In 2000, an Ontario woman was fired from her workplace at a Christian care home for being gay.
The case came to appeal and the Ontario Divisional Court ruled yesterday that the Kitchener-based Christian Horizons did not have the right to dismiss Connie Heintz for her sexual orientation.
But both sides claim victory, since the court also ruled that religious organizations have a right to set out moral and lifestyle codes, a decision that some consider “murky“.
Nevertheless, both sides claim victory:
“The court recognized that despite the fact it serves the public, (Christian Horizons) can still operate as a religious organization,” said lawyer Adrian Miedema who represented the charity.
While Lawyer Cynthia Petersen, representing the gay rights group EGALE as an intervenor, said: “The court has now set a high bar for religious groups to prove a person’s orientation or beliefs would get in the way of their duties.”
Ruling over the rights of religious charities is complicated because while they must abide by the rule of law, they are also subject to their religious doctrine.
Meanwhile a larger confrontation is on the horizon.
Some policy-makers, such as those in Gibsons, BC, are questioning whether advancement of religion alone should even be considered charitable. This debate is not restricted to Gibsons, BC in my experience and most religious organizations are not ready to deal with this matter.
It is a debate that will have a huge impact on the charity world.
Tags: Blake Bromley, Canada, Charity, Ontario, Religion, sexual orientation
Categories: Charity, Law, Religion
Leave a Comment