Toronto Star:

A provincially funded Christian group is appealing part of a tribunal ruling that found it violated the rights of a worker who had to quit after revealing she was gay.

Background here.

There is no word on which remedy(s) the organization lawyers are appealing. This business was co-operative on a past complaint, and has been given a flexible time frame to work on it’s employment policy regarding this complaint.

I do not agree with how this employee was treated, I made that clear in the previous post; nor do I agree with  hyperbole by writers such as Deborah Gyapong of Canadian Catholic News reprinted in Canadian Christianity, but emotional and erroneous reaction is to be expected.
The sky isn’t falling, religious organizations are not under attack, but that doesn’t sell religious magazines and most people are not going to read a lengthy employment ruling. 
I also don’t agree with hyperbole from politicians calling for more punitive measures.
This organization showed a willingness to comply with employment law in the past on a prior complaint, and has indicated it will again.
Christian Horizon lawyers have the right to launch an appeal on any part of the ruling they chose to and they have. The organization also has the option to return to private funding if it wishes. I agree with Mr. Lauwers somewhat that perhaps people who agree with groups would not support them financially if they went private.

…constitutional lawyer Peter Lauwers in an interview from Toronto. “It really challenges social welfare organizations that are run by Christian and other faith groups on the basis of whether they will continue provide the services they do.”

Lauwers pointed out most Christian organizations serve out of a sense of vocation and fidelity to moral standards. He wondered how many people who contribute time and money to these organizations will continue to do so if they no longer reflect their authentic religious convictions.

It’s hubris to imply (as Christian Horizons has attempted to) that Christian organizations are the only groups who serve the public good out of a sense of vocation and fidelity to moral standards. It is also not realistic or honest for organizational lawyers and representatives to speak publicly about their concerns around this particular case and omit the reasons why this one did not meet established special exemptions.