Smith V Knights Of Columbus
   HOME

TheInfoList



OR:

''Smith v Knights of Columbus'' was a Canadian
human rights Human rights are Morality, moral principles or Social norm, normsJames Nickel, with assistance from Thomas Pogge, M.B.E. Smith, and Leif Wenar, 13 December 2013, Stanford Encyclopedia of PhilosophyHuman Rights Retrieved 14 August 2014 for ce ...
case which upheld the right of a
Christian Christians () are people who follow or adhere to Christianity, a monotheistic Abrahamic religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus Christ. The words ''Christ'' and ''Christian'' derive from the Koine Greek title ''Christós'' (Χρι ...
group to ban celebrations of same sex marriages in their rental facility. The case was decided by the
British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal The British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal is a quasi-judicial human rights body in British Columbia, Canada. It was established under British Columbia's ''Human Rights Code''. It is responsible for "accepting, screening, mediating and adjudicati ...
on November 29, 2005 and is cited as 2005 BCHRT 544.


Background

Tracy Smith and Deborah Chymyshyn, two lesbians, intended on renting a hall from a male Catholic organization called the Knights of Columbus. After being banned from renting the hall, the couple filed a complaint with the B.C. Humans Rights Tribunal alleging they had been
discriminated Discrimination is the act of making unjustified distinctions between people based on the groups, classes, or other categories to which they belong or are perceived to belong. People may be discriminated on the basis of race, gender, age, relig ...
against according to s. 8 of the Human Rights Code. The complainants argued that while churches may have the right to ban same sex marriages, they should not also have the right to ban celebrations of same sex marriages in property that they own. The respondents to the complaint argued they have a bona fide reason to discriminate because they are practicing Catholics firmly opposed to same sex marriage. They also argue that s. 2(a) of the
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms The ''Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms'' (french: Charte canadienne des droits et libertés), often simply referred to as the ''Charter'' in Canada, is a bill of rights entrenched in the Constitution of Canada, forming the first part o ...
(the section dealing with religious freedom in Canada) gives them the right to practice their religion free from discrimination.


Decision of the Tribunal

All the issues boiled downed down to a single question: Having found that the Catholic organization (by its own admission) discriminated, was the discrimination an appropriate standard for the purpose or goal that is rationally connected to the function of the Catholic organization? The first thing the tribunal examined was the purpose or goal of the Catholic organization. Through research and common knowledge, they concluded that the Catholic organization sincerely believed that they have a duty to protect a traditional view of marriage, which excluded same sex unions. The tribunal found that while the hall's primary purpose is not to advance the interests of the Catholic Church, the hall's managers believed they couldn't rent the hall out to those whose interests oppose the Church. The tribunal then examined whether the standard is absolutely necessary for establishing the purpose. The tribunal found that forcing the hall to rent out the space to celebrate a homosexual wedding would force the Catholic organization to act against its religious beliefs, and that this would violate the Charter. However, the tribunal found that the organization could have discriminated in a way that was less injurious to the feelings of the complainants. Instead of simply canceling their appointment, they could have directed them to other halls and assisted them in finding another place to celebrate their wedding. Therefore, the tribunal fined the hall $1,000.


See also

*''
Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission ''Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission'', 584 U.S. ___ (2018), was a case in the Supreme Court of the United States that dealt with whether owners of public accommodations can refuse certain services based on the First Amendment ...
''


References


''Smith and Chymyshyn v. Knights of Columbus and others'', 2005 BCHRT 544


{{italic title Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms case law 2005 in Canadian case law Knights of Columbus Same-sex marriage in Canada British Columbia case law 2005 in British Columbia 2005 in LGBT history