I think that a lot of libertarians (of all bends) out there can really get behind the idea that the government should not be dictating to employers under what terms they must employ their workers. After all, without such restrictions, many of the unions on life-support today would’ve gone the way of the dodo back when disco was first popular, and we wouldn’t have the delicate dance that is many internal human resources documents today. Individuals and employers would come up with a mutual understanding of job duties, compensation and prohibitions, making society more proactive and conscious when dealing with employment. It would also have kept current employment trends away, such as those which set up semi-long, restrictive trial periods that employers use currently as a line of defence against picking up bad recruits before prohibitive employment laws set in.
So when it comes to the case of Waterloo region’s Christian Horizons, the first thing that we should keep in mind is that the government came to them first, not the other way around. If the government didn’t like the way that the outwardly Christian organization did business, or specifically how it hired it’s employees, it shouldn’t have agreed to whatever contracts were set up with CH — after all, with a name like Christian Horizons, it’s not like they were hiding a secret agenda or anything! Now we can debate on whether the government has any business funding any philosophically or ethically-biased group (it’s certainly hard not to, and even liberal atheism has certainly gotten its share through causes like the Court Challenges Programme), but we have to start here with the understanding that the government of the day entered into a deal with CH knowing, or responsible for knowing full well that the organization was guided by divine principles; in the private sector, if you partner up with another company and then expect a change, not only do you become a laughing stalk but chances are you’ll also see your business deteriorate soon afterwards. What the crowd who cites CH’s government funding are trying to do is bad business and bad manners, period.
Next, as far as employment laws are concerned, I have to admit that it’s no surprise that John Tory has once again demonstrated that his lust to win seats in Toronto trumps all common sense and principle, not to mention the desire to hang onto that rural rump that his party currently possesses in the legislature. If a company decides to abide under Charter-protected freedoms of religion as it conducts its business, what right does the state have to come in and impose its own morality. If what the company does is bad practice, won’t its reputation get around and the court of public opinion weed out any unwarranted behaviours? Who would want to buy from a reseller who refuses to hire women when they know full-well that a boycott could be right around the corner? Likewise, we expect Christian organizations, Muslim centres and urbane companies to all hire and work according to what their respective entities stand for. If the public tolerates it through their business practices, so what? Or are we actually, finally brave enough to admit that this is just an attempt to impose state-sanctioned atheist secularism into every aspect of society? I didn’t think so.
Much of this will matter very little though as we will once again see a rip-roaring battle ensue where the God-haters and religiophobes of our society once again rise us to defend a separation of church and state concept they barely understand and always reinvent to suite the flavour of the day. Nowhere will be hear of the 500+ years of jurisprudence that has allowed Christian organizations to serve the public good over that period of time and gave Canada, in particular, such bedrock foundations as the Sisters of St. Joseph, the YMCA or Christian Horizions — all of which have, by a desire to serve a higher calling, given us cheaper, wholesome and quality social services than we would’ve had if we just had the state do it all itself from the beginning. Certainly there will not be a mention of that. Of course, once the crusading secularists have weeded out every vestige of Christian presence in our society, who will be left to do all the things that government is too incompetent to do properly and the rest of us are too selfish to do willingly?
Joanne (TB) wrote:
“Of course, once the crusading secularists have weeded out every vestige of Christian presence in our society, who will be left to do all the things that government is too incompetent to do properly and the rest of us are too selfish to do willingly?”
Exactly. Very good post. I had no idea that the government approached CH first and not the other way around. That puts a whole different spin on things, IMHO.
Posted on 28-Apr-08 at 8:16 pm | Permalink
Hunter wrote:
What about drug testing at work? Isn’t that against our human rights, this should be stopped immediately.
So many wrongs, and so little time, for the HRC’s to mold us into an image they want!
Posted on 28-Apr-08 at 9:50 pm | Permalink
Fiumara wrote:
This is not public money in the sense that the Christian Horizons is being subsidised. They are providing a service as dictated by the service contract with the Ontario government. As in any service contract with any level of government is the boiler plate clause that the contractor’s employees are NOT employees of the government NOR are they deemed to be employees of the government.
In other words the government doesn’t care about how Christian Horizons runs its business as long as the terms and conditions of the contract are met.
As usual, the HRC saw it fit to intrude on a private business with a Christian basis which does not tow the party line. The usual suspects and the usual conclusions are involved.
It’s time to put these kangaroo courts out of our misery.
Posted on 28-Apr-08 at 10:15 pm | Permalink
Joanne (TB) wrote:
Hunter, very good point about the drug testing.
When you think about it, there are other places of employment that hold their employees to a higher moral standard - for example off-duty police get into big trouble for being drunk; especially if driving, etc.
Posted on 29-Apr-08 at 5:05 am | Permalink
Charles Anthony wrote:
I believe the solution to this issue is simple: the Christian Horizons should stop accepting business from the state and then sink or swim.
Sorry, guys, but I find this discussion peculiar. If you want to uphold family values while at the same time being in bed with the state, it is bizarre to then complain that the state is stepping on your family’s toes.
I understand that the Ontario Government approached the Christian Horizons first. So what? The Government of Ontario does not need to uphold a good reputation!
The way I see things is thus: if you (in this case, Christian Horizons) repeatedly do business with a laughing stalk (i.e., the Ontario Government), chances are you will also see your business deteriorate soon afterwards.
Fiumara,
You are mistaken. Christian Horizons is certainly being subsidized in a meaningful sense. A different word for this is corporate welfare.
The “contract” with the Ontario Government and the boilerplate clauses to which you refer are just accounting and legal tricks to obfuscate the economic relationship. There is no real difference between having an exclusive government contract paid by the tax-payer and receiving a subsidy.
Posted on 29-Apr-08 at 6:58 am | Permalink
KEvron wrote:
“If the government didn’t like the way that the outwardly Christian organization did business, or specifically how it hired it’s employees, it shouldn’t have agreed to whatever contracts were set up”
this is easily reversed: “if ch didn’t like the way the govt did business….”. but there’s no need to turn stupid arguments back on themselves because it’s elementary: ch established its compliance policy in ‘92, after an earlier court decision against them, and while on the public dime.
move the goal posts much, matthew?
KEvron
Posted on 29-Apr-08 at 10:40 am | Permalink
KEvron wrote:
btw,
“the first thing that we should keep in mind is that the government came to them first”
do you have a source for this?
KEvron
Posted on 29-Apr-08 at 1:35 pm | Permalink
anon wrote:
We definitely need more of this clear-headed thinking around: http://tinyurl.com/54veqx
Isn’t religion great?!?
Posted on 29-Apr-08 at 4:07 pm | Permalink
Matthew wrote:
CA and Kevron, while I understand where you are coming from (this is a mutual contract thing), if we applied this to a real world example (eg. a engineering firm is contracted to do business for a massive insurance company), the contracted firm would never be held responsible for what *internal* policies it makes that doesn’t directly affect the transaction. Bringing this back to CH, if the organization was caught mistreating patients/seniors THEN it’d be an issue for the government to step in, but the government as a patron has no place in telling CH how to run their business. Likewise, CH has no right telling the government how to run its ministries.
Joanne, Hunter and Fiumara all had good points as well that I think need addressing too; your move Kevron!
Posted on 29-Apr-08 at 4:12 pm | Permalink
KEvron wrote:
matthew,
i have no need of theoretical situations posing as “real world” situations. the situation that exists between ch and the province of ontario is real enough. but this is neither here nor there, as i had addressed your point re: ch’s hiring practices at the time of initiating their agreement with on, and the change in their practices subsequent to signing their agreement.
also, a source for the claim that on initially approached ch?
“Joanne, Hunter and Fiumara all had good points”
no, they didn’t.
“your move Kevron!”
gosh! two in a row? i’ll take another turn as soon as you’ve completed your own.
KEvron
Posted on 29-Apr-08 at 5:17 pm | Permalink
Matthew wrote:
Any you wonder why you don’t get responses from anyone outside of your own…suit yourself!
Posted on 29-Apr-08 at 8:31 pm | Permalink
KEvron wrote:
“Any you wonder why you don’t get responses from anyone outside of your own…”
no, i don’t wonder at all.
KEvron
Posted on 29-Apr-08 at 8:42 pm | Permalink
Red Tory wrote:
What a ridiculous, convoluted argument.
Posted on 30-Apr-08 at 12:17 am | Permalink
Shane wrote:
Charles, ceasing to do business/accept government contracts/subsidies would not do them a whit of good.
If Christian Horizons was a completely private company dealing only with private people with no government money or oversight involved, they would STILL have been found guilty by the Kangaroo Court. They would STILL have had the penalties they were levied with enforced. It doesn’t matter what relationship you have with the government - it only matters that someone was offended, and it is up to our heroes/overlords at the HRC to protect us all from the evils of living up to the conditions of employment that we agreed to legally upon entering employment.
Posted on 30-Apr-08 at 1:12 pm | Permalink
Grog wrote:
So, Shane, are you implying that the actions of Christian Horizons in the handling of Ms. Heintz are acceptable behaviour?
The organization allowed, and arguably fostered, an atmosphere where the issues that Ms. Heintz presented were dealt with through insinuation an innuendo rather than in a forward and forthright manner.
Worse, double standards were played throughout - to the extent that allegations of abuse related to another staff member were not investigated at all, while allegations against Heintz were vigorously pursued even in the absence of corroborating evidence.
Even in the absence of the sexual identity topics, the behaviour of Christian Horizons’ leadership is disappointing to say the least.
Posted on 30-Apr-08 at 2:13 pm | Permalink
Crystal wrote:
What drug testing at work???? I never had to do that under CH?? That is like somebody claiming that CH makes workers go to a Bible study funny hasn’t been forced on me. Man these states since this all happened makes me laugh. Yet hey ask a worker of CH what they think about this all. We are worried about if we will have a job. 2500 people can be out of job b/c of her actions. The greater picture is that shut us down where is the residnets going to go. As for the support from the goverment we need it to get paid and build houses etc. They knew we were christian and now they act. Got to love the goverment of Canada they do not need a rep they made it themselves forsure. Somebody like KEvron got something to bash me about go ahead b/c I am proud to work at CH and I do not care who funds us it has to happen like all places say like Big Brothers Big Sisters etc.
Posted on 16-May-08 at 10:05 pm | Permalink
ThePolitic.com » Catholics help girl get abortion wrote:
[…] Catholics fire Catholic employees for un-Catholic actions, it is an outrage. However, when the state fires Catholics for un-Catholic […]
Posted on 19-Jun-08 at 5:02 am | Permalink