VANCOUVER, BC-Two recent decisions-one by the British Columbia government and the other by a judge-are being seen by some as proof of the steady erosion of religious freedoms in Canadian society.

B.C.'s Vital Statistics Agency last month told the province's 306 marriage commissioners, who perform civil weddings for a fee, to resign by the end of March if they cannot in good conscience marry same-sex couples.

Two weeks later, a court ruled that the B.C. College of Teachers (BCCT) was justified in suspending teacher-counsellor Chris Kempling for expressing publicly his doubts about giving schoolchildren a positive message on homosexuality, even though he never brought his "discriminatory" opinions into the classroom.

"I think the message is very consistent," says Conservative MP and chief justice critic Vic Toews. "If you're a Christian, your rights will not only be curtailed outside of your job, as it was in the Kempling case, but also in your job."

The government says that because gay marriage is now legal in B.C., it is legally bound to ensure that the marriage commissioners it appoints do not discriminate against same-sex couples.

"This is a very different issue than telling a church they would have to conduct a same-sex marriage," Vancouver city councillor and United Church minister Tim Stevenson told The Province. "It's a particular individual with a secular job. You either do it or you look for different work."

One for another

But Janet Epp Buckingham, director of law and public policy with the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada, says the province is only exchanging one discriminatory policy for another, by ignoring the rights of perhaps 10 per cent of the commissioners who cannot marry two homosexuals for reasons of faith.

"That still leaves 90 per cent who are willing to do same-sex civil marriages," she says. "What's the problem about accommodating that 10 per cent? It's not going to bring the system to a grinding halt."

Toews has posed that same question in a letter to B.C. Attorney-General Geoff Plant. He rejects the province's claim that it had no choice in the matter.

"The law is quite clear that employees who have a religious belief that prevents them from doing something in the course of their employment must be ‘reasonably accommodated," says Toews.

"The Supreme Court of Canada has stated that on numerous occasions."

Buckingham says this issue is a harbinger of what lies ahead should marriage be redefined-despite Prime Minister Paul Martin's promise that clergy will never be compelled to marry homosexuals.

"I think those voices are going to get louder, [who] say those Christian universities, colleges, churches and religious organizations that have ‘discriminatory' practices against homosexuals have to be stopped," she says.

In Kempling's case, B.C. Supreme Court Justice Ronald Holmes ruled the BCCT was correct in handing him a one-month suspension, despite no evidence that his public stance on homosexuality had adversely impacted his students.

"Sanctioning the appellant [Kempling] for publishing discriminatory statements and for publicly linking them to his professional status as teacher, is a statement that the teaching profession does not condone discrimination," Holmes wrote.

"It tells students and the public that what the appellant did was discriminatory and wrong, and helps to repair the damage done to the integrity of, and student and public confidence in, public schools and the teaching profession as non-discriminatory entities."

Kempling says the decision-which he has vowed to appeal-sends all Christian public school teachers a chilling message.

"[You] cannot make a defence based on religious freedom, because that's not acceptable in Canada," he says. "If you quote the Bible and are deemed to be discriminatory, your freedom-of-religion rights do not count-and they didn't count for me."

Buckingham also finds "alarming" Holmes' blanket assertion that "discriminatory speech is incompatible with the search for truth."

"Chris Kempling felt very much that he was putting forward truthful statements about homosexuality, and yet the court said, ‘We're not even going to look at whether they were true or not. We don't want to hear about that,'" she says.

Buckingham adds, "I think there is good reason to be concerned about freedom of expression [in Canada], particularly on the issue of homosexuality."