Reid: I understand your libertarian leanings and respect your thoughtful opinions on this matter. I think that the best way to present this, given that we have many values in common, is to suggest that old libertarian axiom that if government needs to be involved, it must because the free market cannot do the activity as well as the government can. In this case, I argue that the onus of proof for having the government involved in private employment practices must fall on those who see this is necessary (and I also admit, to the rest of our readers that, yes, this is challenging the status quo!). While cases involving homosexuals tends to bring out high emotions, if we shift the example to something similar yet different enough to depolarize the debate, it might shed a new light on the matter; in this case, what if a local construction firm stated that it only wanted to hire people over 220 pounds, a weight which obviously few women would be able to achieve healthily given their physically smaller statures on average. A good argument could be made that this was sexist, and yet the business has an obvious advantage in only hiring people who can literally pull their weight for the firm. Should the government be infringing on this firm’s competitiveness for political correctness reasons? Or is there another advantage that I am missing?

Next, I simply ask why volunteerism is different from a financial venture?

Finally, why does the government get special privileges as a buyer that other buyers wouldn’t by imposing on the seller after the contract is signed under which terms it might operate? I want to be clear here that I am not talking about the government as legislators, but the government as a public entity btw. While I agree that the government should be responsive to voters’ wishes, a private firm is not; it is responsible to investors and, indirectly, customers. If CH is willing to risk losing business with the government — and I think we all know CH would be as a matter of principle — is it not their right to take that risk as a free enterprise?

Matthew,
I think that Christian Horizons should not take contracts from the Ontario government so that they can take the moral high road and independently practice what they preach.

Real Conservative,
I believe your comments about Michael Coren’s ancestry are obnoxiously foul and you are deliberately trolling with the intent to depict “conservatives” as racists.

Furthermore, it is not fair to call them a charity if their funding comes from tax-payers who have no choice over where their money goes.

In the case of protecting workers I think this is one area where the government should have some intervention. I do not believe it’s ok for any organization to discriminate for any reason with respect to employees. The employer being a Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, or Muslim organization is irrelavent. If you’re an employee you’re protected by labour standards; period.

Volunteers are another matter. If this organization wants to set a moral code it should have all volunteers. Simple.

The issue of government funding is seperate from what I was arguing. Neither issue negates the other. I just wanted to give my arguement as to why Coren was wrong. And I do agree that if the government funds this group they also have a right to impose standards on how they operate.

If we were to reframe the debate into the one you responded to, I think we’d be a little more honest with ourselves about this case. Still, we do allow for exceptions to the employment standards for openly religious groups because it conflicts with religious rights (churches, hospitals, and until, recently, charities have all been run by Catholic/Protestant and Muslim organizations, among others under this provision). As a libertarian, I’d then have to ask what business the government has in telling companies/organizations how they should go about hiring; if an employer is abusive or discriminatory, they will develop a reputation and the free market of labourers/business partners will either clean their clock until they shape up or, alternatively, tolerate their practices since it’s really not the end of the world after all, like these HRCs make them out to be!

Joanne, thanks for your input, I always value it as well as reading your own posts (I’ve been paying particular attention to the excellent Brenda Martin coverage you have been treating us to!)

If this organization wants to impose it’s moral standards on the people who work for it perhaps they should consider getting people to volunteer instead of hiring them. But you know and I know that they have to hire people because there just aren’t enough people willing to work for free.

I think Michael Coren is completely wrong on this issue.

I wonder what Christian Horizons will do next. My guess is that they’ll eventually drop their ties with the Ontario government, and simply serve only those within their own faith community.

Thus spake Michael Coren: “Quite simply, without Christian groups and Christian people the social welfare network of Canada would collapse. This is not hyperbole.”
I think it is a ridiculous statement and only part of the entire picture.