As the House of Lords debates the Sexual Orientation Legislation (already in place in Northern Ireland) I am struck by the arguments by those opposing the bill.

They sound the same on this side of the pond. 

Ruth Gledhill of The Times covers ’Christian’ protests in London. Except for the accents, it could have been some Canadians speaking a few years ago.:^)  Some of the protest groups material is imported from North America.

This is not my debate, this is for the Brits to come to terms with.  I think Gledhill has done an excellent job of covering this.

some background here 

Point of correction to this statement:

“Every country should have to strike a balance. In Canada, for example, the Supreme Court has decided that Christian printers should not be forced to print material promoting homosexual practice as it would be contrary to their Christian beliefs.”

I believe they are referring to the Scott Brockie case. Brockie went to tribunal (Human Rights Tribunal Ontario) and was ordered not to just print leader-head and stationary for the Canadian Lesbian and Gay Archives, but also “any other materials” that group or other similar gay rights groups brought to his printing business.  
Brockie appealed to the Ontario Divisional Court (civil branch of the Ontario Superior Court) and won. (2002) He could refuse to print anything that wasn’t business materials. Brockie had to pay damages and court costs.  http://www.culturalrenewal.ca/lex/lex-51.htm The Supreme Court of Canada was not involved in the case. 

The Supreme Court of Canada also did not rule in the Hugh Owens/Saskatoon Star Phoenix case.
It went before the Court of Appeal for Saskatchewan and Owen won April 2006. 
The case began in 1997 when Owens took out an ad against homosexuality.  Owens was charged with violating s. 14(1)(b) of The Saskatchewan Human Rights Code, (inciting hatred). It went before a Saskatchewan Human Rights Tribunal  (2001). The Court Queens Bench, Saskatchewan, upheld the ruling (2002).
The Saskatchewan Court of Appeal (2006) stated:

The ruling stressed that s. 14(1)(b) had to be read and interpreted in a way which respected the fundamental freedoms of speech and religion as guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.  As a result, citing Supreme Court authority, the Court said s. 14(1)(b) must be read as applying only in cases where the message in question involved extreme emotions and strong feelings of detestation, calumny and vilification.  The Court also stressed that any message impugned under s. 14(1)(b) must be carefully examined with regard to its full context in order to determine whether the section has been offended.

The Court concluded that, although his advertisement was jarring and offensive to many, Mr. Owens had not acted contrary to s. 14(1)(b).

Since the passage of Bill C-38 in June 2005, approximately 10 thousand same sex marriages (civil and/or religious) have been performed in Canada, many  couples are not Canadian, residency isn’t required.
Canadian clergy are protected under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Future effects of SSM in Canada