Huge Christian Ministry to Disabled Fined
$23,000 For Rejecting Homosexual Employee
Human
Rights ruling also mandates all managers and employees receive a
pro-homosexuality "human rights training program"
By
John-Henry Westen
TORONTO,
April 25, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) - In what is being described as "another
blow to religious liberty" in Canada, the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario
has ordered a Christian organization to cease using an employment contract
which has staff promise they will not engage in "homosexual
relationships." Moreover, the ruling demands that the organization
pay $23,000, plus two years wages and benefits to a woman who signed onto the
contract and then entered a homosexual relationship and was subsequently
dismissed.
In an April
15 ruling, released today, the Tribunal ruled against Christian Horizons, an
Evangelical Christian Ministry that provides care and residential services to
1,400 developmentally disabled individuals with over 180 residential homes
across Ontario, and 2,500 employees.
The ruling
which was decided by a single adjudicator - Michael Gottheil - ruled further
that all managers and employees receive a pro-homosexuality "human rights
training program". Christian Horizons was also ordered to
"develop and adopt an anti-discrimination and an anti-harassment
policy" and "review of its employment policies, in consultation with
the Commission" and report to the Commission on its progress, to ensure
that such policies comply with the Code.
The ruling
also stated, "No later than six months from the date of this decision, the
respondent, Christian Horizons shall submit a report to the Tribunal outlining
the steps it proposes to take to ensure that its employment policies are in
compliance with the Code".
Connie
Heintz, an employee who signed onto the "morality statement" as a
condition of employment, promised not to engage in "homosexual
relationships", among other anti-Christian activities such as
"extra-marital sexual relationships (adultery)", "pre-marital
sexual relationships (fornication)", "viewing or reading pornographic
material" and "lying".
When Heintz
entered into a homosexual relationship and her employers came to know of it,
she claims she was subject to a poisoned work environment and threatened with
loss of her job. She quit her job in 2000.
Christian
Horizons is the largest provider of community living services in the province,
funded approximately $75 million annually by the Ontario Ministry of Community
and Social Services.
Commenting
on the decision, Barbara Hall, the Chief Commissioner of the Ontario Human
Rights Commission opined, "This decision is important because it sets out
that when faith-based and other organizations move beyond serving the interests
of their particular community to serving the general public, the rights of
others, including employees, must be respected."
The website
of the Evangelical group Equipping Christians for the Public Square, which is
run by Pastor Tristan Emmanuel, commented that the ruling marked, "another
blow to religious liberty."
The ruling is available online here:
http://www.canlii.org/en/on/onhrt/doc/2008/2008hrto22/2008hr...
Ontario
Human Rights Tribunal Ruling Denies Christian Ministry's Right to be Christian
ruling has
the Christian community in Canada deeply concerned for religious freedom.
By
John-Henry Westen
TORONTO, April 28, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The ruling of the Ontario
Human Rights Tribunal against a Christian ministry serving disabled people in
Ontario has the Christian community in Canada deeply concerned for religious
freedom.
Don
Hutchinson, General Legal Counsel for the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada,
summarized the situation by way of analogy in a article in the National Post
today. He wrote: "Imagine that Mother Theresa and her Missionaries
of Charity had been told that their ministry in the streets of Calcutta was, in
essence, not ministry but 'social work.' In order for the sisters to continue
in their work, they would no longer be permitted to require that staff members
share their beliefs and ministry commitment."
Christian Horizons (CH), the group in question, describes itself as "an
evangelical ministry seeking to reach out with Christian love to people with
disabilities." Its services have been so well received by the province
that it has become the largest provider of community living services in the
province providing care and residential services to 1,400 developmentally
disabled individuals with over 180 residential homes across Ontario, and 2,300
employees. CH receives $75 million in funding annually from the Ontario
government in order to carry out these services.
CH has always been up front about being a Christian ministry. They have a
statement on their website that says that the top criteria for their employees
is, "A commitment to personal conduct and lifestyle consistent with the
values and principles of Christian Horizons."
Connie
Heintz, the former employee who launched the complaint against CH which led to
the current ruling, had, like all employees, signed a "morality
statement" as a condition of employment, promising not to engage in
"homosexual relationships", among other un-Christian activities such
as "extra-marital sexual relationships (adultery)", "pre-marital
sexual relationships (fornication)", "viewing or reading pornographic
material" and "lying".
Hutchinson's comparison between Mother Teresa's sisters in India and CH's
operations in Canada is particularly apt. In India Mother Teresa's
sisters were often persecuted by Hindu extremists because they wore their
habits - wore, as it were, their Christianity 'on their sleeves'.
Hutchinson
told LifeSiteNews.com, "It is unreasonable for any tribunal to make a
decision which assumes that faith and practice can be severed and in this case
the capacity for practice in the type of ministry that Christian Horizons
exhibits is dependent on a shared faith commitment amongst its staff."
One very alarming aspect of the ruling, according to Evangelicals, is that the
OHRT is requiring that all of CH's 2,500 employees be given a pro-homosexuality
"human rights training program". Rev. Royal Hamel, spokesman
for Campaign Life Evangelical told LifeSiteNews.com that the situation was
reminiscent of Orwell's novel '1984' where the 'Ministry of Truth' was used to
indoctrinate citizens into believing the currently held lies of the
state. "It's 2008 and we've finally reached 1984," he said.
Punished for Being Too Tolerant?: The
Latest Human Rights Commission Head-Scratcher
Christian
Horizon's very tolerance is ruled the reason it must be punished and cannot be
permitted to continue existing as a Christian organization
Commentary by John Jalsevac
April 28, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Canada's human
rights commissions have been scraping the bottom of the barrel for some time
now in their head-over-heels eagerness to produce unfavorable verdicts
against all things Christian and conservative. In all of the barrel
scraping, however, they've generally stuck to their trusty tactic of applying
the legal fig-leaf of "intolerance" - pointing out just how
intolerably intolerant, prejudiced, hateful, discriminatory, close-minded and
bigoted Christians and conservatives are, and why, therefore, they are a
menace, must be punished and, ultimately, silenced.
The most recent decision to come out of the Ontario
Human Rights Commission is unique, however, in that the tribunal ditches
precedent and instead gushes about just how wonderfully
non-discriminatory and loving Christian Horizons (the defendent in
the case) is. And then, after pages of that, the tribunal goes ahead
and slaps the Christian charity with a guilty verdict anyway.
But first, some background.
On April 15 the one man human rights tribunal of
Michael Gottheil delivered a guilty verdict against Christian Horizons (CH),
Ontario's largest community living service provider which provides care to some
1400 severely disabled individuals.
Ever since 1992 CH has required its employees to sign
on to a "Lifestyle Morality Statement" (LMS), that forbids employees
from engaging in certain behaviors that contravene fundamental Christian moral
precepts, including such things as: lying, stealing, premarital sex, adultery,
illegal drug use, and, of course, homosexuality. That is, CH didn't want any of
its employees contradicting the organization's principles or reason for being -
it is after all a Christian organization.
In 2001 a human rights complaint was filed against CH
by former employee, Connie Heintz. When Heintz was hired by CH in the mid 90s
she was informed that her continued employment was dependent upon her continued
adherence to the requirements of the LMS, which she willingly signed. Heintz,
however, later came to believe that she was homosexual and publicly entered
into a same-sex relationship. Soon thereafter she resigned from her
position after being told that she was violating the terms of her
contract.
Gottheil, however, the all-powerful Human Rights
Tribunal adjudicator, ultimately decided that CH had discriminated against
Heintz, and ordered CH to pay her $23,000, plus two years wages and benefits. The
tribunal also ordered CH to bring its policies into compliance with the Ontario
Human Rights Code, meaning that it must scrap its Lifestyle Morality Statement
and comply with anti-discrimination employment legislation that forbids
employers, whether Christian or not, from discriminating on the basis
of "sexual orientation". And, finally, the tribunal ordered CH
employees to undergo state indoctrination in the form of so-called "human
rights training."
In effect, Christian Horizons was told to ditch the
whole "Christian" bit and asked to join the club of Canada's
secularist utopia. CH has not yet issued an official response to the tribunal's
decision, but it will certainly be interesting to see what one of Canada's
most solidly, traditionally Christian charities will make of the
offer to deny its most fundamental identity and raison d'etre because some
government yahoo sitting in an office somewhere in Toronto told them
to.
In any case, the Human Rights Tribunal's eerily
schizophrenic decision makes for very interesting reading.
Throughout the 57-page decision Adjudicator Gottheil
goes way out of his way to prove that CH does not and never has discriminated
in any way, shape, or form when it comes to providing care for those in need. Christian
Horizons, he argues, citing page after page of anecdotal and statistical
evidence, seeks only to care for the "vulnerable, the marginalized and the
needy" without any thought for their race, age, religious beliefs, or
anything else, including, presumably, sexual orientation.
He writes, "Christian Horizons accepts all persons into its programs
regardless of cultural background or religious belief." And again:
"In order to receive service from Christian Horizons, residents and their
families are not required to be members of the organization or to adopt or sign
the Doctrinal Statement or the Lifestyle Morality Statement." And once
again: "Christian Horizons' witnesses were clear that it does not attempt
to proselytize or engage in the religious indoctrination of residents."
Time and again, paragraph after paragraph, page after
page, we are assured by Gottheil that CH dispenses its services freely,
liberally, to everyone and anyone who is in need, without exception. What is
more, Gottheil cites the testimonies of both Christian and non-Christian
families who have placed a family member in the care of Christian Horizons. "All,"
writes Gottheil in a moving testimony to the success of CH in providing care
without ideological consideration, "said that Christian Horizons provided
excellent care for their children and siblings."
At which point one wonders where, exactly, Gottheil is
going with all of this. If you didn't already know that he had
somehow conjured up a guilty verdict, you'd think that CH was well on its
way to being acquitted and having additional government funding heaped on them.
But then, in a twist of logic that leaves one
dizzy and not a little flustered, Gottheil stands the whole thing on its
head and goes on to prove that CH's very tolerance is the reason why it must be
punished and cannot be permitted to continue existing as a Christian
organization. Because CH has been so successful as a Christian charity, it can
no longer continue to be a Christian charity, he says. Because CH has not
discriminated, it must be found guilty of discrimination. Because CH's
Christian employees have been so thoroughly Christian in the selflessness of
their charity, CH must cease hiring only Christian employees.
All of this comes about because of Gottheil's
interpretation of section 24(1)(a) of the Human Rights Code, "which
permits certain organizations to restrict hiring or give preference in
employment to persons identified by one of the proscribed grounds of
discrimination." According to Gottheil's interpretation of the Code,
section 24(1)(a) only permits those organizations that exist to offer services
to the exact same class of people that they employ to be exempt from
non-discrimination employment legislation. That is, if the charity hires only
Christians, it can only offer its services to Christians.
What this means for Christian Horizons, writes
Gottheil, is that because the charity provides for whoever is in need, and
does not exclude non-Christians, CH cannot claim exemption from
non-discrimination legislation. If only CH discriminated against
non-Christians, and offered its services solely to Christians, then perhaps it
would have a leg to stand on. If only Christian Horizons took care of a
particular segment of Ontario's citizens, instead of the whole citizenry
without exception, then perhaps they would be eligible for government funding. But
as it is, Christian Horizons is just too non-discriminatory, too humanitarian,
too loving…that is, too darn Christian to fall under Section 24(1)(a)
exemption. At least, that's how Gottheil's reasoning goes. I wish it
weren't true, but sadly enough, it is. As they say, "Conviction at all
costs!" Even, apparently, if it makes you look stupid.
In the end one wonders if perhaps the Human Rights
Commission is simply jealous of Christian Horizons, of its loving
humanitarianism, of its single-minded devotion to helping the entire human
race and to offering hope to the most needy. In the world of the
Commissions, dogmatic Christians are by definition the bigots. And
so, if it is found that such a group of Christians is in fact helping
thousands, then they must simply be brought into the fold of Canadian
secularism. Their Christian identity must be taken away, and their Christian
ministry must be reduced to the much more banal, impersonal, secular
"social work" - even though their employees' shared
Christian faith is the very soul of the ministry.
What makes all of this even more laughable is that Connie Heintz was't even fired.
She resigned. And, what is more, Heintz herself testified that her former boss
at CH actually tried to help her find another job by providing her with
listings of vacancies with other charities - hardly the actions of someone who
is "homophobic."
As Don Hutchinson writes in the National Post:
"Imagine that Mother Theresa and her Missionaries of Charity had been told
that their ministry in the streets of Calcutta was, in essence, not ministry
but 'social work.' In order for the sisters to continue in their work, they
would no longer be permitted to require that staff members share their beliefs
and ministry commitment.
"As bizarre as this may sound,"
he concludes, "this is essentially what a single adjudicator
acting as an Ontario Human Rights Tribunal recently decided in the case of
Heintz v Christian Horizons."
By John-Henry Westen
TORONTO, April 29, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The
ruling by the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal to force a Christian
ministry to the disabled to stop requiring staff to live up to Christian
moral standards as a condition of employment threatens the existence of
all faith-based charities in Canada. In light of the recent decision,
LifeSiteNews.com spoke with the provincial government ministry in charge of
such matters and found they showed little willingness or desire to
accommodate sincere Christianity in the public sphere.
Raj Dihr, the prosecutor for the Ontario Human Rights
Tribunal in the case, explained to LifeSiteNews.com that the Christian ministry
in question - Christian Horizons - was not permitted an exemption under the
human rights code which would permit it to hire only Christian staff
who were willing to live according to fundamental Christian moral
precepts. The reason, he explained, was two-fold. First, he said,
the organization was serving the general public, and not restricting its
services to Evangelical Christians, and secondly, in the opinion of the
Tribunal (a single adjudicator by the name of Michael Gottheil)
adherence to the tenets of Christianity as set out by the Evangelical group was
not seen as necessary in fulfilling their services to the public.
Of course, from the perspective of the ministry their
whole raison d'ętre was ministering to the disabled as Christians. Christian
Horizons (CH) describes itself as "an evangelical ministry seeking to
reach out with Christian love to people with disabilities." Forbidding
them to require staff to be Christian would thus effectively end their
ministry.
Since CH is the largest provider of community living
services in the province, providing care and residential services to 1,400
developmentally disabled individuals with over 180 residential homes across
Ontario, (not to mention emplyoing 2,300 individuals) the ending of its
ministry would present no small problem for the provincial government,
which provides $75 million annually to CH for its services. That reality,
however, seems not to have dawned on the provincial government.
Julia Sakas, Communications Assistant to Madeleine
Meilleur, the provincial Minister of Community and Social Services, spoke with
LifeSiteNews.com about the matter. Although the government wants "to
see that those clients continue to receive services and that those services
will not be disrupted," she said, "anything that would be determined
as discriminatory would not be tolerated."
"We expect our provincial organizations that are
funded by the province to uphold the province's shared values and those are
that we don't discriminate and we respect the law and we respect the same from
our agencies," said Sakas. One requirement, she explained,
would be that employment contracts would not "infringe on the right to
live one's lifestyle as one chooses."
Sakas said that the government could not comment
directly on the case until the final ruling is handed down. CH has 30
days from the April 15 ruling to decide whether it will appeal the Tribunal
ruling.
Dihr, the Tribunal prosecutor, told LifeSiteNews.com
that the decision puts all Christian organizations at risk of facing fines and
prosecution from complainants or even the Human Rights Commission itself.
Asked if, based on the ruling, other Christian organizations which stipulated
Christian sexual morality for employees could also face fines, Dihr replied,
"Yes, I think that's one danger that organizations face is that if they
don't address these things in a pro-active way, which is what we'd encourage -
then there's always the possibility that an individual or even the commission
will file a complaint against them and bring them to the
tribunal."
Christian Horizons spokesman Adrian Midema told
LifeSiteNews.com that the organization is disappointed with the decision and
are reviewing it carefully. The deadline for appeal is May 15.
Evangelical and Catholic Groups Call for
Curbs on Human Rights Commission after Anti-Christian Ruling
By John-Henry Westen
TORONTO, April 30, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The editor of Canada's national
Catholic magazine of news, opinion and analysis, Father Alphonse de Valk, has
renewed his call for the federal government to rein in the far-reaching powers
of human rights commissions in Canada.
The move comes in light of the recent ruling by the
Ontario Human Rights Commission (OHRC) in the case of Christian Horizons, a
service organization for the disabled. De Valk called the
decision, "a brazen attack on the rights of religious associations
and individuals to conduct their activities without having to check their
religious principles at the workplace door."
The OHRC on April 15 decided that, because Christian
Horizons required a former employee to sign a Lifestyle and
Morality Statement that prohibited homosexual relationships, Christian Horizons
must: pay lesbian Connie Heintz two years' wages and $23,000; no longer require
its employees to sign a lifestyle and morality statement; develop
'anti-discrimination' policies; provide 'training' to all employees and
managers; and review all of its employment policies to ensure they are in
compliance with the Ontario Human Rights Code.
De Valk, the editor of Catholic Insight magazine, originally issued a call
for the powers of the Human Rights Commissions to be curtailed when a
human rights complaint was filed against his magazine in February 2007.
Brian Rushfeldt of the Canada Family Action Coalition was outraged by the
ruling saying, "The ethos of immorality reigns in the Human Rights
Commission at least in Ontario." The Commission, he explained,
"by the very fact it orders an agency not to require employees to sign a
statement regarding unbecoming conduct and behavior is endorsing
immorality."
"This decision is further reason citizens who have rights, hold to
religious beliefs and have a sense of morality must force governments to
rescind the Human Rights Acts that interfere with normal functions of a
civilized society and democracy," said Rushfeldt. "The
empowerment of a few appointed people to act as dictators is a dangerous
deception of democracy. Governments must be held to account as they are the
perpetrators of this authoritarian arm of government."
Don Hutchinson, General Legal Counsel for the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada,
was also incensed with the decision. He told LifeSiteNews.com that the
ruling was "the decision of a single adjudicator functioning as a human
right tribunal." He added: "It is unreasonable for any tribunal
to make a decision which assumes that faith and practice can be severed and in
this case the capacity for practice in the type of ministry that Christian
Horizons exhibits is dependent on a shared faith commitment amongst its
staff."
Referencing the many cases where Human Rights Commissions across Canada have
threatened the freedom of religion of Christians and Christian businesses,
Hutchinson said, "I think there is general knowledge in Canada right now
in regard to the decision-making capacity of Human Rights Tribunals across the
country."
De Valk quoted Pope Benedict XVI in noting that, "Human rights must
include the right to religious freedom, understood at once (as) individual and
communitarian…It is inconceivable, then, that believers should have to suppress
a part of themselves - their faith - in order to be active citizens. It should
never be necessary to deny God in order to enjoy one's rights."
De Valk says workplaces must indeed be free of harassment or poisoned
environments. However, the OHRC decision violates the rights of evangelical
Christians, even though Christian Horizons was offering its services to all
without discrimination. "No complaint appears to have been filed by any
client of Christian Horizons or by the developmentally disabled people they
serve," said de Valk. "In addition to disrupting the fine work being
undertaken by the organization's employees, the OHRC decision ominously
threatens the rights of other faith-based institutions, as well as their
employees and volunteers, in Ontario."
Rushfeldt concluded, "Canadians - wake up - next election, both federally
and provincially we must demand of those who want to govern that they will
resolve these authoritarian hate based actions by Human Rights
Commissions."