This story caught my eye today:
Religious charities in limbo, court told
Rights tribunal ruling could force groups 'out of business'
TORONTO - Religious charitable groups could be forced to choose between abandoning their values or going out of business if an Ontario Human Rights Tribunal decision is not overturned, an Ontario Divisional Court was told yesterday.
In 2008, the tribunal ruled that Christian Horizons, an evangelical Christian group that provides care and homes for the severely disabled, did not have the right to fire an employee because she entered into a lesbian relationship.
Read more: http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=2345491#ixzz0ZrF1BJUr
Should religious charities have the right to opt out of general legislation when it contadicts their beliefs?
The answer is not obvious.
Freedom of religion is not absolute. To take an obvious example, human sacrifice is not permitted even if the person being sacrificed agrees to be killed. In another, less ridiculous, example, churches have to obey the usual health and safety standards everyone else obeys. So, you cannot have a filthy kitchen and claim exemption on the basis that you are a religious organization.
But what about, when here, the issue goes to a religious matter and it has a fairly minor in impact on the broader community? (Or is it minor? Does allowing the termination say that society, as a whole, has no respect for GLT people?).
On the one hand, religions need the room to be free and almost by definition there will be some non-rational requirements (saying that I mean no disrespect). So, a temple is entitled to, say, limit its membership to people who are of a specific age or background -- that may not be rational in a secular sense but it is a legitimate religious exercise.
On the other hand, should a faith be allowed to bar membership based on, for example, race? (Some smaller faiths still do that and plenty of religions have gender based qualifications).
And if a religious organization hires people are they required to be an "equal opportunity employer" in the sense that they have no discrimination based on, among other things, sexual orientation?
The answers are not especially obvious -- I do not want to be associated with a religion that says, for example, whites are better than South Asians, but does that mean that I can impose my view and require, say, Shinto to accept a United Church of Canada view on equality of people?
Perhaps readers have better (or clearer) answers!
2 comments:
I'm shocked that there is any question in your mind. An employee is an employee. There are certain questions that cannot be asked in an interview, and all our employers must respect the gender and ethnic equality of all Canadians. If a group's credo doesn't match up with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, then yes, those prejudices must be abandoned.
If the group want to avoid the status of employer, maybe they should go the route of a monastery or convent, hiding their prejudices under the cloak of religion.
OK, but let's suppose the employee was not just an office worker but was actually a Minister or Priest -- can a religion fire a Minister or Priest if they go offside the principles of the religion?
Post a Comment