Sask. tribunal fines Regina marriage commissioner for discrimination *
Posted on 31 May 2008 by Jack
REGINA — Saskatchewan’s marriage commissioners will be directed to abide by the law and perform same-sex marriage ceremonies after a human rights tribunal fined a Regina commissioner $2,500 for discriminating against a gay couple.
“Assuming there isn’t an appeal . . . our intention will be to confirm with all of the people that are commissioners that they comply with the legislation,” Justice Minister Don Morgan said Friday.
He added that most of the commissioners have had no trouble complying. Orville Nichols is one of the exceptions.
A Regina marriage commissioner for 25 years, he was found guilty of violating the Saskatchewan Human Rights Code for declining to perform a same-sex marriage three years ago. Nichols too will be asked to comply and if he won’t, he’ll likely be allowed to complete any outstanding bookings for weddings before he loses his appointment as a commissioner, Morgan said.
Nichols, who has about 37 weddings scheduled, is currently weighing his options, including an appeal.
“I am very disappointed in the decision,” he said. “I broke the law because of my religious beliefs.”
The Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission (SHRC) and Rick Pollard, of the Regina Pride Committee, say the case was not about curtailing religious freedom, but ensuring public officials do not discriminate because of sexual orientation.
“It’s important that, like any other public servant, marriage commissioners be obliged to uphold the law,” said Pollard. “It’s very good for same-sex couples. It’s a step forward recognizing that we have the same rights as other Saskatchewan citizens.”
Update: More HRC “stuff”…
Popularity: 18% [?]
May 31st, 2008 at 6:48 pm
I would sue the Government for constructive dismissal. There is obviously a “tier of rights” within the Charter.
May 31st, 2008 at 10:20 pm
west coast teddi….you are absolutely right….ther is a “tier of rights” or “perhaps hierachy of rights”…..Christianity is at the bottom.
May 31st, 2008 at 10:49 pm
I disagree, gents and here’s why…
If Nichols was a member of the clergy, he could justify using religion to explain his refusal to marry a same-sex couple and I wouldn’t have a problem with it. After all, the clergy’s salary is paid for by their congregation. If the congregation disagrees with his refusal, they can stop paying him.
Nichols is an employee of the secular government, paid for by all taxpayers. As such, it is his duty to serve all the people, not just those who comply with his religious beliefs. If he is not prepared to do so, he’s in the wrong job.
June 1st, 2008 at 1:06 am
Nice point Mac. Now suppose he was Muslim….
June 1st, 2008 at 1:51 am
How would that make any difference?
If he was an imam and refused to marry a same-sex couple, that’s his prerogative. If he was Muslim and an employee of the secular government, it would be his duty to serve all people without discrimination. If he was not prepared to do so, he’s in the wrong job.
June 1st, 2008 at 2:17 am
The thrust of the matter is that the loony left is trying to destroy our our heritage, namely Christian. The comments about an imam or a Shinto priest or Buddhist monk would also apply as exclusions.
The fact that the preamble of the Charter states that First Nations people and French Canadians have a special status signals that there is a caste system in this country. Some are more equal than others.
The fact that the federal government can also advertise for jobs with white males need not apply implicit in the statement of qualifications with words like preference will be given to aboriginal, handicapped, female, minorities, etc are examples of this.
The attack on Christianity is therefore a logical next step since French Canadians have tried since the sixties to expunge religion from their society. Would the Federal government go against this trend or try and pick up votes by adhering to their philosophy?
June 1st, 2008 at 10:25 am
Some parts of “heritage” deserve to be destroyed. It’s called evolution, though I suppose it’s in some of your folks’ “heritage” to deny such a thing exists. Regardless, as Mac said, the was not a priest but an employee of a secular institution whose job is to uphold the laws of the land rather than inject his personal biases into reshaping society.
June 6th, 2008 at 2:15 am
My point was that he says he broke the law because of his religious beliefs. If it had been a Muslim, there is no doubt in my mind that some sort of accommodation would have been found. Either another commissioner would’ve been made available or whatever. But tight unflinching zero tolerance in our trudeaupian society only applies to (dare I say it) white Christians. It is a fact and is seen so often that it is now accepted as the right thing to do. Again, another example of our societal decay.
June 6th, 2008 at 2:45 am
Thanks for clarifying, Peter… especially in light of Jack’s recent post regarding the destruction of British society…
November 28th, 2008 at 2:26 pm
The gay couple got their wish - they were able to get married. Orville even referred them to another commissionaire who was willing to do the ceremony. So why was the gay couple not satisfied? They should allow the marriage commissioner to live his own belief, just like they are insisting on their rights to marry. Instead, they are trying to destroy the religious freedom of someone who peacefully and respectfully believes differently (and this has been a trend, more than once). This is a double standard. Faith is not something you just have in the confines of a church (or temple) service. It is a lifestyle, a part of who you are and how you live, even on the job - this is why Orville refused to marry them. The rights of Christians have consistently been pushed down to the bottom in recent years, in Canada. I am proud of Orville Nichols for making his stand.