Ontario has voted 'no' to accrediting Trinity University Law P

Michael Hardner · July 8, 2015

Gay people are legally married but yet they can't have sex within their 'legally lawfully married' relationship, recognized by every legal entity in Canada!

Yes, that's exactly right. Religions don't recognize state-administered marriage as legitimate. As I said, a religious school could deny entry to divorced/remarried couples too, or even other religions.

Michael Hardner · July 8, 2015

I'm not sure I would do away with all religious education, but religious law schools? There's something qualitatively different about that to me.

I can see your point, but I don't know if that's true from a legal standpoint. Traditionally, religions have offered schools and hospitals as a public service, and later those institutions received funding. To uncouple them would require some big changes, but it seems possible - especially when you consider that there are right-of-centre people who resent public funding of religious schools and the duplication of costs that are involved there.

Mighty AC · July 8, 2015

The covenant simply asks students to abstain from "sexual intimacy that violates the sacredness of marriage between a man and a woman". It says nothing about whether gays can marry - just that even if they are married they should not have sex.

Not only does TWU have different rules for singles and married couples but also for gay and straight married couples. Different rules for homosexuals is discriminatory, don't you think?

Edited July 8, 2015 by Mighty AC

Michael Hardner · July 8, 2015

Not only does TWU have different rules for singles and married couples but also for gay and straight married couples.

They don't recognize gay marriage, and freedom of religion means that they don't need to.

cybercoma · July 8, 2015

A complete strawman. Having sex has nothing to do with being married.

A marriage isn't valid unless it's consummated. So yeah, having sex has something to do with marriage.

cybercoma · July 8, 2015

I can see your point, but I don't know if that's true from a legal standpoint. Traditionally, religions have offered schools and hospitals as a public service, and later those institutions received funding. To uncouple them would require some big changes, but it seems possible - especially when you consider that there are right-of-centre people who resent public funding of religious schools and the duplication of costs that are involved there.

Yeah it seems possible. That's what The Quiet Revolution was in Québec.

cybercoma · July 8, 2015

They don't recognize gay marriage, and freedom of religion means that they don't need to.

When it comes to public relationships they absolutely have to. An employer can't discriminate against a same-sex couple because their religion doesn't allow them to recognize it. Even in the United States (Beetlejuice! Beetlejuice! Beetlejuice!) where religion is a far more political and contentious issue that has been upheld by the courts. Edited July 8, 2015 by cybercoma

Mighty AC · July 8, 2015

They don't recognize gay marriage, and freedom of religion means that they don't need to.

Freedom of religion does not trump state laws and protections. Do you feel that freedom of religion should allow a school to deny entry to black people or allow members of a church to stone disobedient children to death?

cybercoma · July 8, 2015

Freedom of religion does not trump state laws

Actually it does in many cases. That's the purpose of the Charter, to define what laws are valid.

Michael Hardner · July 8, 2015

Freedom of religion does not trump state laws and protections. Do you feel that freedom of religion should allow a school to deny entry to black people or allow members of a church to stone disobedient children to death?

I think Cyber addressed your strawman.

Michael Hardner · July 8, 2015

When it comes to public relationships they absolutely have to. An employer can't discriminate against a same-sex couple because their religion doesn't allow them to recognize it.

Right, but they are, conversely, performing a marriage that means nothing to any church anyway. So they have nothing to stand on. The sphere of morality is the currency of religious thought and teaching. That morality must change and does change with the times but I think when the state legislates morality then they're effectively denying Charter rights to religious people.

That's what I think, but the court disagreed so I respectfully concede that the legal question has been answered.

It feels like we've gone around on this already a few times, so it might be more interesting to consider some other questions:

- Religious schools denying employment, or firing people for being the wrong religion, atheist, gay or the wrong gender.

- Religious hospitals refusing to engage in some practices because they contradict their morality

Any others ?

Mighty AC · July 8, 2015

Actually it does in many cases. That's the purpose of the Charter, to define what laws are valid.

I think Cyber addressed your strawman.

Maybe my wording should have been freedom of religion does not trump other constitutional rights, but I don't see how my questions are a straw man.

Equality of race and colour is protected by the Charter, even though some religious people believe the Bible states that blacks are to be slaves. In 1995, the SCC also 'recognized that sexual orientation was implicitly included in section 15 as an "analogous ground" and is therefore a prohibited ground of discrimination'.

MH, you stated that those in charge of TWU 'don't recognize gay marriage, and freedom of religion means that they don't need to.'

So do you feel that freedom of religion means that some Christians don't need to recognize the equality of blacks? In your mind, does the freedom of religion somehow trump other constitutional rights?

Argus · July 8, 2015

It's not about imposing morals on a religious school.

Of course it is. Why try to deny it?

It is all about the school adhering to particular standards set forth by a group of lawyers who are the ones that set and enforce these standards.

No, they don't. Or shouldn't. The only thing which should concern them is the legal knowledge and abilities of those who graduate the law school. Period.

Lawyers... can you get a more conservative group than that???

Easily. Almost anyone aside from teachers and social workers. Lawyers are extremely liberal in this society because they are, by and large, the sons and daughters of the lazy, comfortable, pampered never threatened upper middle class (the sons and daughters of the rich take Business). By and large, these are the golden children who have never known want or need or fear. That breeds a pretty slack, laid back point of view of the world around you.

The standard is "a law school must not violate the Charter of Rights and Freedoms".

There is no possible way a private school can violate the Charter since the Charter does not apply to private institutions. Period.

Argus · July 8, 2015

That makes no sense whatsoever.

The judges basically acknowledged that their decision went against the Supreme Court's decision, and said, the exact quote isn't hard to find, but to paraphrase "Well, times have changed. Society is more friendly to gays now so maybe the Supreme Court will change its mind" on what the Charter says.

Canada_First · July 8, 2015

Oh right. I forgot. So let's deny them their rights to have sex with their lawful partner while attending the university.

It's only lawful in the eyes if the non believers. Faithful people believe that marraige is only between a man and a woman. All others are not a real marraige. Men marrying men, women marrying women, gay men marrying boy or gitl lovers, people marrying thier pets or appliances...it's all not marraige to the faithful. Do you understand what's meant?

Canada_First · July 8, 2015

So do you feel that freedom of religion means that some Christians don't need to recognize the equality of blacks?

Can you provide an example of mainstream Christian leadership in Canada who feel this way and preach on it?

The_Squid · July 8, 2015

There is no possible way a private school can violate the Charter since the Charter does not apply to private institutions. Period.

You missed the point of the ruling...

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2015/07/02/court-upholds-law-societys-decision-not-to-accredit-trinity-western-university.html

...while TWU is not subject to the Ontario Human Rights Code, the Law Society is. The court found that although the Law Society’s decision interfered with the right to religious freedom, it ultimately applied a proper balancing of Charter rights and came to a reasonable conclusion.

Mighty AC · July 8, 2015

Can you provide an example of mainstream Christian leadership in Canada who feel this way and preach on it?

Nope. Nor can I for the US currently either. However, this was an argument commonly used to defend the practice of slavery and segregation in the US and is quite analogous to current treatment of homosexuals by Christian institutions.

bush_cheney2004 · July 8, 2015

Nope. Nor can I for the US currently either. However, this was an argument commonly used to defend the practice of slavery and segregation in the US and is quite analogous to current treatment of homosexuals by Christian institutions.

It was also a common argument to abolish slavery and segregation in the U.S.

Mighty AC · July 8, 2015

It was also a common argument to abolish slavery and segregation in the U.S.

Certainly, Christian beliefs tend to be a hodgepodge of various cherry picked passages. There are far more passages that condemn the consumption of shellfish than homosexuals, but the TWU covenant doesn't include anything about shrimp. To me scripture has no value, other than my interest in what people will do to justify their existing prejudices.

I find it interesting that the discriminatory sects with respect to homosexuals ignore Romans 13 1-2:

Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2 Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves.

Christians rebelling against laws of the state are rebelling against what their god has instituted.

cybercoma · July 9, 2015

You missed the point of the ruling...

This is the crucial point that some people aren't understanding. The Law Society of Ontario can't possibly grant accreditation to an institute that violates the Ontario Human Rights codes. It would undermine their legal authority.

Michael Hardner · July 9, 2015

Maybe my wording should have been freedom of religion does not trump other constitutional rights, but I don't see how my questions are a straw man.

They're strawman because nobody is suggesting state rights or religious rights "trump" other rights. Where they conflict, the guiding principle is "reasonable accommodation" and that's necessarily subjective and malleable as society changes.

Equality of race and colour is protected by the Charter, even though some religious people believe the Bible states that blacks are to be slaves. In 1995, the SCC also 'recognized that sexual orientation was implicitly included in section 15 as an "analogous ground" and is therefore a prohibited ground of discrimination'.

MH, you stated that those in charge of TWU 'don't recognize gay marriage, and freedom of religion means that they don't need to.'

So do you feel that freedom of religion means that some Christians don't need to recognize the equality of blacks? In your mind, does the freedom of religion somehow trump other constitutional rights?

Christians, and individuals, in fact don't need to recognize the equality of blacks. In fact, religions already regard non-believers as being somehow deficient. You can't legislate attitudes, although it seems that you would like to.

Canada_First · July 11, 2015

You're not planning on going to the school. So why not stop the whining and try minding your own business? This has absolutely nothing to do with you.

Peter F · July 11, 2015

This is the crucial point that some people aren't understanding. The Law Society of Ontario can't possibly grant accreditation to an institute that violates the Ontario Human Rights codes. It would undermine their legal authority.

Yup. There is no way they could support it. Accrediting a university that discriminates in contravention of the OHR was not going to happen.

WestCoastRunner · July 11, 2015

You're not planning on going to the school. So why not stop the whining and try minding your own business? This has absolutely nothing to do with you.

When we mind our own business and look the other way, it spells nothing but trouble. Do you think minding our own business really helps out society?

Edited July 12, 2015 by WestCoastRunner