I cannot agree with the premise presented in the editorial titled, 'Civic gay wedding furor unwarranted,' emphatically enough.

If we allow civic officials in Ontario and elsewhere in Canada to refuse to perform same-sex weddings on religious or moral grounds what law will be next?

We hire people for these positions, to uphold, enforce or prosecute a law that has been duly passed, by a duly elected government. This is at the very basis of a democracy, and especially one like Canada that also follows the rule of law.

Where would this permission for selective enforcement, or prosecution of a law or laws stop?

A law is a law, is a law. If the person who is legally mandated to obey or execute a law or regulation is allowed to cherry pick the laws and regulations they will enforce, who puts the limits in place to stop any abuse?

The Canadian Labour Congress is right in raising this concern, and the Canadian Labour Congress is right in putting it on the public and political agenda, so that it is discussed and solved, before it becomes a source of abuse.

Just think if we allowed the front line staff to decide what laws to enforce or prosecute. We might have Chinese in the country to build a railroad, and then ask for a head tax and not allow them to vote. All because an immigration officer decided the equal rights provision of the constitution did not agree with them.

Just think we could move the entire Japanese Canadian population from the West Coast.

Or we could treat our First Nations' people with complete disregard for their right to live in dignity.

Oh. I forgot. We already have seen that, and are seeing that.

Do we want to encourage it?