dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
Search similar:


uniqs
2924
PX Eliezer1
Premium Member
join:2013-03-10
Zubrowka USA

1 recommendation

PX Eliezer1 to graniterock

Premium Member

to graniterock

Re: BC lawyers vote against law school with anti-gay policy

said by graniterock:

Someone shouldn't be kicked out of school for having sex in a manner that is otherwise legal.

A man studying to be a Roman Catholic priest will get kicked out for any type of sex, gay or straight.

A man preparing to be an Orthodox Jewish rabbi will get kicked out for refusing to obey the kosher rules, or refusing to observe the Sabbath.

Yes, those are NOT exactly the same as this, but the question comes down to how much latitude a religious group has to run its affairs.

The school is not refusing to admit gay people. Rather, it is asking them to abstain from gay sex activities. Just as a Catholic seminary asks people to abstain from all sex activities.

otherwise legal

What is legal according to the civil government may not be legal in the eyes of a religious group.

So how much control is the government allowed to have to enforce their POV over the religion?

And yes---different country---but down here no one has tried to use law school accreditation or college accreditation to interfere with extremely conservative schools like Brigham Young or Liberty University.

[Whose rights] are paramount?

The individual's right to engage in whatever activities they choose...

OR

The right of a religious group and/or religious-themed colleges to establish rules for those who voluntarily come in to their community.

-----

I don't know the answer, nor is it a simple one.

They say that King Solomon was a really smart judge, but if he were around today, he'd realize that he had an easy job way back when.
NCRGuy
join:2008-03-03
Ottawa, ON

NCRGuy

Member

Apples and kumquats.

Styvas
Who are we? Forge FC!
Premium Member
join:2004-09-15
Hamilton, ON

Styvas to PX Eliezer1

Premium Member

to PX Eliezer1
I think the counter argument is that a person studying to be a priest or a rabbi serves only the interest of their religion, whereas a lawyer serves the public interest. Therefore, legal training needs to be provided from a public perspective (not a religious perspective).

The flaw in that argument is the assumption that training received under a religious perspective is unable to serve the public interest and that people are slaves to a religious perspective. The unfortunate truth is that there are many ignorant people of faith who truly are slaves to their beliefs with no ability to separate how they live from how others ought to live,. They think that their theology provides practical answers to science, politics, etc., rather than simply forming a way of understanding those topics, and their understanding of morality drives them to try and impose it on others.

These folks get most of the media attention, but they are the exception, not the rule in Canada (even if there are still a very large number of them). So it's easy to point to ignorant people and a) generalize them to every person of faith, and b) legislate to protect against them.
IamGimli (banned)
join:2004-02-28
Canada

IamGimli (banned)

Member

said by Styvas:

The flaw in that argument is the assumption that training received under a religious perspective is unable to serve the public interest and that people are slaves to a religious perspective.

The bigger flaw in the argument is that the very same people who willfully behave in the way described in the schools charter but who choose to go to a public law school (vs. this PRIVATE school) receive the very same education and are affected by the very same prejudice in their eventual practice of law, but those who oppose this law schools accreditation believe that it's perfectly ok for those people to be allowed to pass the bar exam, just because they didn't go to a school that recognized their lifestyle.

The school doesn't ask anyone to change their lifestyle. They only ask students who choose to attend their school to certify that they practice the same lifestyle they represent. Nobody is obligated to go to a PRIVATE law school and the only people who would get "kicked out" are those who would have lied to be accepted in the first place.

Not accredidating the school is a hell of a lot bigger prejudice than the school could ever be interpreted as doing. It's basically saying that people who choose to associate privately with people of a similar lifestyle shouldn't be allowed to practice law. THAT's real bigotry.

Styvas
Who are we? Forge FC!
Premium Member
join:2004-09-15
Hamilton, ON

Styvas

Premium Member

I guess the law societies would argue that you can't control every factor, but at the very least you can control the training students receive, and deal with the outlier problems through the disciplinary and legal systems. Again, the false assumption is that a program like TWU's poses any risk in the first place.

That was the basis on which the BC College of Teachers refused to accredit graduates of TWU's education program. The SCC directed them to do so anyways in the absence of any actual evidence of problems.

One of the arguments made when the 2001 SCC decision is raised in defense of TWU is that that case today likely would have been adjudicated differently. I'm not convinced that to be true, since the ruling didn't identify TWU's stance on homosexuality at the time to be acceptable, but rather affirmed their right to hold it, particularly when there was no evidence that this view resulted in discrimination by graduates within their profession.

The Charter has not changed, the TWU perspective has not changed, and there still remains no evidence that a TWU education produces graduates who discriminate because of that education. I'm not sure why the ruling would be any different today on that 2001 case, or on a new case involving the law school.
Styvas

Styvas to Mango

Premium Member

to Mango
Commentary from a friend and pundit.

»www.cardus.ca/blog/2014/ ··· -victims
Styvas

Styvas

Premium Member

What I wish is that TWU would restrict its covenant to an on-campus only behavioural standards, and just let people live their lives when not on campus. I have no problem with requiring that students sign something that indicates their recognition/understanding of the perspective that TWU takes as a Christian institution. In other words, TWU could be upfront about their views on a variety of topics and the fact that students at the University are going to learn within that context. Some may feel uncomfortable with this and choose not to attend, and others may choose to agree to disagree and still benefit from a TWU education and discipleship community.

Those who wish to be in some kind of student leadership may need to agree more universally to the covenant, but a leadership role goes beyond mere attendance at the Univesrity and requires actually representing the views of the school on a variety of topics, over which disagreement of a significant nature would become an integrity issue.

It's a bit like my experience with my church, which holds various theological positions, some of which I support and others with which I might disagree to a greater or lesser extent. I recognize the benefits of overall participation in the life of my church community, so I am not hung up on those points where my theology might differ. The only time it might matter is if I wanted to be in leadership at the church, a role in which I would need to represent all our denominational views. At that point, I need to decide if I can do so and still maintain personal integrity, or if that's the barrier for me in terms of the breadth and depth of my participation in community.

But, perhaps the TWU community has made it clear to the board that they are not satisfied with merely stating their views, but rather require compliance with them during a student's time at the University. I believe that to be short-sighted, but that's their call. I still support their educational ministry for its quality and impact, even if I might approach some aspects of it differently, were I in charge. While I think a school like TWU, by its nature, is going to be counter-cultural, there is no reason for it to be antagonistic, and I trust the University leadership to maintain that balance. Of course, they can't control who might antagonize them from the outside.
Styvas

Styvas to Mango

Premium Member

to Mango
»www.cbc.ca/m/touch/canad ··· .2690361

In a news release, the Law Society of New Brunswick says it recognizes both the right to sexual orientation and freedom of religion. In accrediting Trinity Western, the law society notes all students articling in New Brunswick must go through law society training and evaluation.

"This includes the core aspects of professional responsibility, including non-discrimination," the statement says. "As well, the law society requires that lawyers not discriminate in their professional duties."


So who's right and who's wrong? The New Brunswick law society clearly isn't a a cabal of Christian lawyers. They heard the same arguments and criticism that the LSUC and NSBS heard, but still voted to accredit the law school in New Brunswick. Not to mention that the law societies in B.C., Alberta, Saskatchewan, Prince Edward Island, Nunavut, and Newfoundland and Labrador have all voted in favour (not in approval of the faith-based stance, but approval of the school as a training centre for lawyers) as well as the overarching FLSC.

Styvas

Styvas

Premium Member

With Ontario and Nova Scotia taking the minority position here, clearly there is more being considered than simply the legal aspects of this situation. Or are the LSUC and BSNS benchers somehow more competent in interpreting and applying legal precedent in this case? I'm sure the benchers in the other provinces and territories would beg to differ.

Anav
Sarcastic Llama? Naw, Just Acerbic
Premium Member
join:2001-07-16
Dartmouth, NS

Anav

Premium Member

They simpy dont have the vision and wisdom that On and NS benchers have. Unfortunately we become more like the US everyday. In that country a recent ruling allowed a business to use its religious beliefs to trump an individuals rights......
»online.wsj.com/articles/ ··· 04138333

shaner
Premium Member
join:2000-10-04
Calgary, AB

shaner

Premium Member

An individual has a right to have someone else pay for their medication? That's a new right I haven't run into before.

bbbc
join:2001-10-02
NorthAmerica

1 recommendation

bbbc to Mango

Member

to Mango
Wow, I can't believe I missed this thread. Canada has always been more enlightened with gay rights compared to its Southern cousins. It gets old as a gay man hearing the same tired shit over and over how I'm effing up the world. Gay discrimination is alive and well, plus legal, in the States. Today, the religious zealots are playing the victim card quite well. Just curious if being called a bigot equates to being called a fag when you're growing up and/or being threatened with violence. If you haven't figured it out yet, I'm not keen on the Langley uni getting any form of accreditation to teach their anti-gay propaganda.

This is for the Surrey camp:


Guspaz
Guspaz
MVM
join:2001-11-05
Montreal, QC

3 recommendations

Guspaz to Mango

MVM

to Mango
I don't get why it's OK for a church to be anti-gay, but it's not OK for a church to be anti-black. It shouldn't be OK to pick and choose what bigotry you subscribe to, either way it's bigotry.
analog andy
join:2005-01-03
Surrey, BC

analog andy

Member

said by Guspaz:

I don't get why it's OK for a church to be anti-gay, but it's not OK for a church to be anti-black. It shouldn't be OK to pick and choose what bigotry you subscribe to, either way it's bigotry.

Don't say that you're discriminating against them for having discriminating beliefs and they'll be louder about it.

TigerLord

join:2002-06-09
Canada

1 recommendation

TigerLord to Anav

to Anav
said by Anav:

They simpy dont have the vision and wisdom that On and NS benchers have. Unfortunately we become more like the US everyday. In that country a recent ruling allowed a business to use its religious beliefs to trump an individuals rights......
»online.wsj.com/articles/ ··· 04138333

42% of the US population believes creationism is a scientific fact. Some states are slowly reverting to the cave. I'm looking at you Mississippi. Thankfully not everyone who sits on the SCOTUS is an idiot.

On social issues surrounding women and even religion I feel Canada is a lot more progressive than the US. As much as this BC law school story reflects badly on us all, in the US you can find state attorneys suing government employees to try and stop same-sex marriage from going forward. That's a lot worse than one bigot founding a private school for other bigots.

Anav
Sarcastic Llama? Naw, Just Acerbic
Premium Member
join:2001-07-16
Dartmouth, NS

Anav to shaner

Premium Member

to shaner
said by shaner:

An individual has a right to have someone else pay for their medication? That's a new right I haven't run into before.

You missed the point entirely. :-(

bbbc
join:2001-10-02
NorthAmerica

bbbc to analog andy

Member

to analog andy
said by analog andy :

Don't say that you're discriminating against them for having discriminating beliefs and they'll be louder about it.

If I may ask, who are them that you're referring to? For those that don't know, the city council of Surrey, British Columbia won't allow a pride flag above city hall. Their argument is they lack the pole space, which is lame when their progressive neighbor across the water, New Westminster, mounts the pride flag. Mind you, Surrey had no problems mounting the Olympic flag. Surrey is the direct neighbor to the City of Langley, where the challenged uni is located. You do the math.

»www.cbc.ca/news/canada/b ··· .2685310

Not raising a pride flag doesn't bother me that much, but Surrey has a less than friendly reputation (to put it politely) in Metro Vancouver for various reasons, beyond the gays.
analog andy
join:2005-01-03
Surrey, BC

analog andy

Member

said by bbbc:

said by analog andy :

Don't say that you're discriminating against them for having discriminating beliefs and they'll be louder about it.

If I may ask, who are them that you're referring to? For those that don't know, the city council of Surrey, British Columbia won't allow a pride flag above city hall. Their argument is they lack the pole space, which is lame when their progressive neighbor across the water, New Westminster, mounts the pride flag. Mind you, Surrey had no problems mounting the Olympic flag. Surrey is the direct neighbor to the City of Langley, where the challenged uni is located. You do the math.

»www.cbc.ca/news/canada/b ··· .2685310

Not raising a pride flag doesn't bother me that much, but Surrey has a less than friendly reputation (to put it politely) in Metro Vancouver for various reasons, beyond the gays.

said by bbbc:

said by analog andy :

Don't say that you're discriminating against them for having discriminating beliefs and they'll be louder about it.

If I may ask, who are them that you're referring to? For those that don't know, the city council of Surrey, British Columbia won't allow a pride flag above city hall. Their argument is they lack the pole space, which is lame when their progressive neighbor across the water, New Westminster, mounts the pride flag. Mind you, Surrey had no problems mounting the Olympic flag. Surrey is the direct neighbor to the City of Langley, where the challenged uni is located. You do the math.

»www.cbc.ca/news/canada/b ··· .2685310

Not raising a pride flag doesn't bother me that much, but Surrey has a less than friendly reputation (to put it politely) in Metro Vancouver for various reasons, beyond the gays.

said by bbbc:

said by analog andy :

Don't say that you're discriminating against them for having discriminating beliefs and they'll be louder about it.

If I may ask, who are them that you're referring to? For those that don't know, the city council of Surrey, British Columbia won't allow a pride flag above city hall. Their argument is they lack the pole space, which is lame when their progressive neighbor across the water, New Westminster, mounts the pride flag. Mind you, Surrey had no problems mounting the Olympic flag. Surrey is the direct neighbor to the City of Langley, where the challenged uni is located. You do the math.

»www.cbc.ca/news/canada/b ··· .2685310

Not raising a pride flag doesn't bother me that much, but Surrey has a less than friendly reputation (to put it politely) in Metro Vancouver for various reasons, beyond the gays.

I wasn't referring to the Pride flag personally I have nt problem with gay/animal/stright/multiple mirages and equal rights for all. I was referring to the law school.

I would say the only flags that should be flown on city/gov building properties are Provincial/Canada/City flags nothing else.

You want your flag flown ask the city to erect a few large flag poles in some park and with a permit let the city fly them at certain times of the year. Everyone gets equal access to the flag poles.

Styvas
Who are we? Forge FC!
Premium Member
join:2004-09-15
Hamilton, ON

Styvas to Anav

Premium Member

to Anav
said by Anav:

They simpy dont have the vision and wisdom that On and NS benchers have. Unfortunately we become more like the US everyday. In that country a recent ruling allowed a business to use its religious beliefs to trump an individuals rights......
»online.wsj.com/articles/ ··· 04138333

I'm quite certain the benchers in those other provinces (and the federal society) would find that characterization highly offensive.

At whatever point Canada removes freedom of religion from the Charter, there will be no legal argument in defense of an institution like TWU's right to train public professionals (whether these be teachers, nurses, accountants, psychotherapists, or lawyers, among many others). Until that time, their beliefs, unpopular as they may be, are protected in terms of discrimination against the school for holding them, which is what the LSUC and NSBS are doing, but consider it justified due to the nature of those beliefs.

shaner
Premium Member
join:2000-10-04
Calgary, AB

shaner to Anav

Premium Member

to Anav
said by Anav:

said by shaner:

An individual has a right to have someone else pay for their medication? That's a new right I haven't run into before.

You missed the point entirely. :-(

And what point is that?

Anav
Sarcastic Llama? Naw, Just Acerbic
Premium Member
join:2001-07-16
Dartmouth, NS

Anav to Styvas

Premium Member

to Styvas
Their emotional context has no bearing on the subject other than to recognize that it blinds them to reality as bbbc and Guspaz eloquently stated.

Styvas
Who are we? Forge FC!
Premium Member
join:2004-09-15
Hamilton, ON

Styvas

Premium Member

I'm not sure what you mean. Whose emotional context?

shaner
Premium Member
join:2000-10-04
Calgary, AB

shaner to Anav

Premium Member

to Anav
What does that have to do with choosing whether or not to subsidize prescription medicine?

I mean we could go all OT here and discover there are emotions on either side of that ruling that blinds both sides to reality.

Anav
Sarcastic Llama? Naw, Just Acerbic
Premium Member
join:2001-07-16
Dartmouth, NS

Anav to Mango

Premium Member

to Mango
quote highly offensive, unquote......

Styvas
Who are we? Forge FC!
Premium Member
join:2004-09-15
Hamilton, ON

Styvas

Premium Member

So you're saying that the secular lawyers who have voted (presumably) on the basis of their understanding of legal precedent when it comes to balancing charter rights are blinded to reality by their likely emotional response of offense to the suggestion that they are less capable of viewing this issue correctly because of the province in which they live?

Anav
Sarcastic Llama? Naw, Just Acerbic
Premium Member
join:2001-07-16
Dartmouth, NS

Anav

Premium Member

Your words not mine.........

Styvas
Who are we? Forge FC!
Premium Member
join:2004-09-15
Hamilton, ON

Styvas

Premium Member

Then how would you state it differently? Not being a mind reader, I find that discussion in a discussion forum works well to bring clarity.
PX Eliezer1
Premium Member
join:2013-03-10
Zubrowka USA

PX Eliezer1 to TigerLord

Premium Member

to TigerLord
said by TigerLord:

42% of the US population believes creationism is a scientific fact. Some states are slowly reverting to the cave. I'm looking at you Mississippi.

Actually there are worse than Mississippi.
said by TigerLord:

As much as this BC law school story reflects badly on us all, in the US you can find state attorneys suing government employees to try and stop same-sex marriage from going forward.

I don't want to get hung up on US issues, but because you brought it up, the Colorado Attorney General is correct on the facts of the law---and I say that as a supporter of same-sex marriage.

The county clerk who is issuing those marriage licenses has made two separate leaps of illogic---and having such marriages declared invalid later on would be a big mess.

I would point out that prior to the Canadian Parliament legalizing same-sex marriage in 2005, court decisions in several provinces had legalized it in those particular provinces, but NOT in the other provinces.

In other words, before Canadian federal legislation, it was a province-by-province process. The same is occurring in the US.
PX Eliezer1

PX Eliezer1 to Guspaz

Premium Member

to Guspaz
said by Guspaz:

I don't get why it's OK for a church to be anti-gay, but it's not OK for a church to be anti-black. It shouldn't be OK to pick and choose what bigotry you subscribe to, either way it's bigotry.

Personally, I agree, it's wrong either way.

Being that you are talking about churches though:

1) The Bible does not prohibit being black.

2) But in the view of various people in various churches, it does prohibit same-sex relations.

Again, that is NOT what I believe personally, but a church that follows the Bible can find logical support for their views.

Styvas
Who are we? Forge FC!
Premium Member
join:2004-09-15
Hamilton, ON

Styvas

Premium Member

Furthermore, while those views (or the perception of those views) may be reprehensible, their right to hold them and not be discriminated against for holding them is enshrined in Canadian law.