dslreports logo
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc
uniqs
31

TigerLord

join:2002-06-09
Canada

1 recommendation

TigerLord to Mango

to Mango

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

Hell just froze over because I'm with Styvas See Profile on this one.

It's a private school that is privately funded. The issue of discrimination would only arise if a LGBTQ applicant was refused on the grounds he is not straight, and Vice actually asked the question.

Q: The Community Covenant Agreement states that TWU welcomes all students who qualify for admission. Does a person who is legally married to and engages in sexual activity with a member of the same sex qualify for admission to TWU?

A: Well, let’s put it this way: somebody in that position would immediately recognize that their values would conflict with the values that are in the Community Covenant Agreement, so a welcomeness is reflected by the circumstances.

It’s a bit of an academic question I suppose, because anybody applying would be advised or would know that the Community Covenant Agreement is in place. It’s difficult to say that they would be compliant with it. Somebody who tends not to be compliant with it would probably not apply, unless it was a confrontation application, which we haven’t had yet, and I hope we won’t have.

Q: Yes, someone who is legally married to their same-sex partner, and who engages in sexual activity with that partner, would probably not want to apply to TWU. My question, however, is whether that individual would qualify for admission.

Well, I can imagine circumstances where they would qualify for admission, but they would not be typical circumstances. From a technical perspective, it would be a matter of do they qualify from a position of being able to sign the necessary documents, those documents being the Community Covenant Agreement. If they can’t see their way through to signing those documents, then they would not qualify for admission.

»news.vice.com/article/a- ··· -college

If TWU was the only law school in BC or Canada I could see the case for discrimination, but there are other options, so you'd have to be a troll to sign up with them if you don't agree with their views.

The other issue according to the Law Society of Upper Canada is that lawyers need to act impartial to fulfill their duties. Does that mean that Christian doctors (of whom there are many, and good ones too) should have their practice supervised because they may treat patients of the LGBTQ community differently? I don't think so. Bias is inherent to the human experience, but I trust they can set aside their personal views to uphold whatever oath they have taken. Judges and doctors do it all the time.

Their covenant agreement is weird as hell , but unlike the issues of PAD or opposition to same-sex marriage (where harm and discrimination are easily demonstrated), there's no real harm being done here.

This decision reads like it was made out of moral or ethical reasoning rather than rational legalese. Because yes, the TWU's position is unpopular in 2014, but it is protected.

analog andy
join:2005-01-03
Surrey, BC

analog andy

Member

said by TigerLord:

Does that mean that Christian doctors (of whom there are many, and good ones too) should have their practice supervised because they may treat patients of the LGBTQ community differently? I don't think so.

Did their medical school or the college of physicians ask them to sign a pledge that says they cant not engage in any activities that are "biblically condemned" including "sexual intimacy that violates the sacredness of marriage between a man and a woman ?

TigerLord

join:2002-06-09
Canada

TigerLord

said by analog andy:

Did their medical school or the college of physicians ask them to sign a pledge that says they cant not engage in any activities that are "biblically condemned" including "sexual intimacy that violates the sacredness of marriage between a man and a woman ?

Nope, but stuff like that only tells me these people like to live as if it was 18th century France in their bedrooms. It doesn't mean they can't be impartial.
said by analog andy:

Ok so its not Christian teachings but teachings based on the Christian faith.

Christianity has many denominations, such as, but not limited to, adventists, anabaptists, anglicans, baptists, calvinists, catholics, evangelicals, lutherans, protestants and pentecostals.

Each denomination has its own interpretation of the holy scriptures. One easy example: protestants don't believe in the virgin Mary, but Catholics do.

BigSensFan
Premium Member
join:2003-07-16
Belle River, ON

BigSensFan

Premium Member

said by TigerLord:

said by analog andy:

Did their medical school or the college of physicians ask them to sign a pledge that says they cant not engage in any activities that are "biblically condemned" including "sexual intimacy that violates the sacredness of marriage between a man and a woman ?

Nope, but stuff like that only tells me these people like to live as if it was 18th century France in their bedrooms. It doesn't mean they can't be impartial.
said by analog andy:

Ok so its not Christian teachings but teachings based on the Christian faith.

Christianity has many denominations, such as, but not limited to, adventists, anabaptists, anglicans, baptists, calvinists, catholics, evangelicals, lutherans, protestants and pentecostals.

Each denomination has its own interpretation of the holy scriptures. One easy example: protestants don't believe in the virgin Mary, but Catholics do.

Oh we believe in the Virgin Mary... .we just don't believe she remained a virgin after Jesus was born.

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

Styvas

Premium Member

In fact, I visited her house in Ephesus 3 weeks ago.

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

1 recommendation

shaner to TigerLord

Premium Member

to TigerLord

TigerLord See Profile is correct. This is only an issue if TWU turned down an applicant solely because the applicant is gay, AND they stated that reason in their decision.

There are other law school options in BC and Canada; there's no good reason for an aspiring lawyer to even apply to TWU if they're gay. Other than to purposefully provoke a confrontation.

If TWU wants to practice ignorance, that's their problem.
PX Eliezer1
Premium Member
join:2013-03-10
Zubrowka USA

3 recommendations

PX Eliezer1

Premium Member

said by shaner:

There are other law school options in BC and Canada; there's no good reason for an aspiring lawyer to even apply to TWU if they're gay. Other than to purposefully provoke a confrontation.

If TWU wants to practice ignorance, that's their problem.

It's a difficult conflict of rights, and I don't know what the correct answer is (if there is one).

But let me ask: If they were discouraging the admission of Blacks, or women, or Jews or Muslims, would your answer be the same?

-----

In the states we have loads of law schools run by all sorts of Christian universities (including Catholic, Protestant, Mormon, and fundamentalists)----Georgetown, Brigham Young, Catholic University (DC), Loyola (Chicago), Liberty, St. Mary's, Fordham, Regent....

AFAIK there has not been any issue of exclusion, or any related accreditation issues. There may have been isolated cases I don't know of.

What is different about [this] university that has caused this dispute?

I didn't think that anyone could be more right-wing than Brigham Young, Liberty, or Regent....

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

2 recommendations

Styvas

Premium Member

said by PX Eliezer1:

But let me ask: If they were discouraging the admission of Blacks, or women, or Jews or Muslims, would your answer be the same?

Except they aren't discouraging any of those and, in fact, they aren't discouraging gay applicants either. That the school might not be a good fit for a gay applicant is another matter, but I'm fairly certain that various schools are not a good fit for various people for many different reasons.

As a comparison, Justin Trudeau's recent edict creates a dogmatic community covenant for the Liberal Party of Canada that effectively bars many Christians from standing as candidates for the LPC. But what Christian like those from TWU would even want to run for the LPC, one might ask?

a) if the point is that he's barring no one, because those people wouldn't be interested anyways (unless they're just shit disturbers), then I'm not sure how that argument is any different from suggesting that gays generally wouldn't be interested in attending TWU (which isn't true, by the way), so they aren't really barring anyone.

b) Some may be interested to know that the last time I voted Liberal federally was in 2008 for a fellow TWU graduate, Gord Zielstra in Cambridge. Unfortunately, he didn't win, but when we were students he was a leader on campus and very politically involved even back then. In fact, he and I were Young Liberals members there (my recollection is that he was the club president, but I could be wrong about that).

What I think people need to understand, though, is that TWU's stance on marriage is not related to civil marriage (although I suppose one could find ignorant TWU supporters who misunderstand this). Their stance is on Biblical marriage, which their denominational tradition defines, for reasons I outlined earlier in this thread, as between a man and a woman. The fact that the government is in the marriage business for legal reasons and has its own definition is not at issue here. As a Christian institution, TWU is stating a theological position, not a legal one.

Finally, I'm curious as to what people see as the real danger here. Since the school's law curriculum meets the standards set by the Province of BC, the BC Law Society (based on their initial approval) and the Federation of Law Societies of Canada, what is it that people think they will be teaching that will cause such a problem?

Does anyone here really think the focus of the curriculum will be to undermine the legal definition of marriage and work to reverse it, considering that TWU's stance on marriage is theological, not legal? And what of an evangelical Christian who agrees with TWU's stance on marriage and hears it affirmed regularly in their church, but attends UBC's law school instead? Regardless of where they received their training, is their attitude really going to be any different than a TWU grad's? So should the law societies also refuse to accredit any law student who attends a conservative evangelical church?

DKS
Damn Kidney Stones

join:2001-03-22
Owen Sound, ON

DKS to TigerLord

to TigerLord
said by TigerLord:

Each denomination has its own interpretation of the holy scriptures. One easy example: protestants don't believe in the virgin Mary, but Catholics do.

That's news to Protestants.
graniterock
Premium Member
join:2003-03-14
London, ON

graniterock to TigerLord

Premium Member

to TigerLord
I certainly have no issue with a private school wishing to teach from a certain perspective. I do have a bit of an issue with them trying to dictate what (married or not) adults do with themselves in their free time. If a gay person is OK with being taught from the framework being offered (which is different from agreeing), why should they be denied the education? Someone shouldn't be kicked out of school for having sex in a manner that is otherwise legal.
PX Eliezer1
Premium Member
join:2013-03-10
Zubrowka USA

1 recommendation

PX Eliezer1

Premium Member

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.