First of all if same-sex marriage is approved in British Columbia then lesbian couple battling with Knights of Columbus have every right to book a hall to celebrate their wedding reception. No one should question this. Also the Knights of Columbus should have the right as a private, Roman Catholic, to book their hall to whomever they please. This is (to me) an interesting point in the case. (via Globe and Mail, hat-tip NealeNews)
...The Knights, adhering to church teaching, which is against homosexual marriage, cancelled a rental contract that had been signed, returned the couple's deposit and paid for both the rental of a new hall and the reprinting of wedding invitations after Ms. Chymyshyn and Ms. Smith complained that invitations listing the hall's address for their reception had been mailed.
Let me start by giving everyone the benefit of the doubt here. The couple claim that they were unaware that the Knights of Columbus was a Roman Catholic organization and they thought they were the equivalent of the Elks (whoever they are). The Knights mistook Tracey Smith for a man and allowed them to book the hall. As stated above, when they discovered the mistake they book and paid for another hall and paid for the reprinting of the wedding invitations. How can you argue that they did not go out of their way to correct the situation?
By taking this case to court, after the Knights tried to correct the situation, I begin to question whether I can indeed give the couple in question
here the benefit of the doubt. Look's more like they are testing where their rights end and religious organizations begin.
...Ms. findlay, who does not use capital letters in the spelling of her name, said the religious freedom of the Roman Catholic Church to refuse to marry same-sex couples could not be equated to religious freedom for a lay organization of Catholics to refuse to rent premises for the celebration of a same-sex marriage -- not if the premises were generally offered to the public.
I am curious to see how this plays out.
Update: Here is the SmallDeadAnimals take on the situation.
When push comes to shove, the "truth" of state-defined equality rights will always trump the "false" God-defined morality. The problem stems from something deeper than simple disbelief in God. Permitting freedom of religion to supercede equality rights is to acknowledge the possible existance of God - an authority higher than that of the state.
As far as the left is concerned, the notion that there exists an authority higher than the state is really not in their best interests.
There may be some of that but I do know religious homosexuals that would disagree with the above statement. Their problem is with Bible-defined morality, not God-defined. But how one defines God is a bigger question that I am capable of tackling.
