Look, sister…you asked for a discussion under the heading Philosophy of Law. I’ve given you several answers based on my understanding of both Roman and Anglo-Saxon jurisprudence which I’ve previously understood to be the philosophical underpinnings of both modern Canadian and modern US jurisprudence.
I’ve stated my opinion that there is a common law basis for granting the tenants a civil remedy under the principle of Equity or tort law, because they have a bundle of basic rights as tenants not to have anyone walk around in their leased premises in street shoes if they don’t feel like permitting it. And I’ve admitted that they may be in the wrong court to pursue this remedy.
I’ve further stated that the human rights code seems to be an overlay that should not take precedence over rights already recognized elsewhere.
And further, that if they do obtain a remedy in human rights court on the basis of religious discrimination then you guys are in for a rough ride due to creeping sharia.
Those are my opinions and you mustn’t continue to complain because I’m not seeing the issues in the way you’d evidently like me to.
And, I don’t believe your contention that there are no provisions in law outside of the one you mention.
Sorry, but to quote Luther…here I stand, I can do no other. Thanks for the discussion.