Lesbian couple wins $2,000 settlement

[Rob_s_Wife]

bones_IV:

baloney. that’s modernism.

How so?

---

The court recognized the KoC have a religious right to refuse to enter a business agreement with these people.

---

The court also recognized the KoC should have used the responsibly before entering a business agreement with said people.

---

Seems like a fair and reasonable judgement to me. (Which certainly is the norm for moderism!) Or are you just annoyed the court pointed out the foolishness of the KoC not knowing who they were doing business with?

 

[Ziggy]

lifesite.net/ldn/2005/nov/05113006.html

This article on the incident showed that the Knights did try and make up for the cancellation. Could they just have been sue happy ?

"The Knights, faithful to church teaching against homosexual marriage, cancelled the rental contract that had been signed, returned the couple’s deposit and paid for the rental of a new hall and the reprinting of wedding invitations. That still didn’t satisfy the two lesbians who went to the Human Rights Commission.

The Knight’s lawyer, George Macintosh, told the CP that it is untrue that the Knights did not try to accommodate the women. “The complainants located another hall the next morning, so that was taken care of,” he said. “The Knights, when they found out about the misunderstanding, apologized to the complainants for the misunderstanding and offered to refund the hall rental. The communication just broke down when the Knights asked for a release to be signed before refunding the hall rental and the cost of printing the invitations, and that led to the hearing.”

 

[Brad]

But this ruling was against the discrimination suit.

---

Are you saying that anytime someone sues a christian - it should just be dismissed because they aren’t christian?

---

If this in any way had said the KoC didn’t have the right to say no to this duo - I would agree with you, but that’s not what happened. the court actually upheld that right. I think that’s a good thing.

They “upheld the right” while punishing K of C financially. Not good enough.

 

[Brad]

Guar Fan:

I think the era of banning blacks from businesses simply because the owner disliked blacks is long over. Business owners can not refuse to serve members of the public that they consider distasteful.

It is interesting that you didn’t answer any of the questions I proposed but instead inserted your own question about banning blacks. There are legitimate reasons for businesses to say no to potential customers. They are not in business to make the entire world happy. Would you want to go into business to make the entire world happy, even if your customers might potentially put you out of business?
Guar Fan:

If you consider the influence of lobbyists and of campaign contributions, I think you will find that private enterprise may have too much influence over government.

That is the way it is supposed to be. It is called free enterprise, based on FREEDOM to own property.

 

[Brad]

Digitonomy:

Correct. Only in the case of protected classes can you not discriminate on that basis. E.g., you can’t refuse service to someone because they’re black, but you can refuse service to someone because they’re a Star Trek fan.

That is a relief.

Digitonomy:

However, that’s American law. I think Canadian law has slightly broader protection against discrimination, and BC law may have additional protections beyond federal law.

Apparently they don’t like discrimination against people that assist in the rape and killing of their own younger sister. They are getting out of control.

 

[Brad]

Forgot the link to above:

cnn.com/2005/WORLD/americas/11/30/sex.slayings.ap/index.html

 

[Brad]

Nohome:

Where you see the above mentioned sign, neither party has entered into a business agreement. A business can’t enter into a contract and back out after signing on the dotted line. The K of C should have been more careful in their contracts or written in an escape clause. Without such contingencies, they entered into a legally binding agreement. Only a fool would think you could back out without any risk of liability.

Now, if they could prove that the contract was signed in “bad faith”, that is, that this couple made the arrangements for the sole purpose of imposing their lifestyle on a religious organization, they would have a leg to stand on.

I sympathize with the K of C, but they should be more careful when entering into business agreements.

Nohome

So it is the fault of the innocent when they don’t premptively protect themselves from every possible attack? This is freedom?

 

[Rob_s_Wife]

Brad:

They “upheld the right” while punishing K of C financially. Not good enough.

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.

---

I see 2 seperate issues here and the court apparently did also.

---

The KoC has a right, upheld by the court, to not offer their building to lesbians.

---

The KoC also has a responsibility, which the court says they failed in, to know who and what they are doing business with before entering into an agreement. The KoC’s failure to act responsibly in their business arrangement in this situation is what led to the financial ruling.

 

[dhgray]

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.

I see 2 seperate issues here and the court apparently did also.

The KoC has a right, upheld by the court, to not offer their building to lesbians.

The KoC also has a responsibility, which the court says they failed in, to know who and what they are doing business with before entering into an agreement. The KoC’s failure to act responsibly in their business arrangement in this situation is what led to the financial ruling.

I’m willing to bet that they did not tell the KofC they were a lesbian couple. If there were two distinct “FEMALE” names they it would have been caught. But one’s name is Tracey … easy to get confused. I think the Knights should countersue for decieteful practices.

 

[Rob_s_Wife]

dhgray:

I’m willing to bet that they did not tell the KofC they were a lesbian couple. If there were two distinct “FEMALE” names they it would have been caught. But one’s name is Tracey … easy to get confused. I think the Knights should countersue for decieteful practices.

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.

---

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.

 

[Digitonomy]

dhgray:

I’m willing to bet that they did not tell the KofC they were a lesbian couple. If there were two distinct “FEMALE” names they it would have been caught. But one’s name is Tracey … easy to get confused. I think the Knights should countersue for decieteful practices.

Before jumping to conclusions, perhaps you should read the available documentation, such as the tribunal’s decision. Although the KofC secretary assumed that the couple was not THE couple when they visited to inspect the facility, the tribunal found that the couple was not deceitful, and there was no question as to the fact that Tracey was a woman.

However, according to the article, this case may receive further examination; the couple’s lawyer has stated she’ll appeal the ruling to the courts. Her name? barbara findlay (she doesn’t use capitals :whacky: ).

 

[Nohome]

Brad:

So it is the fault of the innocent when they don’t premptively protect themselves from every possible attack? This is freedom?

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

 

[dhgray]

Digitonomy:

Before jumping to conclusions, perhaps you should read the available documentation, such as the tribunal’s decision. Although the KofC secretary assumed that the couple was not THE couple when they visited to inspect the facility, the tribunal found that the couple was not deceitful, and there was no question as to the fact that Tracey was a woman.

However, according to the article, this case may receive further examination; the couple’s lawyer has stated she’ll appeal the ruling to the courts. Her name? barbara findlay (she doesn’t use capitals :whacky: ).

Either way, $2,000 is a small price to pay to stand up for your beliefs. Score one for the Good Guys!

 

[Nohome]

dhgray:

Either way, $2,000 is a small price to pay to stand up for your beliefs. Score one for the Good Guys!

You make a very good point. They could you this logic to easily put a very positive spin on the situation. Who knows, maybe people will line up to rent the hall in support of them.

Nohome

 

[dhgray]

Nohome:

You make a very good point. They could you this logic to easily put a very positive spin on the situation. Who knows, maybe people will line up to rent the hall in support of them.

Nohome

I’m going to send a donation today.
Port Coquitlam Council 9125
**Knights of Columbus Hall **
2245 Fraser Ave.
Port Coquitlam, BC V3B 6G8

 

[TableServant]

Digitonomy:

Correct. Only in the case of protected classes can you not discriminate on that basis. E.g., you can’t refuse service to someone because they’re black, but you can refuse service to someone because they’re a Star Trek fan.

Here, now! What do you have against Star Trek fans!?!? :ehh:

I think I’ll sue!

 

[TableServant]

dhgray:

Either way, $2,000 is a small price to pay to stand up for your beliefs. Score one for the Good Guys!

It seems to me that this started out as a mis-understanding on both parts. The KofC rent the hall out to the public for functions, and the duo (I agree - better than “couple”) were looking for a public hall (maybe I’m being charitable, here. Part of me does expect people to know that the Knights of Columbus are Catholic, and what that means regarding homosexuality).

What gets me, I suppose, is that, even though it looks like the KofC went out of their way to refund the duo’s money and assist them in other ways, the suit was still filed. If my read on this is correct, it sounds like greed may have played a part in this, in addition to the desire to force the duo’s lifestyle/agenda on the KofC (as evidenced by the lawyer’s comments about pursuing the discrimination suit further).

“Blessed are they who are persecuted for the sake of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.” Matthew 5:10

 

[urban-hermit]

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.

---

I see 2 seperate issues here and the court apparently did also.

---

The KoC has a right, upheld by the court, to not offer their building to lesbians.

---

The KoC also has a responsibility, which the court says they failed in, to know who and what they are doing business with before entering into an agreement. The KoC’s failure to act responsibly in their business arrangement in this situation is what led to the financial ruling.

Why is the Human Rights Tribunal issuing financial rulings based on business practices if there was no illegal discrimination involved?

 

[fkpl]

This decision is wrong from the point of contract law (the basic principles of which apply generally in Canadian and American jurisdictions).

Legally, the issue is one of contract formation. This is about the doctrine of mistake. The general rule is that if one, but not both, parties is mistaken about a MATERIAL state of fact relevant to a contract, the contract is valid. This is true even if the non-mistaken party is aware of the other’s mistake. Where the non-mistaken party has by act or omission procured or reinforced the mistaken party’s state of mind, the party procures the contract by means of either fraud or what the law calls “contructive fraud”. The presence of fraud or constructive fraud prevents contract formation, so there is no real meeting of the minds and no valid contract exists.

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.

This is another aberrational decision, like the one about the woman burned with hot coffee from McDonald’s years ago as a result of her own negligence, that inflames folks but does not accurately describe the real state of the law.

At least in the U.S., the higher good of the free exercise clause of the First Amendment should always trump this kind of activity by the homosexuals.

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.

 

[Nohome]

fkpl:

They had to have known that the K of C would not rent to them for a homosexual event.

Everything you wrote made sense except for what I quoted. Did the lesbian couple know that K of C is Catholic and that the Catholic Church forbids homosexuality and that the K of C cared what that Catholic Church had to say on this matter?

Just me, but I think it is rather presumptuous to assume that everyone knows (or cares) about the tenets of the Catholic faith or every organization that is associated with the RCC. Who is to say the K of C wasn’t just another Elks or Moose lodge to these ladies?

Nohome