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

Wilber · May 5, 2014

If I were a gay student and my parents were paying for my education and I had to hide my sexual identity in order to get a law degree, the college is in fact imposing their belief system onto me by making me sign this covenant and denying me my human rights.

You don't, there are plenty of law schools out there. Why would you want to go to one that doesn't want you there? Removing the covenant wouldn't change that. This is a pissing contest. pure and simple.

WestCoastRunner · May 5, 2014

You don't, there are plenty of law schools out there. Why would you want to go to one that doesn't want you there? Removing the covenant wouldn't change that. This is a pissing contest. pure and simple.

You missed the part where the student's parents insist they attend this college if they want their education paid for. Sometimes, students do not have a choice.

guyser · May 5, 2014

Removing the covenant wouldn't change that.

The LSUC has said exactly the opposite. Remove it and we are good.

Not to mention but TWU's rights are intact . No one is denying them a thing.

Wilber · May 6, 2014

You missed the part where the student's parents insist they attend this college if they want their education paid for. Sometimes, students do not have a choice.

So you can't discriminate against idiot parents either.

Wilber · May 6, 2014

The LSUC has said exactly the opposite. Remove it and we are good.

Not to mention but TWU's rights are intact . No one is denying them a thing.

If gays aren't welcome at the school, they aren't welcome covenant or not. The LSUC can do dick about that. You can't change a persons beliefs by force.

WestCoastRunner · June 11, 2014

An update on this issue:

"In what may well have been the largest gathering of lawyers in B.C. history, members of the Law Society of B.C. decisively voted Tuesday to stop Trinity Western University — a Christian school that condemns gay sex — from being able to hand out law degrees."

Of the B.C. Law Society's 13,000 members, 3,210 voted in favour with 968 opposed.

This is by no means the end of it. The ultimate decision still rests with the law society's 31 governing benchers. But it is a great forward step!

You can read more here.

cybercoma · June 11, 2014

But they're oppressing Trinity's right to oppress.

Topaz · June 12, 2014

So what's the difference with a BC school having that rule and an Ontario Catholic school having the same rule??? I have friends who kids went to the Catholic system and that's what taught there too.

The_Squid · June 12, 2014

So what's the difference with a BC school having that rule and an Ontario Catholic school having the same rule??? I have friends who kids went to the Catholic system and that's what taught there too.

No one says they can't have that rule... by all means... don't let gays into TWU. But your law program won't be accredited. You can do it... but there are consequences to doing so. That is not discrimination.

Was it a private school? I seriously doubt that a Catholic public school (they have those in Ont., correct?) could have that rule.

Edited June 12, 2014 by The_Squid

Argus · June 13, 2014

No one says they can't have that rule... by all means... don't let gays into TWU. But your law program won't be accredited. You can do it... but there are consequences to doing so. That is not discrimination.

I can not see how this is the slightest different from the precedent set when the supreme court ordered the teachers graduated from Trinity to be recognized despite the teaching federations initially refusing. Every judge who heard the case said it was a slam dunk, no brainer decision. It is crystal clear.

How is this different? It's not. The first judge who hears this case is going to ask the lawyer representing the law society how it is his society of lawyers don't seem to understand or respect the law, and then order them to recognize the graduates from Trinity.

TimG · June 13, 2014

How is this different? It's not. The first judge who hears this case is going to ask the lawyer representing the law society how it is his society of lawyers don't seem to understand or respect the law, and then order them to recognize the graduates from Trinity.

The court cases make it very clear that rights must be balanced and in the case of teachers the court said that if TWU graduates acted in a discriminatory fashion on the job then they should be disciplined no matter what their religious beliefs. This entire case is all about the new fundamentalist immams of western culture punishing people for blasphemy. Edited June 13, 2014 by TimG

WestCoastRunner · June 13, 2014

This entire case is all about the new fundamentalist immams of western culture punishing people for blasphemy.

Not quite true. This case is about the conduct of the university discriminating against a certain population of canadian society.

TimG · June 13, 2014

Not quite true. This case is about the conduct of the university discriminating against a certain population of canadian society.

Prior court cases have made it clear that rights must be balanced and the way to achieve this balance is to allow private schools to have the policies they want but if professionals engage in discriminatory action on the job then they can and should be disciplined. This is fair attempt at balance. People who reject this balance are who I call the "new fundamentalist immams of western culture punishing people for blasphemy." Edited June 13, 2014 by TimG

WestCoastRunner · June 13, 2014

. People who reject this balance are who I call the "new fundamentalist immams of western culture punishing people for blasphemy."

That's quite a mouthful and also quite ridiculous.

TimG · June 13, 2014

That's quite a mouthful and also quite ridiculous.

Ridiculous why? Because zealots ignore prior court rulings and seek to censor private religious institutions for not sharing their belief systems? Blasphemy was probably the wrong word. Apostasy is a better description of the crime TWU is being censored for.

Remember that the court was very clear that graduates that discriminate in their course of the professional duties can be disciplined by their professional bodies so the TWU will have no choice but to teach their students the standards which they are expected to adhere to even if they go against their values. Given that context there is absolutely no basis for the complaints being made.

Edited June 13, 2014 by TimG

WestCoastRunner · June 13, 2014

The argument is with the conduct of the university against the lgbt community. Nothing to do with religious beliefs nor with the graduates.

TimG · June 13, 2014

The argument is with the conduct of the university against the lgbt community.

It is a private institution. Churches are not required to recognize gay marriages. Male only or female only schools are allowed to exist. There is no justification for imposing the religious views of the lbgt community on a private institution. It is like telling a Mosque that they must accept Christians. Edited June 13, 2014 by TimG

WestCoastRunner · June 13, 2014

It is a private institution. Churches are not required to recognize gay marriages. Male only or female only schools are allowed to exist. There is no justification for imposing the religious views of the lbgt community on a private institution. It is like telling a Mosque that they must accept Christians.

Just because it is a private institution does not give it special privilege with the law society of british columbia.

TimG · June 13, 2014

Just because it is a private institution does not give it special privilege with the law society of british columbia.

The Teachers tried already to block the teaching college. It went to court and they lost. The BOD of the law society approved the school because they looked at the law. The recent vote of members was non-binding and kind of silly because there is no reason to believe the rejection it will fare any better in court than they teacher's objections.

A free society means tolerating views that one disagrees with. The court agrees with this view. People who think they have to right to impose their views on everyone else are the real intolerant bigots that threaten our freedom.

Edited June 13, 2014 by TimG

WestCoastRunner · June 13, 2014

The Teachers tried already to block the teaching college. It went to court and they lost. The BOD of the law society approved the school because they looked at the law. The recent vote of members was non-binding and kind of silly because there is no reason to believe the rejection it will fare any better in court than they teacher's objections.

A free society means tolerating views that one disagrees with. The court agrees with this view. People who think they have to right to impose their views on everyone else are the real intolerant bigots that threaten our freedom.

Of course it is not binding. But it is certainly not silly.

WestCoastRunner · June 13, 2014

The Teachers tried already to block the teaching college. It went to court and they lost. The BOD of the law society approved the school because they looked at the law. The recent vote of members was non-binding and kind of silly because there is no reason to believe the rejection it will fare any better in court than they teacher's objections.

A free society means tolerating views that one disagrees with. The court agrees with this view. People who think they have to right to impose their views on everyone else are the real intolerant bigots that threaten our freedom.

A free society means tolerating views that one disagrees with. The court agrees with this view. People who think they have to right to impose their views on everyone else are the real intolerant bigots that threaten our freedom.

Do you hear yourself? Read this statement to yourself, over and over and over again.

TimG · June 13, 2014

Of course it is not binding. But it is certainly not silly.

It is not silly in the sense that it is a affirmation of faith for all of those who follow the religion. It is silly because freedom of speech protects the right to hold views that the mob disagrees with.

TimG · June 13, 2014

Do you hear yourself? Read this statement to yourself, over and over and over again.

I suggest you read it. You obviously don't get it.

WestCoastRunner · June 13, 2014

It is not silly in the sense that it is a affirmation of faith for all of those who follow the religion. It is silly because freedom of speech protects the right to hold views that the mob disagrees with.

It has to do with the law society of BC. The mandate is to protect the interest of the public and so on and so on. The law society couldn't care less about the religious freedom of some christian universities.

TimG · June 13, 2014

The mandate is to protect the interest of the public and so on and so on.

The public interest is to balance competing rights in ways that minimize the infringement of those rights. The courts have ruled on how the balance should be made in this situation. The only argument offered against the courts decision is that certain "religious beliefs" are superior and should be imposed on others.