Meanwhile, MP Scott Reid and MPP Randy Hillier decide they need to bash gays two provinces over:
Reid continued, “I believe the court has it backwards: The right of that marriage commissioner to refuse to violate his personal moral beliefs is more important than the right of one gay couple to demand to be married by that particular marriage commissioner. Another marriage commissioner who would be willing to perform the ceremony could be handily found.”
Ontario currently allows a marriage commissioner to refuse to perform a same-sex marriage for religious reasons but critics worry that rulings like this one could set a dangerous precedent.
“This is not a matter of religion, but a case of the courts intrusion over one’s moral conscience, and their unjust & unmitigated failure to protect an individual’s freedom in its imposition of a collective tolerance.” Hillier stated, once again the courts have demonstrated a lack of deference to elected democracy, said Hillier.
As for the point made in Reid's 2nd paragraph, its worth quoting the Saskatchewan Court of Appeals decision on the matter (where the Toronto/Ontario method of accommodation is referred to as a "single entry point" system):
[89] Before moving to that point, however, I note that the constitutional validity of any “single entry point” system would need to be assessed in light of all of the relevant facts pertaining to it and with reference to the specific features of the proposed system. The assessment that, in broad terms, a single entry point model would be less restrictive of s. 15(1) rights than the Options is not necessarily a determination that any such system would ultimately pass
full constitutional muster.
...which is to say that if the Ontario system were to be met with a constitutional challenge, it might fail.
In any case, IMHO if your religious beliefs don't allow you to do your government job, then feel free to quit and do something else.
