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

[The_Squid]

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

Yes, you are wrong here. Your sentence should say between married STRAIGHT people.

[WestCoastRunner]

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.

Because TWU has chosen to focus on married people. You are simply refusing to see the discrimination here.

Canada legalized gay marriage back in 2005. They should have the same rights as a heterosexual couple and TWU has clearly used their religion to discriminate against these 'legal marriages'.

[TimG]

Canada legalized gay marriage back in 2005. They should have the same rights as a heterosexual couple and TWU has clearly used their religion to discriminate against these 'legal marriages'.

And that same law explicitly protected the right of religious institutions to refuse to sanction gay marriage. TWU is not discriminating against gays. It is simply exercising its right under the 2005 law to limit the recognition of marriage one between a man and a woman. As a consequence married gays are treated like unmarried heteros. Since the same rules apply to gays and heteros there is no discrimination. Edited June 14, 2014 by TimG

[The_Squid]

And that same law explicitly protected the right of religious institutions to refuse to sanction gay marriage. TWU is not discriminating against gays. It is simply exercising its right under the 2005 law to limit the recognition of marriage one between a man and a woman. As a consequence married gays are treated like unmarried heteros. Since the same rules apply to gays and heteros there is no discrimination.

LOL They don't discriminate because they're allowed to discriminate, so there is no discrimination. And they don't believe in gay marriage so their is no discrimination there either.

That's got to be the most asinine circular logic I've ever read....

[TimG]

They don't discriminate because they're allowed to discriminate, so there is no discrimination.

It is not discrimination. They are entitled to define marriage they way they want and if they want to allow exemptions from their code conduct for people that meet their definition then they can. Discrimination only occurs if they single out identifiable groups and have rules that only apply to that group. This is not the case. Married gays do not qualified as married for purposes of the TWU code so the rules that apply to unmarried students apply to them. But the rules are the same for every unmarried student. Edited June 14, 2014 by TimG

[WestCoastRunner]

It is not discrimination. They are entitled to define marriage they way they want and if they want to allow exemptions from their code conduct for people that meet their definition then they can. Discrimination only occurs if they single out identifiable groups and have rules that only apply to that group. This is not the case. Married gays do not qualified as married for purposes of the TWU code so the rules that apply to unmarried students apply to them. But the rules are the same for every unmarried student.

But didn't you say earlier that if they are discriminating against gays, that would be a problem? They are singling out a specific group of people. 'gay married couples'.

[TimG]

They are singling out a specific group of people. 'gay married couples'.

No they are not. They are defining marriage in their way and that does not happen to include gays, polygamous or any other variation that one might come up with. They then create exceptions to their code that only apply to people who meet their definition of marriage. Gays, like unmarried students, do not qualify for the exemption. Do businesses offering "senior discounts" discriminate because they choose some arbitrary age to determine who is a "senior"? Is it wrong because one business says anyone over 60 and another says anyone over 65? Edited June 14, 2014 by TimG

[The_Squid]

Polygamy is not legal.... Nice try, but that's a smelly red herring.

It's like defining a human as having white skin.... No one else gets rights because we don't consider them humans. There you go! No discrimination!

[TimG]

It's like defining a human as having white skin.... No one else gets rights because we don't consider them humans. There you go! No discrimination!

Speaking of red herrings: having white skin is a physical attribute - not a behavior that one can choose to not do an thereby attend the school.

In this case the code only restricts what behaviors that one is allowed to engage in while at school. Partial exemptions to the code are available to people who meet the criteria that they define.

Edited June 14, 2014 by TimG

[The_Squid]

Speaking of red herrings: having white skin is a physical attribute - not a behavior that one can choose to not do an thereby attend the school.In this case the code only restricts what behaviors that one is allowed to engage in while at school. Partial exemptions to the code are available to people who meet the criteria that they define.

Being gay is not a choice.

The criteria is you can't be gay and married.... You claim it's only about behaviour, but then say they don't recognize being married if you're gay. Talking out both sides of your mouth, as they say. It's all about making sure there aren't gay students at the school....

[TimG]

The criteria is you can't be gay and married.

The criteria is they have their definition of marriage which they are entitled to do and gays cannot qualify as married under that definition. Neither do common law couples which, under the law, are treated as if they are married. Are you claiming that TWU discriminates against common law couples? Because they are if your claims had merit. Edited June 14, 2014 by TimG

[The_Squid]

The criteria is they have their definition of marriage which they are entitled to do and gays cannot qualify as married under that definition. Neither do common law couples which, under the law, are treated as if they are married. Are you claiming that TWU discriminates against common law couples? Because they are if your claims had merit.

So would they be allowed to say that interracial marriage is not marriage as well?

[WestCoastRunner]

No they are not. They are defining marriage in their way and that does not happen to include gays, polygamous or any other variation that one might come up with. They then create exceptions to their code that only apply to people who meet their definition of marriage. Gays, like unmarried students, do not qualify for the exemption. Do businesses offering "senior discounts" discriminate because they choose some arbitrary age to determine who is a "senior"? Is it wrong because one business says anyone over 60 and another says anyone over 65?

Alrighty.

[TimG]

So would they be allowed to say that interracial marriage is not marriage as well?

Are you really arguing that some institution could hypothetically have a problem with sex between interracial couples but have no problem with romantic relationships (this is the TWU position on gays)? It is a nonsensical suggestion. If you want to come up with counter examples you need something that makes sense logically.

[WestCoastRunner]

No they are not. They are defining marriage in their way and that does not happen to include gays, polygamous or any other variation that one might come up with. They then create exceptions to their code that only apply to people who meet their definition of marriage. Gays, like unmarried students, do not qualify for the exemption. Do businesses offering "senior discounts" discriminate because they choose some arbitrary age to determine who is a "senior"? Is it wrong because one business says anyone over 60 and another says anyone over 65?

I get that you are homophobic. Carry on.

[TimG]

I get that you are homophobic. Carry on.

What is with the personal attacks? I am libertarian and object to most attempts by the new imams of western left to impose their values on people who disagree. It also means that I argue just as strongly that gays should be free to marry, adopt or do anything else that harms no one.

[WestCoastRunner]

What is with the personal attacks? I am libertarian and object to most attempts by the new imams of western left to impose their values on people who disagree. It also means that I argue just as strongly that gays should be free to marry, adopt or do anything else that harms no one.

Perhaps you should put your money where your mouth is.

[TimG]

Perhaps you should put your money where your mouth is.

What does that mean?

[WestCoastRunner]

What is with the personal attacks? I am libertarian and object to most attempts by the new imams of western left to impose their values on people who disagree. It also means that I argue just as strongly that gays should be free to marry, adopt or do anything else that harms no one.

It means, why don't you stick up for your fellow gay human beings, instead of throwing them to the curb when the TWU decides to discriminate.

[TimG]

It means, why don't you stick up for your fellow gay human beings, instead of throwing them to the curb when the TWU decides to discriminate.

Because, I, like the Supreme Court of Canada, believe that rights need to be balanced and in this situation it is unreasonable to expect a private religious institution to accept gay marriage (especially when the 2005 law explicitly says they don't have to). In my mind, their freedom to have their faith is as important as a gay's right to marry. The only time interference is justifiable is when harm can be shown. In this case, the hypothetical scenario of a married gay couple who have to decide to not have sex til the graduate or find another school is not enough "harm" to justify interference by the state. Edited June 15, 2014 by TimG

[WestCoastRunner]

Because, I, like the Supreme Court of Canada, believe that rights need to be balanced and in this situation it is unreasonable to expect a private religious institution to accept gay marriage. Their freedom to have their faith is as important as a gay's right to marry.

Perhaps you are forgetting your earlier response: " if it was discriminating against gays, it would be a problem.'

[TimG]

Perhaps you are forgetting your earlier response: " if it was discriminating against gays, it would be a problem.'

Meaning, if they said gays could not attend. They are not saying that. They are saying no sex between unmarried students and that gays can't marry. This implies that gays can attend, can be open about their orientation and can have romantic relationships. They just can't have sex and neither can any other unmarried student. It is very limited restriction and because it is so limited it is acceptable in a society that values freedom of thought. Edited June 15, 2014 by TimG

[WestCoastRunner]

What a spin on words. I sure hope you have no extended family members who are gay.

[TimG]

What a spin on words. I sure hope you have no extended family members who are gay.

How does that address my point? It is clear that you are person who thinks that people who disagree with you need to be suppressed by the government and dislike a society with a diversity of opinions. I see value in a diversity of opinions and do not want to see it crushed by a mob of politically correct zealots telling everyone what they are allowed to think.

I find it ironic that the same people who think that diversity is great when it comes to skin color or gender have such a big problem with diversity of thought.

Edited June 15, 2014 by TimG

[WestCoastRunner]

Diversity of opinions!!! You have got to be kidding!!!!