Supreme Court of Canada Case – Delwyn Vriend Assignment<br />Hannah, Emma, Ashleigh, Ashlyn<br />Vriend trying to sue the government is pursuing his individual right and freedom to do so, and at the same time, the potential consequence would better the entire gay community and broaden the minds of Canadians. <br />This case finds balance between collective and individual rights because the government is willing to get Delwyn his job back, but not willing to collectively change the Canadian Human rights laws and alter the current “discrimination” definition in our laws. <br />
For DelwynFor the GovernmentDelwyn’s position in the school was a computer tech—he had no direct connection or influence on any of the students pertaining to his sexual orientation. His sexual orientation is irrelevant when it comes to his career, it’s not like he was imposing his values or beliefs on any other students or staff.Alberta’s redneck reputation—closed minded and lack of acceptance of differences.Leadership of a country is based on the collective common good, not everyone is straight, and not everyone is gay—we have to accommodate both.People are quoting bible passages and trying to insinuate that gays and lesbians aren’t “people”. So… the bible encourages discrimination? I don’t think so!He’s not imposing his sexual orientation on everyone else (job) Kids and students aren’t expelled because of their sexual orientation or religionRace vs. Sexuality = no difference. You can’t help it or change it. Marriage is, and has always been, the bond that forms and upholds for society, the cultural and social values and symbols related to procreation. It establishes the values that govern human life to the next generation and the nurturing of that life in the basic societal unit, the family. A marriage between a man and a woman symbolizes respect for the transmission of human life. To change the definition of marriage to include same-sex couples would destroy its capacity to function in the ways outlined above, because it could no longer represent the naturally procreative relationship of opposite-sex pair-bonding. Reproduction is the fundamental occurrence on which, ultimately, the future of human life depends. Do we want to put the future of our society in the hands of technology? Under democracy, the law has never defended any other minorities so why would we defend this minority? It has been proven that very often households without a mother or a father struggle more than that with both. A mother (woman) has certain aspects to offer a family and a father (man) has certain qualities to bring to the table as well. When these aspects are lacking due to our choice to not try to be involved with the opposite sex it puts the next generation at risk.
Gov’t position focuses mainly on issues not related to Vriend – marriage, reproduction, parenthood: why?<br />Human rights legislation is designed, specifically, to protect the rights of minorities, is it not?<br />2/5<br />