[Miss Scarlett]

Originally Posted by betenoire

There is already precedence for this.

In one case a person who performs marriages (but not as part of a church, independently from that) refused to perform a same-sex marriage because of his religion. He lost the case. The gay couple won.

In another case a organisation that provides support to people with physical disabilities (Christian Horizons) fired a long-time employee who realised she was a lesbian. Christian Horizons lost the case.

ONLY Churches get to use "it's against our religion" as a basis for refusing service to gays in Canada. ONLY Churches, because religion is the point of church. That's the law. That flower shop is not a church.

I never stated anything about using "against our religion" as a claim to protection under the CHRA because it's not there as a possible protection for any provider such as the aforementioned florist, et al.

Which is my point - there are NO clearly spelled out protections in the CHRA for ANY individuals who are providers acting in the capacity of providers.

The cases you mention appear to address only the legal precedent for "against our religion" matters pertaining to discrimination rather than (or in addition to) the grave emotional harm I addressed. (I would appreciate it if you could provide the case citations so I could read those decisions.)

BTW - the CHRA makes no mention of extending religious, or any other, protections to ONLY churches.