Alliance cites the need for recognition of freedom of religion and conscience in human rights code
TORONTO, Aug 20, 2001 (LSN.ca) – The Canadian Religious Freedom Alliance (CRFA), comprised of the Catholic Civil Rights League, Christian Legal Fellowship and the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada has filed a factum in defense of Christian printer Scott Brockie of Toronto. In February 2000, the Ontario Human Rights Commission found Brockie guilty of discrimination and fined him $5,000 for refusing a printing job from a homosexual activist organization. Brockie appealed the case and it is currently before the Ontario Divisional Court.
The case was originally brought by Ray Brillinger, of The Canadian Lesbian and Gay Archives, who filed a human rights complaint under the Ontario Human Rights Code alleging that Brockie discriminated against him on the basis of his sexual orientation. Brockie appealed to the Ontario Divisional Court on the basis that the decision infringes his freedom of religion and conscience. At the time of the decision Brockie, who owns Imaging Excellence, said he had also refused the business of a pro-abortion group. “I’m not prepared to compromise my beliefs for the sake of a printing job,” he said.
The CRFA is intervening in the case to argue the “need for recognition of the right to freedom of religion and conscience in the Ontario Human Rights Code.” The CRFA gave examples of other situations where a right of conscience could be argued:
(i) a Jewish printer is approached by a person of Palestinian background who, on behalf of a Palestinian cultural group in Canada, asks the Jewish printer to print pamphlets which call for the expulsion of all Jews from Palestine and a return of all occupied territory. The Jewish printer refuses, citing his religious belief that Holy Scripture states that God promised those lands to the Hebrews;
(ii) a Muslim lawyer is approached by EGALE, the prominent gay rights advocacy group, and is asked to act for them in bringing a constitutional challenge to some legislation which denies a benefit to same-sex couples. The lawyer refuses, citing his religious belief that the Koran states that same-sex relationships are contrary to the law of Allah;
(iii) a gay man who runs a printing shop is approached by a religious group that is known for its advocacy for the repeal of legislation, which has granted same-sex couples benefits previously enjoyed only by opposite-sex couples. The group asks the printer to print its annual report. For reasons of conscience, the gay printer refuses to accept the order.
“There can and should be accommodation for conscientious or religious beliefs in human rights legislation,” says the CRFA. The CRFA points out that “the Ontario Human Rights Code protects individuals from discrimination on a number of grounds, including sexual orientation. It does not protect causes from such discrimination.” The CRFA therefore argues that the Board of Inquiry should have decided that Scott Brockie was within his rights to refuse to do work for a cause that offended his religious beliefs.”
The CRFA noted that Brockie has previously done work for gay and lesbian clients. It was not that Brillinger was gay that was the issue. Rather, it was the fact that the Archives is identified as promoting the gay and lesbian cause.
The hearing of this case is scheduled for December 5, 2001.
The factum is posted at: https://www.christianlegalfellowship.org/Interventions/brockiefactum.html