The B.C. human rights kangaroo tribunal has ordered B&B owners, Les and Susan Molnar, to pay homosexuals Brian Thomas and Shaun Eadie $4,500 to assuage the bruised dignity and self-respect they suffered when prevented from indulging in a night of urningtum hanky-panky in one of the Molnar’s beds. Of course, nobody that has any dignity or self-respect would whine to a human rights commission simply because they encountered a Christian couple who had the mettle to stand up for what they believed to be right.
But this was not about “dignity” or “self-respect”: it was about compelling recalcitrant Christians to conform to the Zeitgeist – something that the Bible exhorts them not to do.
One might argue that Christian business owners have to obey the law of the land – in this case to “cease and desist the discriminatory conduct” – or not have a business. And that is what has happened in this case: the B&B closed in 2009, an insufficient punishment it seems, hence the $4,500 damages claim.
The question is: does anyone seriously think that we are making a better society for ourselves by driving Christians who will not grovel before the altar of the equality god out of business?
From here:
Christian owners of a bed and breakfast in British Columbia have been ordered to pay around $4,500 in damages after they refused to rent a room to a homosexual couple.
Brian Thomas and Shaun Eadie had reserved a room at the Riverbend B&B in Grand Forks in June 2009, but owners Les and Susan Molnar cancelled the reservation after realizing they were homosexual.
“To allow a gay couple to share a bed in my Christian home would violate my Christian beliefs and would cause me and my wife great distress,” Lee explained in tribunal documents.
Thomas and Eadie filed a complaint with the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal, which ruled in their favour on Tuesday. Tribunal member Enid Marion ordered the Molnars to “cease and desist the discriminatory conduct,” though they closed the B&B down in September 2009 as a result of the incident.
Marion agreed with the two men that the Molnars violated section 8 of the B.C. Human Rights Code, which states that it is a discriminatory practice to “deny to a person or class of persons any accommodation” because of “sexual orientation.”
When I read about this BC case, it reminded me of a very similar case that arose in England a year or so ago. The result in the UK case was very similar to this one.
The courts are always in favour in this way of the gay persons in cases like these.
I’ve been told that the gay lobby is quite powefull too.
If word got around about this Christian Bed & Breakfast to persons who did not agree with this could possibly attract persons to deliberately get kicked out to take them to court and win.
So, if someone knowing what they believe and will get kicked take them to court and win could all be a plan to try to break something down that doesn’t share their beliefs.
Some persons like to get their own way
But refusing them the way they did is a risk too like what we see in these results
I stopped doing wedding photography a couple of years ago because I did not want to be put in a similar position.
A friend suggested that I become a Justice of the Peace a few years ago as it was something our community needed but again, I would be required to put aside my moral beliefs.
My husband and I had been thinking about opening a B & B when we were ready to retire, but it’s pretty obvious that we won’t be doing that either.
The tolerance highway only goes in one direction.
I find it interesting that the Constitution of Canada
http://www.solon.org/Constitutions/Canada/English/ca_1982.html
has this:
SCHEDULE B
CONSTITUTION ACT, 1982
PART I
CANADIAN CHARTER OF RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS
Whereas Canada is founded upon the principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law:
Guarantee of Rights and Freedoms
1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.
Fundamental Freedoms
2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
(a) freedom of conscience and religion
(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other means of communication.
(c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
(d) freedom of association.
So the very first fundamental freedom in our Constitution is the “freedom of conscience and religion”. But for some strange reason beyond my comprehension we are not allowed to conduct our businesses in accordance with our religous beliefs, especially when a pair of fagots want to have a night of sodomy and who knows what other disgusting indulgances. It seems that there “right” to but fuck each other where-ever and when-ever they like has become more important than my right to conduct my life according to my religous beliefs.
You must be right Amp. Their upset about being denied a safe, clean, and friendly place to sleep the night away CLEARLY must have been because they were angry that they as “faggots” couldn’t “[butt] fuck each other where-ever and when-ever they like.” Or who knows..maybe it was simply because they were denied accommodation over their sexual orientation.
I have to say I agree whole-heartedly that people deserve freedom to conscience and religion, I know I wouldn’t want someone to tell me what or how to believe in my beliefs just as I’m sure you’d disagree if someone told you that you were doing it wrong, but I don’t believe people deserve or reserve the right to discriminate against anyone due to their race, sexual-orientation, or religion. I would think as someone with beliefs such as yours should be able to see it from the other side…and maybe refrain from using such derogatory language.
I disagree. They were not upset about “being denied a safe, clean, and friendly place to sleep the night away”. They were upset that good Christian people running a bed and breakfast refused to condone their sinful lusts and behaviour. In short, these fagots are forcing their beliefs unto others. They could easily have found somewhere else to spend the night. But that is not enough for them. They want to be able to engage in their disgusting and perverted bahaviour anywhere anytime, and clearly will force us to allow it.
As far as what you consider to be derogatory language goes, I call it as I see it. If find that offensive than I suggest you grow a skin. Frnakly the idea a one man giving another man a blowjob or engaging in anal sex is more than just offensive. Such activities are revolting, disgusting, and sickening.
“They were not upset about “being denied a safe, clean, and friendly place to sleep the night away”. They were upset that good Christian people running a bed and breakfast refused to condone their sinful lusts and behaviour.”
Behaviour like having a safe, clean, and friendly place to sleep the night away?
Do I need to describe in detail for you the behaviour that the homosexuals induldge in? Believe me, I could be very desriptive, and it would make many people who visit this blog feel sick. And rightly so, for what the homosexual do is sickening!
What would the ruling be when a same sex couple demand recompense for being denied:
Marriage in a religious house of worship were they were denied a wedding service.
Camping or accomodation at a religious retreat.
Rental of a religious hall for their wedding celebration.
It has been written that a person’s right to swing his arms end at another persons nose,or even close to that nose. Not a law of course, but common sense. I certainly would not want any immoral swinging going on in my, home, church, church hall, church campground,or any where near me or my family. I believe that to be my right to have, a foolish believe apparently.
Apparently, for in todays culture, and governance, my rights as a Christian take back seat to the rights of amoral liberal destroyers, hell bent on the destruction of a society established on the bedrock of morality and “In God we trust”. Perhaps we will end up worshiping once again in caves, or catacombs to avoid the eyes and laws of Big Brother.
Anyone know of catacombs hereabouts?
Terry
Re: “a society established on the bedrock of morality and ‘In God we trust’”.
I think you are describing the wrong country. British Columbia is in Canada; “In God we Trust” is not a Canadian slogan.
Moreover, if Canadian society was “established on the bedrock of morality,” you have a different understanding of Canadian history than I do. Canadian society was established to expand the fur trade and empty Canadian waters of fish.
7.1
While enjoying your right to criticize the history of Canada, you might want to read the Preamble to the Canadian Bill of Rights. Remove the quotation marks from Terry’s “In God We Trust” and he’s bang on.
Best advice that I can give Les and Susan Molnar is this.
1. Open a new chequing account at a bank where they have never banked before.
2. Deposit a small amount of money into the account, say $20
3. Send a cheque to the queers that sued them for only about $10.
3. Include a note with the cheque explaining that due to having lost a recent law suit they have had to close their business which was their only means of income, and that they are now a retired couple living on a fixed income. The enclosed amount is all that they can afford to send at this time. Also state in the note that as they are able to they will make further payments.
4. Make absulutely sure that these queers, the laywers, and the courts never have find out about any of their other bank accounts.
Nice use of “queer” as a slur.
Blog owner, you disapprove of this language, right?
The alphabets use that word to describe themselves, quite proudly sometimes. These ‘queers’ don’t deserve a penny. Tribunals like this bow and scrape to their political masters. This would have never lasted 2 seconds in a real court of law. Tribunals cherry pick the Bill of Rights and in this case chose to ignore
If I were the judge, “I’m sorry your feelings were hurt, but the B&B have their rights too, suck it up, you are big boys, shop somewhere else!”
I have to decided to “call it as I see it”. If that offends you than that is your problem. For I have now realized that for far too long we have been far too timid in these matters, practically being afraid of “offending” anyone. This “kid gloves” approach has backfired in our face and we now see the ruinous effect that those who promote the agenda of sin are now inflicting upon what was once a good and God fearing Church.
If you are offended by the words that I use than I have this to say to you. From what God has said in His Holy Bible it is abundantly clear that He is considerably more offended by the actions of these homosexuals. You should also.
You can’t send a black person to the back of the bus. You can’t prevent a person with stutter from serving a customer. You can’t deny a same sex couple from staying in your B & B. It is not an exclusive environment. If you operate to serve the general public, you cannot put limitations on who purchases your product.
Seems pretty cut and dry to me.
There is a difference Eph. The Black person cannot change the colour of their skin. The person with a sutter might very well be getting the profession help they need to overcome their affliction. But in this case the homos have chosen their disgusting behaviour and are demanding that others accept it.
I may not understand the attraction, but that does not constitute disgusting behaviour. Gays are born gay. Yes it is that simple. It is not a disease that can be cured. It is what God made you as. The sooner you accept that, the sooner you will be at peace.
As it stands, your comments are nothing short of bigotry and homophobia.
It looks like my computer ate my comment. I will try to remember what I said:
I have met people who have left same sex attraction behind. I also know many single people who live fulfilling lives. Singleness doesn’t necessarily mean desperate loneliness.
I don’t believe that my temptation to do ___________ is the way God made me, I think it is because of the fall. It is something I need God’s help to resist. I believe that same sex attraction falls in the same category.
I am with you though, in that I think AMP could choose his words with more charity and care.
Sorry Eph but you are completely wrong when you say that “gays are born gay”. There is absolutely no scientific evidence to support your statement. There are a lot of people saying it. But saying it does not make it true.
If you think that there is some sort of a “gay gene” than consider this. Genetics has been shown to influence physical characteristics and nothing else. Characteristics such as the colour of a persons skin or eyes or hair. There has never been any scientific evidence that would even suggest that a persons genetics controls thier behaviour. Who a person has sex with is a behaviour, and thus not related to genetics, and thus a person is NOT born gay. IT IS THAT SIMPLE!
As far as my comments being bogotted and homophobic goes. DAM RIGHT THEY ARE! Being a bigot means not tolerating things that are wrong. Jesus did not tolerate a lot of things that He saw as wrong, so I have no problem at with accepting that Jesus is a bigot. And I have no problem at all with refusing to tolerate homosexual behaviour which God has clearly said many times is just plain wrong! We should never tolerate sin, and if that makes us a bunch of bigots than I shall wear that label openly and without any shame.
James 1
19 My dear brothers and sisters, take note of this: Everyone should be quick to listen, slow to speak and slow to become angry, 20 because human anger does not produce the righteousness that God desires. 21 Therefore, get rid of all moral filth and the evil that is so prevalent and humbly accept the word planted in you, which can save you.
22 Do not merely listen to the word, and so deceive yourselves. Do what it says. 23 Anyone who listens to the word but does not do what it says is like someone who looks at his face in a mirror 24 and, after looking at himself, goes away and immediately forgets what he looks like. 25 But whoever looks intently into the perfect law that gives freedom, and continues in it—not forgetting what they have heard, but doing it—they will be blessed in what they do.
26 Those who consider themselves religious and yet do not keep a tight rein on their tongues deceive themselves, and their religion is worthless.
If there was a gay gene identical twins would share it. The present Bishop of Brandon, one of identical twins is not gay. According to Jim, his brother is!
Eph [10.1.1],
Then perhaps you would care to explain why Gore Vidal, a person who engaged in a lifetime of homosexual activity, says quite the opposite:
Now I don’t agree that sex between two men is “normal” but I think Vidal has a point in saying that homosexuality is existential: one becomes homosexual by engaging in homosexual acts not vice versa. For homosexuals, existence precedes essence: homosexuals create their own sexuality – and from a Christian perspective, it’s a fallen sexuality.
Quite a complicated situation isn’t it.
Coming from the St John’s Shaughnessy Anglican congregation that now meets at Oakridge Seven Day Adventist under the new name St John’s Vancouver have heard quiet a lot about this topic.
I find the sermons at St John’s Vancouver to be very good gives me a reason to come back.
At St John’s Vancouver we still have the four services at around 1000 persons.
St John’s Shaughnessy has two services an 8am with 3 & the 10am with around 30.
The sword of the Spirit is the Word of God is preached at St John’s
If we maintain that homosexuality is a sin unto God like any other, then we need to ask whether we treat unrepentant adulterers or thieves in this manner.
Disapproving the sin does not negate our duty to love the sinner.
But let us stay focussed on the original issue. These particular sinners are using the Canadian legal system to attack Christians, and force Christians to conduct their business in a manner that goes against their Christian morals. Loving the sinner is entirely different from allowing the sinner to force acceptance of their sins.
Amp
Should businessmen deny services to blasphemers or adulterers (divorced couples)?
I can’t find a separate more severe category of sin for unrepentant homosexuals.
If one is prepared to “shun” sinners, one shouldn’t be in a retail business.
Exactly.
Perhaps the issue is not so much one of Christians “shunning” sinners – which would mean living in an isolated cave with no mirrors – or denying them services, but more one of a reluctance to being compelled to provide the facilities that enable the sins to be conducted in comfort.
It wasn’t that long ago, in the UK at least, that an unmarried heterosexual couple who wanted to share a room in a boarding house would be turned away – unless they pretended to be married; there were no howls of outrage at this, no court appearances and no equality tribunals. Perhaps in this case if one of the gentlemen had donned a skirt and affected a high voice things might have gone differently. But, then this was never about just getting a room: it was about two men getting their own way and trampling on the feelings of a couple of hapless Christians.
A musician friend of mine plays at weddings; he has never been asked to play at a gay wedding, but if he is, he will refuse because he does not wish to contribute to something he disagrees with. Should he get out of the music business before he is sued?
A marriage registrar commented here a while ago that she is no longer a registrar because she doesn’t wish to perform gay marriages since she doesn’t agree with them; should she be forced to?
I’ll ask the same question that I posed in the original post: does anyone think we are making a better society for ourselves by driving Christians out of these kinds of businesses?
You nailed it bang on! The marriage commissioner quit because she didn’t wish to perform gay marriages. If you can’t provide a public service to all of the public, then maybe you shouldn’t be providing it. I’m not saying I necessarily agree with the aboves receiving of compensation, however I agree that the BnB was in the wrong for denying them.
And Eph is right. You can be born gay. I’m not saying I think that’s the truth for every case, but more often than not, I believe it is. Why on earth would anyone choose to be on the sh.t end of the stick? Why would someone chose to be ridiculed and mocked. Why would they choose to be degraded by bigots and homophobes and sexists. Why would they chose to live a life where they’re possibly, and quite likely at one point, going to be denied a service that their fellow neighbour can partake in.
People want gays to keep their business(personal that is) to the privacy of their own bedrooms..well maybe Christians should do the same?(I’m not intending for that to be any sort of anti-Christian comment, to each their own, I’m simply saying that we’re all the same here, and therefore should be running with the same privileges)
No he isn’t.
Having a same-sex attraction is not the same thing as being “born gay” any more than being a kleptomaniac means you’re a “born thief.”
Camille Paglia writes, “After the American Psychiatric Association, responding to activist pressure, removed homosexuality from its list of mental disorders in 1973, psychological inquiries into homosexuality slowly became verboten. To even ask about the origins of homosexuality was automatically dubbed homophobic by gay studies proponents in the ’80s and ’90s. Weirdly, despite the rigid social constructionist bias that permeated the entire left, gay activists in and out of academe now leapt on the slightest evidence that could suggest a biological cause of homosexuality. The very useful Freudian concept of “family romance” (typified by the Oedipus and Electra complexes) is almost completely gone. Yet the intricate family dynamic of every single gay person I’ve ever known seems to have played some kind of role in his or her developing sexual orientation.
The widespread desire to find a biological basis for homosexuality seems to me very misconceived. It will inevitably lead to claims that gays are developmentally defective at the prenatal level. I myself believe (as I argued in “No Law in the Arena” in “Vamps & Tramps”) that everyone is born with a potential for bisexual responsiveness and that exclusive homosexuality is an adaptation to specific social conditions. When a gay adult claims to have been gay since early childhood, what he or she is actually remembering is the sense of being different for some reason, which in boys often registers as shyness or super-sensitivity, leading to a failure to bond with bumptious peers. This disjunction, with all its painfully stifled longings, becomes overt homosexuality much later on. But retrospective psychohistory is out these days, and the only game in town is pin the tail on the oppressor.”
I have yet to see a baby who wasn’t totally absorbed in his or her mother. If sexuality presents at birth, it would seem that all girls are born gay while all boys are born straight, which is ludicrous.
The reality is that sexuality does not begin to develop until the onset of puberty and does not stabilise until the late teens. It’s debatable if it ever reaches a point where it’s fixed.
As advertising’s about all that’s left of culture any more, this is essentially a “branding” problem. Businesses chasing the trend of the day put up cutesy, smarmy little rainbow stickers to indicate they’re “gay-friendly.” Perhaps businesses like the B & B should begin to include in their public interface something suggestive like a Chic-fil-A logo.
13.
Render unto Caesar… Sadly, it’s the law:
work to change the law, accept the consequences of Civil Disobedience, or avoid contact with the law. We no longer live in a Christian society.
And, as to the question originally posed, no of course not. Neither in principle, nor in consideration of the loss of people providing real goods and services. B & B’s are not the usual corporate franchise and standards of quality and accommodation vary considerably. They’re also one of the last vestiges of entrepreneurship ordinary people might enter. I don’t know … would this not be along the lines of not having to build a ramp onto their house to be wheelchair compliant, or not having to provide kosher or halal food? Probably what they should have done is, along with flying the Chic-fil-A banner, have as, unfortunately, their only availability a small single uncomfortable bed. Something they’d have ready on stand-by and have to “make up the room” before being able to conduct their would-be guests to their accommodation.
The UK case that is similar to this one is back in the news. The Christian couple has been granted permission to appeal to the British Supreme Court. See newspaper account at this link: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/9476757/Christian-BandB-owners-who-refused-gay-couple-win-right-to-Supreme-Court-appeal.html
The story is also posted on the Anglican Mainstream blog.
Anyone remember the time when people were free to do whatever they liked on their own property?
How long ago that seems.