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

[guyser]

Why not make religion illegal then ?

NOW youre talking !

Its a start, thats for sure.

[Michael Hardner]

NOW youre talking !

Its a start, thats for sure.

Ok. And that includes astrology, new agey mysticism, snake oil cures and any bad belief system.

[guyser]

Im good with those!

[-1=e^ipi]

Context matters, MH. In this context, you're defending something that is offensive. There's no other way about it. Their policies are at best insensitive. In reality, they limit the options of gay and lesbians who want to be lawyers. Religious freedom or not, when a public service is offered, you're not allowed to discriminate against people whom you serve. This is what you're defending when you say it's their right not to serve gays and lesbians. You're saying the exact same thing as Jim Crow supporters who would argue that it's a business's right not to serve black people and if black people want it, they should open up their own segregated businesses. Except here, they invoke religion as an excuse for intolerance and suddenly we're supposed to accept their hatred and bigotry because they believe this is what a supernatural deity wants from them? So, yeah. It's offensive when people support fantasy over the very real consequences that gays and lesbians are facing.

There is a big difference between discriminating someone based on their race and based on their personal beliefs. Race is something a person cannot change or control. Belief is something a person can change.

[TimG]

I'm defending principles - and the trade-off is that they may be applied to offensive actions, just like Chomsky did when he wrote his piece.

Hear, hear. I often find myself defending people I disagree with simply because I believe in free speech and I am appalled at the politically correct lynch mobs that seek to silence any dissent from their approved belief systems.

[TimG]

There is a big difference between discriminating someone based on their race and based on their personal beliefs. Race is something a person cannot change or control. Belief is something a person can change.

In this case it is one step further - TWU is not seeking to change peoples beliefs but only limit their actions while at school. Edited May 1, 2014 by TimG

[TimG]

We know that they aren't obviously interested in "specific sexual acts," but that they are obviously interested in homosexuality.

Why? Sounds like your prejudice talking. i.e. you know TWU is a Christian school, you know that some Christians are against homosexuality, therefore you *assume* that they are talking about homosexuality. But we are not talking about your assumptions - we are talking about what the covenant actually says and the covenant does NOT say "no sexual relations outside of a man and woman". It says "sexual intimacy that violates the sacredness of marriage between a man and a woman". If they really meant the former don't you think they would have said it? More importantly, what does the "violates the sacredness" mean? The references to the biblical passages say that this refers to adultery and the 'man and women' part is a less significant qualifier. Edited May 1, 2014 by TimG

[Peter F]

So a man and a woman who are married can be admitted to the university and enjoy their sexual congress to their hearts content - but not so for a homosexual married couple.

[The_Squid]

So a man and a woman who are married can be admitted to the university and enjoy their sexual congress to their hearts content - but not so for a homosexual married couple.

Don't expect a response. There will be none forthcoming.

MH may ask what you meant by "enjoy" and call that description vague and obtuse though and play games with semantics as if he doesn't know what it means...

Edited May 1, 2014 by The_Squid

[Bryan]

So a man and a woman who are married can be admitted to the university and enjoy their sexual congress to their hearts content - but not so for a homosexual married couple.

Yeah, so?

[bleeding heart]

Tim,

Since you brought up "less significant qualifier"--referring to the "man and woman" phrase--you are summoning grammatical logic. Very well then. It is indeed a qualifier, but qualifiers can be fundamental to the meaning of a sentence. And in this case, it is. They are not talking about the "sacredness of marriage"; they are talking about the "sacredness of marriage between a man and a woman." The qualifier is part of the very meaning of the main clause. That's not me, that's elementary grammar.

That is, it's not like the difference between "the car" and "the red car"; it's like the difference between "the car" and "the car that runs." The first qualifier is arguably trivial; the second qualifier is everything.

And because same sex marriage is now legal, the pointedness of the qualifier is an obvious omission. It's meant to be an omission. Otherwise, it would be "sacredness of marriage," full stop.

The qualifier is absolutely crucial to the meaning of the sentence....unless those who composed the covenant are ignorant of the fundamentals of basic grammar...a possibility, but a hypothesis I find unconvincing.

Of course you know this; I'm not sure why the pretense.

Must be your "prejudice," and "preconceptions," and "ideology" at play....since using such terms seems to help you understand a little better.

[Michael Hardner]

MH may ask what you meant by "enjoy" and call that description vague and obtuse though and play games with semantics as if he doesn't know what it means...

? I only asked what you mean by "is it ok ?". If you can answer that simple question (and why wouldn't you ?) then we can continue.

[Peter F]

Yeah, so?

So, as Bleeding heart said earlier: they have every right to be silly little bigots...just as we have the right to call them on it. And so the Ontario Law Society has every right to not recognize graduates from the silly law program.

Not to worry, graduates of Trinitys law program can practice law elsewhere and all is well.

[Bryan]

So, as Bleeding heart said earlier: they have every right to be silly little bigots...just as we have the right to call them on it. And so the Ontario Law Society has every right to not recognize graduates from the silly law program.

Not to worry, graduates of Trinitys law program can practice law elsewhere and all is well.

The only bigotry I see is coming from those who are casting aspersions on the school. They have a constitutionally protected right to their religion, and that includes living by a moral code, Those who disagree with that code are not being forced to go there, they have many other options.

As the courts have already ruled many times, employers do NOT have the right to discriminate against the students based on their religion, or the fact that they chose to get their education in such an environment. Ask the BC teachers how it went for them when they tried not to recognize education degrees from trinity -- religious discrimination is against the law.

[bleeding heart]

"Casting aspersions" on those who believe homosexuality to be something bad is not "bigotry," anymore than casting aspersions on any other form of bigotry is, itself, bigotry.

Whatever one thinks about recognizing their education credentials.(a separate issue from "casting aspersions")..pointing out the obvious fact of their religiously-inspired bigotry is not...bigotry.

[Bryan]

"Casting aspersions" on those who believe homosexuality to be something bad is not "bigotry," anymore than casting aspersions on any other form of bigotry is, itself, bigotry.

Whatever one thinks about recognizing their education credentials.(a separate issue from "casting aspersions")..pointing out the obvious fact of their religiously-inspired bigotry is not...bigotry.

You have not in any way demonstrated that there is any bigotry at TWU. Just because people want to live their lives a certain way, does not mean they expect anyone else to follow it.

[bleeding heart]

So "casting aspersions" on the openly anti-homosexual stance is "bigotry"; but the anti-homosexual stance itself is not "bigotry."

alrighty.

[Bryan]

Calling them anti-homosexual is bigotry.

[bleeding heart]

?

How so?

[Peter F]

The only bigotry I see is coming from those who are casting aspersions on the school. They have a constitutionally protected right to their religion, and that includes living by a moral code, Those who disagree with that code are not being forced to go there, they have many other options.

As the courts have already ruled many times, employers do NOT have the right to discriminate against the students based on their religion, or the fact that they chose to get their education in such an environment. Ask the BC teachers how it went for them when they tried not to recognize education degrees from trinity -- religious discrimination is against the law.

Well, thought I, perhaps there is a point here.

So I went to the horse, so to speak, and tried to learn a bit about what really went on with this accreditation thingy.

at http://www.lsuc.on.ca/twu/#transcriptsetc are the transcripts of the Law Society of Upper Canada regarding wether to accredit or not TWU (at bottom of the page) along with the TWU answer to the LSUC members questions.

Upon reading the above linked articles I have come to the conclusion that I believe TWU to be a goofy place that I would never recommend to anyone - never mind sexual-orientation or conduct - that the course should actually be accredited. Simply because the university does seem to have in place a legitimate law course . Anyone graduating from that course, on the face of it, should be able to competently practice as well as anyone else.

It remains to be seen if the inherent evangelical atmosphere of the school will actually be detrimental to the law students ability upon graduation.

and, just to be clear, I most certainly do cast my aspersions upon TWU's convenant.

But what the hell, others think different.

[WestCoastRunner]

It remains to be seen if the inherent evangelical atmosphere of the school will actually be detrimental to the law students ability upon graduation.

I don't think anyone here on this thread indicated that their ability to practice would be in doubt. The issue is forcing students to sign this covenant.

[The_Squid]

I don't think anyone here on this thread indicated that their ability to practice would be in doubt. The issue is forcing students to sign this covenant.

If the school is not an accredited school for Ontario, then of course its students cannot practice law in Ontario.

[WestCoastRunner]

If the school is not an accredited school for Ontario, then of course its students cannot practice law in Ontario.

I think they can if they apply to a special committee. I recall reading something about that.

[guyser]

I think they can if they apply to a special committee. I recall reading something about that.

correct

[TimG]

That is, it's not like the difference between "the car" and "the red car"; it's like the difference between "the car" and "the car that runs." The first qualifier is arguably trivial; the second qualifier is everything.

Context is everything. If you are pointing to a row of cars to tell me which one has a body in the trunk then the qualifier "red" is much more important.

As I already pointed out: they did NOT say no sexual intimacy outside of a marriage between a man and a woman. If that is what they mean why didn't they say it? (hint: any rationalization you offer for ignoring words in the sentence simply proves my point that you are not reading the words written but instead choosing to interpret based on your prejudices).

Instead of marriage they used the noun "sacredness" instead. That implies that the primary noun in the sentence is not marriage and the man and the women part is less significant. This text was written prior to 2005 so it is impossible to argue it was intended to repudiate a law that did not exist. If anything, the "man and women" could have been nothing but a statement of obvious.

If you have not figured out already I am not insisting that my interpretation is the correct one. I am simply saying that the people claiming that this clause was intended to prohibit gays or gay relationships have no real basis to make that claim because the wording is vague enough to leave multiple interpretations open.

Edited May 1, 2014 by TimG