Lesbian couple wins $2,000 settlement

[Brad]

I disagree. KoC was punished financially for entering into an agreement without knowing what they were agreeing to and deciding to back out afterwards. If it hadn’t been lesbians, the KoC should still have been “punished” for such their lack of good business dealing.

And are you certain that they were not lied to?

 

[Brad]

In the case of them being deceiful, the KoC wouldn’t or shouldn’t have to pay at all. However, I would think they would have brought that up to the court if that had been the case. It appears that the actual situation is that the KoC didn’t bother to get that basic information before entering the agreement.

You are thinking as if the courts are thinking like you. This case was clearly about discrimination as demonstrated by the plaintiffs. It was not about being inconvenienced. You assume that this key fact would have prompted the court to rule completely in favor of K of C. However you neglect the liberal tendencies of the courts. I tend to think they punted so as to not compromise their liberal tendencies nor look like the tyrannic despots some of the aspire to be.

If the court did believe K of C had the right to discriminate and the case was clearly about discrimation (see plaintiffs complaint and complaining afterwards) then they should have won outright.
Rob's Wife:

---

A nice disclaimer on all paperwork, required signatures of both parties required would solve much of this:

---

We are a Catholic organization and as such have the right to refuse or deny any person or group which may be in conflict with the Catholic faith. This includes, but is not limited to, homosexual persons or groups or events.

The case was about discrimination. A disclaimer that violated the state laws on discrimination(often today determined by judicial “legislators”) would do no good. Again, I presume they do have such language on their contracts.

 

[Brad]

Nohome:

The K of C wished to make money from the transaction. It was a business deal that went bad, plain and simple. We are talking about liability not innocence or guilt.

And yes, when in business, you should protect yourself from every possible attack. The K of C was free to not put their hall up for hire. They were also free to pusue business. They did and things didn’t go well for them. It wasn’t pleasant, but it was indeed free.

Nohome

Things went fine for them. There are many that don’t like it when things go fine for an organization and try to force an alteration of their circumstances through a 3rd party.

 

[Digitonomy]

fkpl:

From what little is known about this matter, I would suspect that the lesbians hid by omission their purpose in renting the hall. They had to have known that the K of C would not rent to them for a homosexual event.

You can increase what little you know about this matter by reading the tribunal’s decision. They addressed this question, and found that the couple was not deceptive, and in fact the couple stated that had they known who the K of C are, they would not have sought to rent the hall. I also do not recall reading any allegation by the K of C that the couple was in any way deceptive.

fkpl:

Also, with respect to discrimination. Discrimination against a protected group is not per se illegal. It can be engaged in when the state has a “compelling reason” to do so. People not in a protected class can suffer discrimination if the state has a “rational basis” for imposing the discrimination. In practice, the “compelling interest” test is virtually impossible to meet, but it is hypothetically possible.

I sense you’re more of a scholar than myself in this area, so I’ll just say that although we’re mixing US and Canadian law here, the tribunal found that the K of C did have a legitimate compelling reason (or equivalent wording) to discriminate.

 

[WanderAimlessly]

Photos of Port Coquitlam, B.C. Knights of Columbus Hall Dispute Lesbians’ Claims
Facilities clearly Catholic and belonging to Catholic Knights of Columbus

PORT COQUITLAM, BC, December 7, 2005 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Two lesbians awarded damages from a BC Human Rights Tribunal for being denied a Knights of Columbus hall rental for their same-sex “wedding” claimed they were completely unaware that the hall was affiliated with the Catholic Church.

Pictures of the hall obtained by LifeSiteNews.com reveal its undeniable inclusion in a complex that included Our Lady of the Assumption Catholic Church and Our Lady of the Assumption Catholic School. Not only do the pictures reveal that the hall is part of the same three-acre parcel of land, but the walls of the buildings are all identical in colour.

Full Story​

PF