re: In Montreal, you can’t have a Christian singer have a worship service in a Church

quote:

---

For extreme Covid restrictions, which are not comparable to normal, generally applicable laws. The portion I cited was for generally applicable laws that don't interfere with sincere practice of the religion.

---

quote:

---

The bigger question is why the city didn’t grant them a permit in the first place

---

quote:

---

Universally- by everyone; in every case. I’m assuming you mean this is the case just in the US and Canada? How can you possibly know the laws in every country, state, territory, etc. across the entire globe?

---

quote:

---

I say it all the time. Our ultimate fight isn't Left vs. Right or even Democrat vs. Republican. It's Good vs. Evil.

---

quote:

---

It says limiting religious gatherings

---

quote:

---

Because limiting a religious gathering is fundamental to limiting the religion itself.

---

quote:

---

In Hutterian, the cost imposed by the law was of a secular nature. To adhere to the religion was to forego the requirements for a valid driver’s licence. The effect of religious belief was to require alternate forms of transport. While this had the potential to breach the insularity of the community, the cost of not driving was extraneous to the religious experience itself. Persons faced with a choice between their religious tenets and the right to drive were free to choose their religious tenets. There are any number of analogous costs flowing from religious adherence. Where religious practice conflicts with another activity, the answer may be to give up the other activity, that being the cost of the religious beliefs.

---

quote:

---

The seriousness of a particular limit must be judged on a case-by-case basis: Hutterian, at para. 91. The question is whether the limit leaves the adherent with a meaningful choice to follow his or her religious beliefs and practices. In Hutterian, at para. 89, the Court contemplated that religious beliefs fall along a spectrum of sorts, with some beliefs being of central sacred importance, and others being more akin to optional matters of personal choice: “Between these two extremes lies a vast array of beliefs and practices, more important to some adherents than to others.”

At issue in Hutterian was a requirement that photographs be taken for driver’s licences in the province of Alberta. This regulatory precaution was aimed at preventing fraud and identity theft. However, it posed an obstacle for the claimants, who believed that the Second Commandment prohibited them from willingly allowing a photograph to be taken of their likeness. They led evidence asserting that if members could not obtain driver’s licences, the viability of their communal lifestyle would be threatened. Yet, to be photographed for a licence offended sincerely held religious beliefs.

The constitutional analysis in Hutterian was conducted under s. 1 of the Charter, because the parties had conceded an infringement of s. 2(a). Nonetheless, the Court’s comments readily transfer to the s. 2(a) framework, as articulated in that case. The Court found that the photograph requirement imposed a cost on religious adherence but did not substantially interfere with religious adherence. It did not deprive adherents of a meaningful choice to follow or not follow the edicts of their religion. If they chose not to have their photo taken, they would not be able to obtain driver’s licences. However, they could make alternate arrangements for highway transport. This cost did not seriously affect the right to pursue their religion, even though it would “impose some financial cost on the community and depart from their tradition of being self-sufficient in terms of transport”: Hutterian, at para. 99.

---

quote:

---

They did grant them the permit. Leftists started threatening to riot in response and the city revoked it due to emerging safety concerns.

---

Loading Twitter/X Embed...
If tweet fails to load, click here.

quote:

---

It's Good vs. Evil.

---