In case you haven't noticed, since homosexual "marriage" was made legal in Canada in 2005, and with the codification of the Human Rights Act, to refer to homosexual behavior as "sinful" is considered hate speech.
Christians are being sued and fined for their beliefs when they express them in public.
Churches are punished if they refuse to rent their property to homosexual couples.
Charities are penalized for their stand on marriage.
Below are excerpts from news sources, covering the spectrum:
Federal religious freedom act would face hurdles
[Christians] expressed concerns over the growing number of cases where the rights of homosexuals have seemed to trump those of religious persons. Marriage commissioners in several provinces have been told they must perform same-sex ceremonies or lose their jobs. Even in cases where the initial complaints have been dropped, such as human rights complaints against Calgary Bishop Fred Henry for a pastoral letter outlining the Church’s teaching on marriage, the fact that complaints can be laid poses a chilling effect on free speech because of the expense of having to defend against them. Those making the complaints don’t have to pay any legal fees.
Even when religious rights are upheld, there have been glitches. In the case of a homosexual couple suing a B.C. chapter of the Knights of Columbus for refusing the use of their hall for a “wedding” reception, the Knights were found to be within their rights to refuse but were nevertheless fined $2,000 for “hurting the feelings” of the women, Landolt said.
Tories blasted for proposed defence of religions act
by Janice Tibbetts, CanWest News Service
Thursday, October 05, 2006
OTTAWA - A Conservative government proposal to create a defence of religions act to protect opponents of homosexuality and same-sex marriage would trample on provincial jurisdiction and mimic existing constitutional protection for religious freedom, critics said Wednesday.
Even some Conservative MP's denounced the prospective act, which would allow officials to refuse to perform gay marriages, protect the free speech of anti-gay religious leaders and organizations that refuse to do business with gays and lesbians.
Brenda Cossman, a constitutional expert at the University of Toronto, said the federal government cannot extend extra protection to public officials who refuse to perform gay marriages because the solemnization is a provincial responsibility.
The Conservatives currently face failure in an upcoming vote in Parliament on whether to re-open the debate over same-sex marriage, which became the law of the land in 2005 and the religious protection proposal is believed to be a consolation prize of sorts for the law's opponents.
"We've got example after example across the country of religious people being prosecuted by courts and human rights commissions because there is no protection," said Brian Rushfeldt, of the Campaign Life Coalition. "I think there definitely has to be strong legislation at the federal level but it has to be followed up at the provincial level as well because of the jurisdictional issue."
There was also speculation Wednesday that adding an extra religious protection for freedom of expression and freedom of speech in the name of religious freedom could result in a licence to spew hatred.
"Obviously I'm concerned about any legislation that might legitimize intolerance of any kind," said Conservative MP Garth Turner.
"The only reason that I could see for this type of legislation is to create a protection for hate speech which is not constitutional," said Liberal MP Marlene Jennings.
The Regina Leader Post newspaper, has joined the fray demonstrating the lack of tolerance for opposition to homosexuality. While the paper would allow for priests to oppose homosexuality publicly, it suggests that opposition by non-clergy should be illegal. "There is an argument to be made for allowing religious leaders leeway in criticizing homosexuality. Many religions have prescriptions against the practice and religious leaders should be permitted to publicly defend their religion's tenets. But extending that right to rank-and-file members of a religion goes too far," says the editorial in the paper today.
National Post - Opinion by John Moore, radio talk show host
Friday, October 06, 2006
One of the great myths invented and propagated by the political right is the notion that it's dangerous to be a conservative. Life is a daily struggle against a relentless liberal cabal comprising the media, academia and the judiciary. One is not free to think conservative thoughts let alone speak them. Some political conservatives claim to be afraid to even express themselves to friends and business associates for fear of being ostracized from liberal sushi parties.
DORA [The Defence of Religions Act], we are told, would allow religious leaders and people of faith to speak about homosexuality without fear of retaliation from noisy activists. It would permit justices of the peace to live according to their conscience rather than being forced to officiate over marriages that they believe to be a sin. It would protect churches from gays who will force their way to the altar and demand to be married.
As a libertarian I believe people should be able to say whatever they want. However, Canada has a human rights code that denies the right to hate speech. [DORA would be] a law that acts as a pass for people who hate gays . . .
Those who fought and lost the battle against same-sex marriage argued that they didn't want the state, on their behalf, to offer their sanction to something they believe is wrong. The Defence of Religions Act does the very same thing. On behalf of all those who believe in inclusion, tolerance and equality, it offers government sanction and protection to those who don't like gay people to say and do whatever they want.