By Tim Bloedow
Christian Horizons, Ontario’s leading social service agency for helping severely disabled people, finally had their day in court this week. They were appealing a governmental act of hatred and discrimination against them. This act of bigotry and hatred was a decision by an adjudicator of the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal on behalf of a disgruntled – or cleverly opportunistic? – lesbian ex-employee.
An internet search should produce a good number of background articles oh this case. My book about the case, “No Sacred Ground,” is also a very important analysis for those who want to understand what’s involved.
A very important point needs be noted with the Christian Horizons case, and that is that it is not simply a social conservative issue. Most people see the case as Christianity and homosexuality. To them, that equals “social conservative battle.”
In my book, I demonstrate how the Christian Horizons case also violates principles of economic and governmental conservatism. In fact, John Carpay, head of the Canadian Constitution Foundation, who has recently read the book, told me that he appreciated the comprehensive approach to analyzing this case – the fact that I didn’t self-marginalize, like so many of today’s good little Christians do, when it came to critiquing this fascist assault against a vital Ontario charitable organization.
In particular, I noted how the OHRT completely undermined the principle of freedom of contract. A robust, functioning free society requires the ability of private individuals to establish voluntary contracts with each other that can be enforced. Predictability in this area is essential to stable economic activity. Yet, despite the fact that the lesbian employee, Connie Heintz, voluntarily signed a contract with Christian Horizons, agreeing to comply with their Lifestyle and Morality Statement, the OHRT treated that as complete irrelevant. “Human rights” trump contractual commitments.
I also discuss how the OHRT decision essentially assumes a right to employment, but even more than that, the right of Connie Heintz to be employed by Christian Horizons. Only in the most pathetic totalitarian societies would the civil magistrates go around telling businesses who they have to hire. That’s contemptible and pathetic, i.e., conventional human rights tribunal behaviour!
But it also illustrates how the humanist/homosexualist assault against Christian Horizons was not simply an attack on social conservatism, but also against economic and governmental conservatism. Another way of putting it is that this humanist assault against Christianity attacked what Christianity teaches about “social,” economic and governmental principles.
The Christian Horizons’ fight is largely about their right to practice their faith as they see fit. And our Christian faith impacts our economic and governmental decisions as well as our familial, charitable and “social” choices. If Christian Horizons loses in court, this won’t simply be a loss for family values or a loss for narrowly defined religious liberty, it will also be another nail in the coffin of free enterprise and democratic government – which is government by the consent of the governed, decentralised government and government by rule of law: all three of those principles are at stake in this decision. And those principles are as Christian as are the principles of real marriage and sexual purity.
You can purchase copies of my book by visiting the ECP Centre’s website here. You can order a hardcopy to be mailed to you or you can order an “ebook” for only $5 which will be emailed to you.
Public date: December 19th, 2009Categories: Opinion
Tags: Christian Horizons, discrimination, hate crime, homosexuality, Lorne Gunter, Ontario human rights tribunal, Religious Liberty
