• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

What if a Minister refuses to perform a gay wedding ceremony?

What if a Minister refuses to perform gay ceremony?

  • Should be forced to perform.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Should be arrested.

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    70
Do they have a clause in their constitution that prevents such?

Does it matter to the liberals if they did or didn't? US liberals continue to ignore our Constitution unless it benefits them. The law in Canada was the brainchild of their then liberal Prime Minister Jean Chretien.
 
My guess, is that SPC is either exaggerating or just lying.

Hate speech - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In Canada, advocating genocide[10] or inciting hatred[11] against any 'identifiable group' is an indictable offence under the Criminal Code of Canada with maximum prison terms of two to fourteen years. An 'identifiable group' is defined as 'any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion, ethnic origin or sexual orientation.' It makes exceptions for cases of statements of truth, and subjects of public debate and religious doctrine. The landmark judicial decision on the constitutionality of this law was R. v. Keegstra (1990)
 
Do you have a source?


Canada's Hate Crimes Legislation



Tim Challies
04/29/04
5


Bill C-250 passed through the senate with a 59-11 vote in favor. Barely a whisper of this event was heard in the news or printed in the media. The legislation is now awaiting just the royal rubber-stamp before it becomes law.

This law adds homosexuals to the list of people protected by Canada’s hate crimes legislation.

Naturally Christians opposed this bill, believing that it would eventually lead to persecution for anyone preaching Biblical views on homosexuality. The impact of this law on free speech and freedom of religion will become apparent in the months to come.

I received the following article via email and have not been able to find a source to site for it. If you know who wrote it or where else it is posted, please let me know so I can properly cite it.


Paul Martin and his Liberal team adopted Private Member’s Bill C-250 and pushed it through the Senate to become law just in time to pave the way for a new election. Now criticism of the redefinition of marriage may be a criminal offense punishable by up to two years in prison. The president ofCanada Christian College and the Canada Family Action Coalition, Dr.

CharlesMcVety states “People of faith and good will across the nation are deeplydisturbed by such draconian measures to silence religious and moral teachingrelated to sex outside marriage therefore I am urging all Canadians not tovote for Members of Parliament who passed this new law”.
The latest Compass poll “Same Sex Marriage as a Sleeper Issue” reported thatonly 31% of Canadians support Parliament legally changing the definition ofmarriage. It is painfully obvious that 31% will not elect anyone with amajority mandate. By having Bill C-250 pass the Prime Minister made surethat freedom of religion would not be exercised during his re-election bid.However Dr. McVety states that the “Charter of Rights and Freedomssupercedes Bill C-250 and promises freedom of religion, therefore people offaith are free to express their concerns. He also says a court challenge onthe validity of new law is currently being discussed and will be launched asearly as possible”.

The new law is severely flawed on many counts. Bill C-250:
1) gives protection to anti-Semitism by adding the defense “if the statement… is based on belief in a religious text”.
2) outlaws teaching that sex outside of marriage is wrong,
3) protects all types of sexual deviancies as it does not give a definitionto “sexual orientation”.
4) allows anyone to charge you with a criminal indictment. Most lawsrequire the police to levy a charge.
5) can imprison you if you are “likely” guilty. Usually evidence must provethat you are guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
6) is contradictory for it provides a legal method to attack people offaith.
7) contravenes fundamental democratic principles such as freedom ofreligion.

Dr. McVety believes the chilling effect of “Fahrenheit 451” stylelegislation is the most onerous element of this plan. Many citizens maytake heed to the threat of incarceration and not express their positions inpublic discourse. In addition he says section 320 of the criminal code willbe used extensively to remove the Bible and other scriptures from publicplaces for you cannot have “criminal” documents in a government building”.Welcome to Canada’s “Brave New World.”

Proponents of the bill say that it only gives protection for homosexuals andlesbians against hateful assault. Dr. McVety states that “this Bill is notabout violence. It only addresses speech and words in print. All people ofgood will are against violence as these concerns are already addressed inother parts of the criminal code of Canada.”

The only hope for freedom in this nation is for Canadians to stand up andvote principled Members of Parliament into office to rescind bill C-250thereby restoring fundamental democratic principles such as freedom ofreligion.
 
I stand corrected, it was Paul Martin who passed it.
 
You do know the US is not Canada or subject to Canadian law? :coffeepap
 
Another source.

The Canadian Parliament recently passed Bill C-250 which amends the federal hate crimes law to include speech against sexual orientation. Some Canadian groups have complained about it, saying even the Bible could be seen as hate literature. What's wrong with what was passed?

O’Brien: A number of aspects of the new law are profoundly disturbing. For one thing, there already exists in Canadian law abundant protection of human rights, including protection against discrimination on grounds of "sexual orientation." What is distinctive about the new law is the criminalization of negative criticism of homosexuality as such.

While the bill was in formation in Parliament two crucial amendments proposed by the conservative opposition party were defeated. The first was to ensure that religious pastors and teachers would retain full freedom to teach traditional Judeo-Christian view on these matters. The second was an attempt to make a distinction in law between homosexual persons and homosexual activities. The Church does not condemn homosexuals as persons; it condemns sinful activities--activities that are not only an offense against God, but are destructive of the person, as well as society in the long run. In rejecting these two amendments, Parliament simply decreed that henceforth any public criticism of homosexual activity is a hate crime against homosexual persons, punishable by jail sentences.

Has there yet been any practical affect to what has been passed?

O’Brien: The ink is still wet on the document, and there has been little time to bring many law suits. For the time being we’re in the eye of the storm, a temporary calm. I think there is a widespread drawing back as journalists, teachers, and pastors ponder their options. At the same time activist homosexual groups are bombarding a number of pro-family, pro-life organizations in this country with mockery and threats, planning strategies (in open forums) for silencing all opposition, warning that those who don’t keep silent on homosexuality will go to court, and to jail. The high level of emotional violence in homosexual activist strategy is at times quite shocking. They seem consumed with hatred and determined to bring about an entire social revolution in their favor.

I should add that during the past two years a number of significant "human rights" law suits have been brought against traditional Christians, litigation that predates the new hate crimes law. The courts generally have sided against the churches and individuals who do not want to cooperate with the "gay agenda." For example, a printing company that declined to print Toronto’s annual gay pride day literature was sued under the human rights law, fined heavily, and forced to print the material or close their business. A Catholic school was coerced by a court order to admit an openly homosexual teenage boy and his older male lover to the school prom; the court also refused the school board permission to cancel the prom. A daily newspaper that published an advertisement page of Biblical quotes regarding homosexuality was fined. Such incidents are multiplying.

Is this another slippery slope issue? How far can this reach in terms of what alleged crimes might be committed or who might be protected by it?

O’Brien: Potentially very far. The law can be used primarily to further intimidate the timid and to punish the outspoken. We now have Thought Crime in Canada, just as Orwell predicted. Few people believe this could be the beginning phases of an Orwellian 1984 or alternatively a softer form of totalitarian government such as Huxley’s Brave New World. But the elements of State-enforced social reconstruction are now in operation. We should also consider the fact that in just over one generation we have been shifted from a society in which homosexual activity was a crime under the then existing law, to a society in which homosexual activity has become a government-protected and fostered activity, while voicing criticism of it has become the crime. I see this as a prime example of the new totalitarianism. Clearly, we have now arrived at a situation in which "some of us are more equal than others", as Orwell predicted.

In its hate propaganda provisions the law states that in order to be found guilty of an indictable offense, a person must communicate statements in a public place which "incite hatred against an identifiable group" in such a way that there will "likely be a breach of the peace." The courts have already proven their startling subjectivity on homosexual issues. A breath of protest from a Christian is a hate crime, while aggressive disruption of Christian gatherings by gay militants are often overlooked and go unprosecuted.


A whiff of Germany in the early 1930’s is discernible in the atmosphere. Of course, glancing about our streets we do not see any concentration camps or marching jackboots. But will the prisons some day hold Christian inmates whose only crime is speaking the truth? And as for jackboots, activist homosexual groups have behaved like Nazi hooligans of the late1920’s and early 1930’s, for example their recent outrageous behavior at Archbishop Adam Exner’s residence in Vancouver.

Many of the terms in the new law are largely undefined, such as "sexual orientation," "inciting hatred," "a likelihood of breach of the peace" and thus there is an ambiguity so broad that one could drive a battleship through it. It will be left to the courts to do the dirty work of interpreting, condemning, and imprisoning. They have already proved themselves quite willing to do so, and the new law offers them added incentives.
 
You do know the US is not Canada or subject to Canadian law? :coffeepap

They're trying to bring Canadian Health Care here. Who knows what could be next?
 
The first source is a paranoiac blogger.

Canada's Hate Crimes Legislation | Challies Dot Com

"About the Author

I am a follower of Jesus Christ, a husband to Aileen and a father to three young children. I write books and blogs for fun while doing web consulting for a living. I worship and serve at Grace Fellowship Church, edit Discerning Reader and am a co-founder of Cruciform Press."

The second source is no more enlightening.

Thought Crime Becomes a Reality in Canada
 
Oh my gosh, no, I didn't mean to imply that you agreed with me at all. In fact, I assumed that you disagreed with my sentiment about religion in general. However, I didn't think that you would have "liked" my particular post if it had been saying that religion should be curbed by some legislative means. I would have thought that any argument along those lines would have had to be far more developed for you to have 'liked' it for it's thoughtfulness.

To be frank, I did come to the conclusion that you liked the post because you liked the fact that I don't want to legislate my own personal views regarding religion. I see now that I might have been wrong on that count, though you haven't said either way. If I did put words in your mouth, I do also here apologize :)

I don't believe religious believes or lack of religious beliefs should be legislated. Everyones right to a religious belief or to NOT have a religious belief should be respected and legally protected.
 
How can a Church deny this?
Declining to perform a service is in no way preventing people from excercising their other options for a provider of such a service.
 
I don't believe religious believes or lack of religious beliefs should be legislated. Everyones right to a religious belief or to NOT have a religious belief should be respected and legally protected.

You do understand that I completely agree with you, and that my post that you quoted is saying that, right?

I think that people should understand how committed to religious freedom liberals generally are, including the atheist ones. I believe that freedom of conscience is one of the most important freedoms we have. I will argue irreverently and with enthusiasm against religion in the public discourse. I dislike religion. But if people are ever forced to support a religion or dogma they disagree with, or are barred in any way by anyone from religious practices that affect only people who are consenting to it, or are prevented from proselytizing, I will be there, supporting religious people all the way. Your freedom to practice your religion is very important to me. I cannot emphasize that enough. And I am pretty sure I am the norm, more or less, for atheist liberals.
 
They're trying to bring Canadian Health Care here. Who knows what could be next?

You need evidence and not wild leaps. By your logic, we're going to force ministers to marry all hetrosexuals who want to be rmarried or we're denying them their rights. Hasn't happened. Ministers deny marrying people all the time.
 
You need evidence and not wild leaps. By your logic, we're going to force ministers to marry all hetrosexuals who want to be rmarried or we're denying them their rights. Hasn't happened. Ministers deny marrying people all the time.

It's not heterosexuals who are wanting special privileges.
 
if there is a law for something then no minister can go against this , so if gay marriage is accepted in the law then there is clearly a problem ( imagine he is the only person who can marry people then the couple wont get married at all ? even with the law on there side ?

The couple will still be married but wont be able to have a ceremony at a chruch. They can choose to celebrate it elsewhere like many straight couples do or decide to not even have a ceremony.
 
Of course you know that some in the gay community are already trying to get it designated as a hate crime if a minister gets behind the pulpit and preaches against homosexuality.

Do you have a link or any proof for this?
 
It's not heterosexuals who are wanting special privileges.

LBGT people aren't asking for special privileges. It's a lie to say so.
 
You do understand that I completely agree with you, and that my post that you quoted is saying that, right?

I think that people should understand how committed to religious freedom liberals generally are, including the atheist ones. I believe that freedom of conscience is one of the most important freedoms we have. I will argue irreverently and with enthusiasm against religion in the public discourse. I dislike religion. But if people are ever forced to support a religion or dogma they disagree with, or are barred in any way by anyone from religious practices that affect only people who are consenting to it, or are prevented from proselytizing, I will be there, supporting religious people all the way. Your freedom to practice your religion is very important to me. I cannot emphasize that enough. And I am pretty sure I am the norm, more or less, for atheist liberals.

Many Conservative Catholics are also devoted to religious freedom, as well as the freedom to not be religious. Catholics have a long history of having to deal with Protestants forcing their beliefs and even their abridged Bible on Catholics. If anyone forces non-religious people to participate in a religious ceremony, I will also be there to protect their rights as well.
 
It's not heterosexuals who are wanting special privileges.

Depends. If heterosexuals are wanting a monopoly on marriage, then yes, it is in fact heterosexuals wanting special privileges. Homosexuals certainly are not asking for any more rights than strait people.
 
if there is a law for something then no minister can go against this , so if gay marriage is accepted in the law then there is clearly a problem ( imagine he is the only person who can marry people then the couple wont get married at all ? even with the law on there side ?

Doubt he is going to be the only person available to perform the wedding since every county has at least one JotP to perform weddings.

But in case they want someone else or the county is just so small they only have one JotP and he is terminally ill or something, they can try this site.

Wedding Officiants.net -- wedding clergy officiant minister priest rabbi judge notary justice of the peace wedding chapel

This is how I found my wedding officiant. Everyone on here is legally registered with their state to perform wedding ceremonies.

If worse comes to worse, there is also Vegas. Or they can do what a lot of military members do and get their buddy ordained over the internet and registered or, in some states or counties, permission to legally perform weddings for a day specifically so that they can preside over a couple's wedding.
 
Back
Top Bottom