Raycom, all that and I still don't have a clear understanding of what the consequence is for Christians.

Is it your thesis that because marriage has been regularised as a formal contractual arrangement that is available to all people who wish to form a one-to-one personal relationship as a framework for living their life, Christians who wish to exercise what they perceive as their right to vilify homosexual relationships are thereby disadvantaged?

In other words, are you saying that my right to call you a theologically ignorant buffoon who shouldn't be allowed out in public without a leash around your neck and a muzzle on because you might bite one of my children and infect it with whatever nasty disease it is that caused you to be this way should be so fundamental that it should override your right to swear an oath of love to someone you wish to share your life with?

I know I'm probably being disingenuous, but I'm sure I can rely on you to tell me what I really think..

(SSM impact on freedoms in Canada Cont.)
Teachers are particularly at risk for disciplinary action, for even if they only make public statements criticizing same-sex marriage outside the classroom, they are still deemed to create a hostile environment for gay and lesbian students. Other workplaces and voluntary associations have adopted similar policies as a result of their having internalized this new orthodoxy that disagreement with same-sex marriage is illegal discrimination that must not be tolerated.

Parental Rights in Public Education

Institutionalizing same-sex marriage has subtly but pervasively changed parental rights in public education. The debate over how to cast same-sex marriage in the classroom is much like the debate over the place of sex education in schools, and of governmental pretensions to exercise primary authority over children. But sex education has always been a discrete matter, in the sense that by its nature it cannot permeate the entirety of the curriculum. Same-sex marriage is on a different footing.

Since one of the tenets of the new orthodoxy is that same-sex relationships deserve the same respect that we give marriage, its proponents have been remarkably successful in demanding that same-sex marriage be depicted positively in the classroom. Curriculum reforms in jurisdictions such as British Columbia now prevent parents from exercising their long-held veto power over contentious educational practices.

The new curricula are permeated by positive references to same-sex marriage, not just in one discipline but in all. Faced with this strategy of diffusion, the only parental defense is to remove one’s children from the public school system entirely. Courts have been unsympathetic to parental objections: if parents are clinging to outdated bigotries, then children must bear the burden of “cognitive dissonance”—they must absorb conflicting things from home and school while school tries to win out.

The reforms, of course, were not sold to the public as a matter of enforcing the new orthodoxy. Instead, the stated rationale was to prevent bullying; that is, to promote the acceptance of gay and lesbian youth and the children of same-sex households

It becomes clearer that the problem is not same-sex marriage, but the anti-discrimination laws.

Discrimination is one of the most important faculties of life gifted to us. Discrimination is good. It allows us to differentiate between good and evil, between truth and error, ultimately between the illusory world and God.

This is what the mob behind "same-sex equality" bitterly hates. They want to live in a bland, stupefied society with a uniform lifestyle of the lowest common denominator, so they cannot encounter others who by living differently remind them of their sins.

If they have their way now, they could next struggle for true marriage equality - that one should only be allowed to get their spouse through a random lottery, otherwise isn't it unfair that ugly women and short men are never selected...

(SSM impact on freedoms in Canada Cont.)

It is a laudable goal to encourage acceptance of persons. But whatever can be said for the objective, the means chosen to achieve it is a gross violation of the family. It is nothing less than the deliberate indoctrination of children (over the objections of their parents) into a conception of marriage that is fundamentally hostile to what the parents understand to be in their children’s best interests. It frustrates the ability of parents to lead their children to an understanding of marriage that will be conducive to their flourishing as adults. At a very early age, it teaches children that the underlying rationale of marriage is nothing other than the satisfaction of changeable adult desires for companionship.

Religious Institutions’ Right to Autonomy

At first glance, clergy and houses of worship appeared largely immune from coercion to condone or perform same-sex marriages. Indeed, this was the grand bargain of the same-sex marriage legislation—clergy would retain the right not to perform marriages that would violate their religious beliefs. Houses of worship could not be conscripted against the wishes of religious bodies.

It should have been clear from the outset just how narrow this protection is. It only prevents clergy from being coerced into performing marriage ceremonies. It does not, as we have seen, shield sermons or pastoral letters from the scrutiny of human rights commissions. It leaves congregations vulnerable to legal challenges if they refuse to rent their auxiliary facilities to same-sex couples for their ceremony receptions, or to any other organization that will use the facility to promote a view of sexuality wholly at odds with their own.

That's awesome, Raycom. It would be nice if you could just answer the really simple question that was addressed to you though.

Yuyutsu, the problem is not the anti-discrimination laws, it is that some people think they should be exempt.

Dear Craig,

The idea as if some people (i.e. the state and those representing it) have a right to order others, under threat of violence (which is what the law is about) with whom they may or may not engage, is sickening to the core.

Nobody should be subjected to such decrees.

If you don't like bigots, then you have many other avenues to show it. You can talk and write against them, you can blacklist and boycott their businesses, you can tell your kids not to play with theirs, etc.

What you have absolutely no moral right to do, is to threaten them: "if you refuse to provide service to such-and-such, then I will confiscate your assets and throw you in jail". That's pure and unjustifiable violence.