text: "This will be a precedent setting case. Whether religion trumps human rights." - jamgm
  
  The case may set a precedent, or it may simply follow previous rulings to reach a decision. But what it won't do is set a precedent on whether religion trumps human rights. That question isn't even in play. In fact, putting it that way makes no sense. 
  
  A winner-take-all approach is never the best answer when one human right conflicts with another. Competing human rights must be balanced and reconciled, not prioritized in a hierarchy. The idea isn't to create a winner and loser, it's to find the solution that collectively does the least harm to everyone's rights.
  
  There are competing Charter rights in this case, and the Supreme Court is the place to resolve such matters. It won't rule that religious rights override equality rights, or vice versa. It will strike a reasoned balance, whereby both religious rights and equality rights are given all due respect.