To me,
this is a good thing. I think equality rights should trump religious law (that's why I supported the Ontario government's decision to back away from religious family courts). I wonder though if the Blogging Tory community, usually the first to decry the subjugation of women in Islam, will embrace the Supreme Court's newfound muscular equality rights stance.
My view of this case is that it was a contract dispute where the religious aspect was incidental. I think the majority decision was essentially to enforce a contractual promise, but because of the incidental religious element, they went to great lengths to very carefully distance themselves from directly enforcing what otherwise would be simply a religious obligation.
ReplyDeleteI also saw it as a contracts issue, but if the Supreme Court were to put gender equality ahead of religious freedom in their hierarchy of rights, I would approve.
ReplyDeleteIt seems to me people caught in this bind have a simpler recourse: Choose a religion better suited to their beliefs or choose no religion at all. Far from privileging equality, this decision appears to sanctify a particular creed with the majesty (such as it is) of the law. What about my Pastafarian right to a stripper factory and a beer volcano? Should Her Majesty grant my stupid religion special status as well? Should taxpayers' money be squandered bickering about my particular fairy tale beliefs in court?
ReplyDelete