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

[cybercoma]

It is a private institution.

It offers a public service. Read the Human Rights Code of BC about offering a public service.

[TimG]

It offers a public service. Read the Human Rights Code of BC about offering a public service.

The rules apply equally to everyone. A qualified individual can attend no matter what their orientation. There is no discrimination when it comes to providing the public service. If someone dislikes the code of conduct then there are other schools.

[cybercoma]

The rules apply equally to everyone.

Right. All those straight people aren't allowed to have gay sex with their husbands/wives. Applies to everyone.

[Argus]

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.

Nor about the law, apparently.

[Argus]

It offers a public service. Read the Human Rights Code of BC about offering a public service.

Read the unanimous Supreme Court ruling which supported the appeals court which supported the judge who said you can't discriminate against the graduates of a religion-based school because you don't like the school's rules about homosexuals.

[TimG]

Right. All those straight people aren't allowed to have gay sex with their husbands/wives. Applies to everyone.

Are unmarried people are discriminated against since they can't have sex but married people can. Are alcoholics discriminated against since they can have booze?

[The_Squid]

Are unmarried people are discriminated against since they can't have sex but married people can.

Once again....

What about a married gay couple?

A married gay couple is treated differently than straight married people. Because they're gay.... That's discrimination.

[cybercoma]

Read the unanimous Supreme Court ruling which supported the appeals court which supported the judge who said you can't discriminate against the graduates of a religion-based school because you don't like the school's rules about homosexuals.

post the cases please.

[Michael Hardner]

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.

The law society should care about the law and the law says freedom of religion is protected.

Yes, well said.

The courts have to navigate as the popular tide turns away from gay discrimination and towards supporting gay rights.

The fact has been stated that religions have the right to discriminate and behave in ways that people may not agree with or find morally wrong, and the case has been made in court as per posts on this thread.

I am waiting for people to explain how banning graduates of this school from practicing their profession works into the balance of rights TimG refers to.

[TimG]

post the cases please.

http://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/1867/index.do

Any potential conflict between religious freedoms and equality rights should be resolved through the proper delineation of the rights and values involved. Properly defining the scope of the rights avoids a conflict in this case. Neither freedom of religion nor the guarantee against discrimination based on sexual orientation is absolute. The proper place to draw the line is generally between belief and conduct. The freedom to hold beliefs is broader than the freedom to act on them. Absent concrete evidence that training teachers at TWU fosters discrimination in the public schools of B.C., the freedom of individuals to adhere to certain religious beliefs while at TWU should be respected. Acting on those beliefs, however, is a different matter. If a teacher in the public school system engages in discriminatory conduct, that teacher can be subject to disciplinary proceedings before the BCCT. In this way, the scope of the freedom of religion and equality rights that have come into conflict can be circumscribed and thereby reconciled.

Edited June 14, 2014 by TimG

[Michael Hardner]

That reads as a very wise and prescriptive ruling.

I'm not sure what this refers to though:

"If a teacher in the public school system engages in discriminatory conduct, that teacher can be subject to disciplinary proceedings before the BCCT. "

[TimG]

"If a teacher in the public school system engages in discriminatory conduct, that teacher can be subject to disciplinary proceedings before the BCCT. "

The BCCT is defunct but the message is clear: if/when there is evidence of discriminatory conduct on the job then professional bodies can impose penalties notwithstanding any religious convictions the person in question might have. I see this as a fair way to balance competing rights.

[Michael Hardner]

Ok. Well, in such cases the institution (Trinity) seems to have taken pains to be specific about condemning the act and not the person. This is in line with religious teaching and doesn't not discriminate against people as individuals.

I don't think any right to participate in certain sex acts has been been established by the courts, so we're all good then... right ?

[Rue]

As a member of the Ontario Bar I was asked my opinion on Trinity and I expressed it. I had a very real concern as to the precedent set by creating any type of religious orientated law school let alone one that imposes admission criteria on its students in direct violation of existing Canadian laws.

I believe that once any Law Society recognizes a law school that justifies violating the law it necessarily would erode public confidence in our profession because the message we would be sending out is that it is o.k, to support institutions that knowlingly break the law and encourage their students to use their religion to discriminate against others.

I believed the Law Society of Ontario had to live up to its obligation to protect the public and support public confidence in our profession by making it clear we do not condone supporting schools that break the law and encourage their graduates to condone beliefs that run contrary to existing Canadian laws.

Bryan stated earlier on Trinity should sue the Law Society of Ontario. Well it can not. Law Societies have a monopoly on accrediting law schools and one of their criteria is that the law school not engage in policies of enrollment or continuing admission that violate or run contrary to public policy. Well the criteria at Trinity is in direct violation of the human rights laws of every province in Canada.

Good luck arguing in court the Law Society of ANY province is obligated to recognizing a law school that violates human rights legislation. How do you accredit a law school that violates the laws of your country? Does that encourage public confidence in the Law Society to protect the public?

Edited June 14, 2014 by Rue

[Michael Hardner]

Why does this school exist, then, if it's in violation of the charter ? And what about the challenge that already happened - as per TimG's link ?

[TimG]

I don't think any right to participate in certain sex acts has been been established by the courts, so we're all good then... right ?

That is the crux of it. One can still be gay and not have sex. Just like unmarried people are expected to not have sex. If the school actually said that gays were not allowed then that would be a problem.

[WestCoastRunner]

There is another issue that hasn't been given a lot of coverage with regards to another new law school. B.C. is already over-saturated with lawyers and the last thing this province needs is more new graduate lawyers. Ontario as well has the same problem.

A research lawyer with the B.C. Law Institute states that:

"The only party that will profit from students attending the law facility will be TWU itself".

When a university creates a law program, it expands its employment roster and gains both financially and in prestige. But shouldn't universities stop educating students for jobs that don't exist.

[TimG]

I really do think those of you who agree with this law school's fundamental religious views would be the first to protest against a Sharia Law Muslim orientated law school. Imagine the uproar.

It really depends on the specifics. If an Islamic school required students to pray to Allah 5 times a day I would have no issue with it. If female students were required to wear hijab - again no issue. If they required students to condemn Isreal as an outlaw state I would have an issue but they are not doing anything York U is not already doing.

But if they engaged in acts that actually discriminate I would have and issue - just like I would have an issue with TWU if they said that no gays could attend. But a rule saying 'no sex outside of hetro-marriage'? I see no issue.

Edited June 14, 2014 by TimG

[Michael Hardner]

That is the crux of it. One can still be gay and not have sex. Just like unmarried people are expected to not have sex. If the school actually said that gays were not allowed then that would be a problem.

And one can be gay and still be a practicing and compliant Catholic too. I don't understand why there's this idea that gay people have the right to sex while unmarried straights don't ? Or do ? Very confusing.

[WestCoastRunner]

If the school actually said that gays were not allowed then that would be a problem.

The school does actually say that married gays are now allowed.

"The covenant includes a passage that forbids sex outside of marriage, defined as between a man and a woman, and students can be disciplined for violating it."

That is the problem Tim and I don't know why you insist that the above statement does not discriminate against gays. A gay married couple is not welcome at this institution unless they abstain from having sex, however a married heterosexual couple can have sex all they want!

You keep quoting your above statement. Perhaps you should remove your blinders.

[Michael Hardner]

if they said that no gays could attend. But a rule saying 'no sex outside of hetro-marriage'? I see no issue.

They didn't say that even. They said, basically, only P & V sex between married people.

[Michael Hardner]

Am I wrong there ?

[TimG]

They didn't say that even. They said, basically, only P & V sex between married people.

I believe that is true if you take the literal wording of the current covenant. However, most people seem to want to ignore the literal wording and make assumptions based on their preconceptions.

[TimG]

A gay married couple is not welcome at this institution unless they abstain from having sex, however a married heterosexual couple can have sex all they want!

Then why aren't you complaining about discrimination against unmarried people? A covenant requiring that one refrain from certain activities while at the school is not discriminatory because everyone is still welcome to attend. Edited June 14, 2014 by TimG

[The_Squid]

And one can be gay and still be a practicing and compliant Catholic too. I don't understand why there's this idea that gay people have the right to sex while unmarried straights don't ? Or do ? Very confusing.

Once again you ignore the married gays vs. married straights. One can have sex while one cannot, according to this school. That clearly negates your argument that gays are being treated just like straight people at this school.

Edited June 14, 2014 by The_Squid