André & Faye at the Supreme Court of Canada in 2009 for a hearing.At the appeal of the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal’s Heintz v. Christian Horizons case in December, much time was spent deliberating the potential consequences of the decision. Each lawyer brought up one example or another, one of which is described below. My friend and former colleague, André Schutten, recently developed a scenario that illustrates the potentially very broad impact of this decision. How I wish we would have presented it before the court for consideration in December.

The 2008 Christian Horizons tribunal decision left the Christian community perplexed. If the decision is not over-turned on appeal, ministries and churches will either have to give up serving the general public without discrimination in order to preserve their ministerial Christian ethos or, in order to keep their identity through Statements of Faith and Lifestyle Policies, they will have to restrict their care and concern to their “co-religionists.”

Last year, I co-wrote an article that provided practical illustrations of the impact of the decision. Here’s one of them:

Example A: The International Relief and Aid Agency

Organization A is an evangelical Christian international relief and development organization, which strives to fight world poverty and suffering through special community projects and individual child sponsorships. The organization and its employees have accepted reduced salaries and long hours of work in poverty- and disease stricken developing countries, because they view their employment as part of their Christian calling to “feed the hungry” and to “care for the fatherless and the widows.”

                                                   […snip..]

The board of directors and the staff would not develop a policy that would put them in compliance with the exemption, because on entering a poverty-stricken village or a humanitarian disaster area they would have to systematically question each person in need as to their religious beliefs. […snip..] They would not be able to assist those whom they could not understand due to language barriers, and they would not be able to medically assist those who are unconscious or seriously injured as they would be unable to determine their religious affiliation, and doing so would risk a Code violation.

(Other examples include youth outreach programs, soup kitchens and shelters and church-based programming – for more, go to page 9 of the article).

We have spoken with leaders from many of these types of organizations. More often than not, they have confirmed that if this decision is not overturned, they will be forced to close their doors or leave the province (this legislative peculiarity is only present in Ontario). Their ministry is not social work, and being told by the state to function as though it is strips them of the organizational biblical mission for which they were founded. Not to mention being stripped of many of their constitutional rights of freedom of religion, association and expression – but I digress.

However, let us not forget that the Christian Horizons decision will impact all “religious, philanthropic, educational, fraternal or social institutions”, not only Christian groups, as the example below demonstrates:

Example B: The Queer Bookstore

Imagine a not-for-profit bookstore set up by a group in the Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgendered (GLBT) community. The bookstore carries all different kinds of books, but has an expansive collection of GLBT literature. The bookstore is open to the general public. One of the reasons for the existence of the store is that those who have set it up want to expose the general public to more gay literature. However, as a condition of employment at the store, all employees must sign a statement that they join forces with the GLBT community in opposition to hetero-sexism, homophobia, the institution of patriarchy and social constructs that emphasize hetero-normality. The statement also requires employees to join forces with the GLBT community in support of the right to consensual love, free expression of gender and sexual diversity, queer families and same-sex marriage.

In light of the Heintz decision however, this bookstore cannot be primarily serving the interests of both the GLBT community and the interests of the general public. And because this bookstore is open to the public and does not discriminate on the basis of creed, race or sexual orientation, they are no longer granted the protection of section 24(1)(a). The bookstore may not impose a statement of belief as a condition of employment. Nor can they demonstrate that requiring the signing of this document is, in an objective sense, rationally connected to the work itself.

An Evangelical Christian applies for a job at the store. She is opposed to gay marriage and is intent on providing a second opinion to the bookstore’s customers on what homosexuality is all about. When she refuses to sign the employment statement, the bookstore is given a choice: it may compromise its identity, or it can close its doors.

It’s something to think about, isn’t it? I wonder how those other groups are going to feel once they realize their associational rights have been stripped away.