

Do Lesbians perform sodomy on each other?

Maybe the homosexual couple isn't even having sex. Maybe they are, but they only perform oral sex or anything else that doesn't involve sodomy..... there's plenty of sexual positions and other things people can do besides just anal sex or typical intercourse.

And since the only thing I ever seen in the Bible was towards Sodomy and not directly Homosexuals, the above argument is mute in regards to a religious excuse. Not only that but plenty of straight people have anal sex all the time.... does god love them more the homosexuals?

Me thinks not.

Added:

And the claim that these two people have had anal sex or have it often is subjective. People merely assume they have anal sex because they're gay males.... yet claims require proof to be taken seriously. Unless you have so much time on your hands to actually peep into their bedroom window to get photographic evidence of them doing this, the argument is pointless against marrying same sex couples.

When you're a public servent/official, you do your job as you're supposed to, regardless of your religion or personal beliefs.

Everybody has the right to practice their own personal religious beliefs at home, on your own personal time or at your own church/religious community, but when you work for the government and the government is supposed to offer a paticular service, and a citizen seeks that service, you provide the service or you don't do the job.

Churches and various religious groups in Canada currently have the right to refuse marriage of same sex couples based on their religious beliefs..... but the government who made it legal in the first place should back up their claims by providing the service.... religious hang ups should not apply.

If you work for the government or some public system run by the government, you're there to provide a service to every citizen of this nation seeking that service, whom all have differing beliefs, practices and lifestyles and thus should not be denied these services based on your personal beliefs.

If you can't seperate business with personal, then you shouldn't be doing the job.

"To allow a public official to insert their personal beliefs into decisions about who should and who should not receive a public service would undermine the protection of the Saskatchewan Human Rights Code,"

^ Which is bang on and they're right.

If it doesn't break Canadian law, then you have no excuse not to provide the service. If you can not get beyond this simple process because of personal feelings or beliefs, then don't bother applying for the job because you would be unfit to carry it out.

Difference, he did not refuse the service, he refused to be the official that conducted the service, that should be allowed as a basic right of his religious beliefs. He did not dictate to them that the service could not be done as they wished, he did not deny their legal right to get married and he did not as far as the article states discriminate against them or prevent it from happening because of his beliefs. Furthermore he most likely was a government worker prior to the law allowing gays to marry, in which case the law would have deemed him unfit to continue in his job based on his religion and then they would be facing a lawsuit or human rights complaint from him.
In my workplace despite the fact that I have a service to provide, I have muslims working for me, I MUST give them 2 hours off EVERY friday to go to the mosque and pray. I have catholics that refuse to work sundays due to their need to attend church. I have indo canadians that I must give the day off for their various religious functions. My point proved, double standard. This couple basicaly sued him for his personal opinion and won, now they have received said service for free due to the settlement, my guess is that was their goal all along.

On thi spoint I can agree with you, his interpretatio of the bible's stance on the matter is kookoo.

Not bend over backwards - it's called doing your job. As a public servant, you are told by your boss, the government, what you do. Don't like or disagree with it, quit.

When you're a public servent/official, you do your job as you're supposed to, regardless of your religion or personal beliefs.

Everybody has the right to practice their own personal religious beliefs at home, on your own personal time or at your own church/religious community, but when you work for the government and the government is supposed to offer a paticular service, and a citizen seeks that service, you provide the service or you don't do the job.

Churches and various religious groups in Canada currently have the right to refuse marriage of same sex couples based on their religious beliefs..... but the government who made it legal in the first place should back up their claims by providing the service.... religious hang ups should not apply.

If you work for the government or some public system run by the government, you're there to provide a service to every citizen of this nation seeking that service, whom all have differing beliefs, practices and lifestyles and thus should not be denied these services based on your personal beliefs.

If you can't seperate business with personal, then you shouldn't be doing the job.

"To allow a public official to insert their personal beliefs into decisions about who should and who should not receive a public service would undermine the protection of the Saskatchewan Human Rights Code,"

^ Which is bang on and they're right.

If it doesn't break Canadian law, then you have no excuse not to provide the service. If you can not get beyond this simple process because of personal feelings or beliefs, then don't bother applying for the job because you would be unfit to carry it out.

BAM!

So much seriousness.. I'm gunna go and make the lame joke I thought for sure someone would already have made...


.. did he lose same-sex appeal?


yeah its a lame joke, but it had to be made

Actually there are several intances in the bible that condemn homosexuality.


Lev. 18:22, "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination."

Lev. 20:13, "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltness is upon them"

1 Cor. 6:9-10, "Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God."

Rom. 1:26-28, "For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, 27and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. 28And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper."

That being said, this commissioner is a public servant, paid by the state, which is supposed to be secular. A priest, rabbi or minister could refuse to perform the marriage based on these religious arguments, but the commissioner can't. SSM marriages are protected by the state. A good way to get around this entire issue is to make all people who get legally married have a civil ceremony, then those who wish to add a religious ceremony can do so. Civil marriages have been around just as long, or longer than the sacrement of marriage.

And what version of the Bible were these taken from? I personally never came accross these passages.



Actually marriages themselves existed prior to written history, thus prior to any of today's current religions. Many different animals bond with one another for life just like humans, thus as similar to human marriage. Many animal species also have homosexuality existng in them as well.... so God must have screwed up on them like he did with humans.... or it was intentional.

Prior to todays religions taking over marriage and calling it their own, all that was originally required for a marriage to exist was for each person to proclaim their devotion to the other.... that was it.

booo...terrible... lol.

all corny jokes aside, it is despicable that this commissioner put his beliefs ahead of his job.

this is just more liberal BS, how can refusing to marry a same sex couple be any different than a pharmacist that refuses to sell the morning after pill?

They aren't allowed to do that either and the same thing applies. If you can't do your job because of your beliefs then find another job.