Hide the menorahs
Apparently reasonable accommodations now mean that we need to say that gender equality is more important than religious freedom (except for Roman Catholics). Charest, in a desperate attempt to buoy support in the rural areas, is planning on tabling a motion to say that gender equality trumps religious freedom, which will mean — well, I don’t know what.
Will I be allowed to say I prefer a female gynecologist? Maybe, but only if I say it’s a personal preference and not a religious requirement? Will I be allowed to wear a hijab, but only if I think it looks cool? Will men be allowed to wear them? I can’t see exactly how this will go, but I look forward to seeing people suing the Roman Catholic church for not allowing women to do something that men are allowed.
It seems to focus on whether you can make a request for a woman/man to test you when you want a driver’s license, which is an oddly specific problem. The other question seems to be whether you can wear obvious religious symbols as a public employee, where obvious religious symbols seem to mean anything other than a cross on a necklace. I look forward to being able to complain if public servants have pictures up with Santa, or wish me happy religious holidays.
Of course, the quotes are always “we want equality, but to not lose our Roman Catholic heritage”, or “we don’t want to see any overt signs of religions, but we’ll just exclude ours and call it culture”.