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

cybercoma · May 3, 2014

Is it "ok" ?

haha. I'm not humouring you with this.

Michael Hardner · May 3, 2014

haha. I'm not humouring you with this.

Ok, what about the post above ? As a starting point, I proposed grandfathering religions. I even ran that by my wife, who offered that the idea was "ridiculous". "What if somebody wants to come up with Christianity 2 ?"

bleeding heart · May 3, 2014

For me personally, the idea of "grandfathering religions" is a sort of shrug-able issue.

However, I can fully appreciate the objections to such an idea: it's positing religious faith as somehow special, above other considerations...perhaps a non-controversial notion to the Faithful, but quite outlandish to many of us who are not.

cybercoma · May 3, 2014

The problem is that you want to condone discrimination for some but not others. As long as someone claims that their religion tells them it's ok to discriminate, then it's fine. Moreover, you're giving a hierarchy of religions. Here's a list of "acceptable" religions, but if you're a Scientologist, sorry....too new. I'm only using Scientology as an example because it's new, but obviously you mean anything going forward. It's a ridiculous idea. If discrimination is against our laws and something that we don't value as a society, then it should be condemned regardless of who's doing. Mythology about deities doesn't give someone the right to punish others. What if some interpretation of the Bible by a Christian sect decides enslaving people with darker skin than them is acceptable? Do we just allow that because they ought to have the ability to discriminate? We do not give free reign for religions to break human rights legislation. We wouldn't allow a religious sect that believes in marrying multiple underage girls the religious freedom to do so. We don't give religious parents the freedom to withhold life-saving medical treatments from their children. People are more than welcome to practice their religions in a personal manner, so long as what they're doing does not affect others. Offering a public service and denying people whether it's because they're gay, a different race, disabled, or a different religion from you is wrong and it's against human rights legislation provincially, federally, and internationally. And it's not only denial of service that's the problem. The school was completely unclear about what punishment would be doled out to a student who went away for the summer and discovered that they weren't being honest with themselves about their sexuality. So we're also talking about punishing people for their sexuality. There is nothing that can justify this kind of discrimination and anti-social policy. Religious freedom is frankly no excuse for abusing people.

cybercoma · May 3, 2014

It comes down to this, MH, why should discriminating for religious reasons be different than any other reasons? Religious freedom allows people to personally belong to and practice whatever religion they choose, so long as they're not harming others while they do it. The moment your religion stops being a personal belief and personal moral code and becomes a tool for you to oppress others, then forget you and your religion.

Michael Hardner · May 3, 2014

It comes down to this, MH, why should discriminating for religious reasons be different than any other reasons? Religious freedom allows people to personally belong to and practice whatever religion they choose, so long as they're not harming others while they do it. The moment your religion stops being a personal belief and personal moral code and becomes a tool for you to oppress others, then forget you and your religion.

The problem is that there's no way to allow freedom of religion without discriminating against people seemed as sinners, in law at least. I can't see a way.

Practically, you could remove social institutions such as education and health from religious control. It wouldn't fly politically though.

Wilber · May 3, 2014

It comes down to this, MH, why should discriminating for religious reasons be different than any other reasons? Religious freedom allows people to personally belong to and practice whatever religion they choose, so long as they're not harming others while they do it. The moment your religion stops being a personal belief and personal moral code and becomes a tool for you to oppress others, then forget you and your religion.

TWU isn't oppressing anyone. You have to want to go there and it will cost you. We have many different rights in our society. In TWU's case, the SC has ruled gay rights don't trump the University's rights. They ruled in favour of freedom of religion and association. Like it or not, that's the law.

cybercoma · May 3, 2014

TWU isn't oppressing anyone. You have to want to go there and it will cost you. We have many different rights in our society. In TWU's case, the SC has ruled gay rights don't trump the University's rights. They ruled in favour of freedom of religion and association. Like it or not, that's the law.

So if gays don't like it, they can just get a different photographer or open up their own restaurants or have their own gay schools, is that what you're saying? Sorry, but if you offer a public service, you're not a lowed to discriminate. That is the law.

Bryan · May 3, 2014

Sorry, but if you offer a public service, you're not a lowed to discriminate. That is the law.

That isn't even remotely true. Almost every business or service discriminates in some manner over something.

cybercoma · May 3, 2014

That isn't even remotely true. Almost every business or service discriminates in some manner over something.

Bryan, respectfully you haven't clue what you're talking about if you think that.

http://www.cdn-hr-reporter.ca/content/human-rights-law-basics

"In general, both federal and provincial human rights law prohibits discrimination in all aspects of employment; the leasing and sale of property; public accommodation, services and facilities; membership in labour unions and professional associations and the dissemination of hate propaganda."

What public accommodation, services and facilities means is any business providing accommodations (e.g., hotels, B&Bs), services (e.g., photographers, barbers) and facilities (e.g., recreation halls, banquet halls). The school is providing an education to the public. They would like their degrees publicly recognized by Law Societies. When offering services to the public they are not allowed to discriminate in any province whatsoever. Every single Human Rights Act or Code across the country states this.

You've seriously got to be messing with me if you don't know this and you're going to come in here and tell me that I'm a liar.

Peter F · May 3, 2014

Yes, at the end of the day, I agree that Wilbur is correct. As long as the Law course encapsulates those things necessary to comply with what Lawyers should know, and it seems with this university that is the case, then that is all thats really important for accreditation.

and yes, Wilbur, it is social activism for LSUC to withhold accreditation. That social activism is not a bad thing either. If it is then the university must be condemned for its own social activism. Never mind all the hundreds of other organizations that are socially active, including Parliament.

and yes Bryan is also correct in that the university allows access to everybody on the condition they sign the covenant. Of course, the covenant require homosexuals to recognize that they are emotional and spiritual cripples who can never enjoy marital intimacy under the eyes of God.

But, yeah, they don't really discriminate (thats sarcasm by the way)

Edited May 3, 2014 by Peter F

cybercoma · May 3, 2014

While we are at it, here is the British Columbia Human Rights Code.

Bryan · May 3, 2014

I'm not messing with you, you're just not thinking your position through. What you quoted is completely irrelevant, and easily disproven.

Almost all businesses and public facilities of any stripe (including government institutions) engage in systemic discrimination all of the time. Think about it for a second. Even a place that has a dress code is discriminating against anyone who doesn't have or can't afford those particular clothes, even more so against anyone who has a strong aversion to them. It doesn't take long at all to find several cases of daily discrimination that is perfectly legal in just about any setting.

TWU is not discriminating against any PEOPLE. No specific person is told they can't go there because of who they are. TWU only lists a set of expected BEHAVIOURS that are appropriate for people on their campus. That is perfectly legal, and constitutionally protected.

Peter F · May 3, 2014

True enough. TWU is one more of those institutions that really must be tolerated.

Wilber · May 3, 2014

and yes, Wilbur, it is social activism for LSUC to withhold accreditation. That social activism is not a bad thing either. If it is then the university must be condemned for its own social activism. Never mind all the hundreds of other organizations that are socially active, including Parliament.

I don't have a problem with the law society expressing an opinion on Trinity's covenant but they of all people should be following the law.

Wilber · May 3, 2014

So if gays don't like it, they can just get a different photographer or open up their own restaurants or have their own gay schools, is that what you're saying? Sorry, but if you offer a public service, you're not a lowed to discriminate. That is the law.

Not the same thing. Trinity is an institution based on religious principles. The SC doesn't agree with you and they are the final authority. That is the law.

Edited May 3, 2014 by Wilber

WestCoastRunner · May 3, 2014

The Ontario and Nova Scotia societies are the odd men out on this issue. The other provinces have followed BC's decision.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/i-voted-for-trinity-western-because-of-the-rule-of-law/article18319508/

Not all provinces have voted. NB will hold a vote in late June.

And it certainly isn't over in BC. BC's decisions are still being contested.

"In British Columbia, lawyers have filed a lawsuit with the Supreme Court of B.C. targeting that province’s move last year to approve the university’s law school. The suit is an attempt to overturn the decision by Advanced Education Minister Amrik Virk."

"Earlier this month, the Law Society of B.C. voted 20-6 in favour of accrediting the planned law school. But a petition with more than 1,300 signatures means the society’s general membership will revisit the issue, the Globe and Mail reported Friday."

Wilber · May 3, 2014

Not all provinces have voted. NB will hold a vote in late June.

And it certainly isn't over in BC. BC's decisions are still being contested.

"In British Columbia, lawyers have filed a lawsuit with the Supreme Court of B.C. targeting that province’s move last year to approve the university’s law school. The suit is an attempt to overturn the decision by Advanced Education Minister Amrik Virk."

"Earlier this month, the Law Society of B.C. voted 20-6 in favour of accrediting the planned law school. But a petition with more than 1,300 signatures means the society’s general membership will revisit the issue, the Globe and Mail reported Friday."

Do you really think the SC of BC will over ride a SC of Canada ruling? The government acted and the Benchers voted according to the existing law. I don't see that changing.

WestCoastRunner · May 3, 2014

Do you really think the SC of BC will over ride a SC of Canada ruling? The government acted and the Benchers voted according to the existing law. I don't see that changing.

I don't really know. We will have to wait and see.

-1=e^ipi · May 4, 2014

Are you just arguing for fun? I said their perception is their orientation. How they view their own sexuality is what their sexual orientation is, by definition.

and i'm saying it isn't and gave a counter example.

dre · May 4, 2014

The problem is that there's no way to allow freedom of religion without discriminating against people seemed as sinners, in law at least. I can't see a way.

Practically, you could remove social institutions such as education and health from religious control. It wouldn't fly politically though.

Thats fine... But it cuts both ways. They should be allowed to discriminate against gays if they want to but other elements of society should be allowed to discriminate against them and their students as well.

Michael Hardner · May 4, 2014

Thats fine... But it cuts both ways. They should be allowed to discriminate against gays if they want to but other elements of society should be allowed to discriminate against them and their students as well.

Ok, how ?

dre · May 4, 2014

Ok, how ?

Did you read the thread?. In this case a provincial law society is refusing to recognize the schools certs as valid.

Michael Hardner · May 4, 2014

If the SC should not allow it, I mean ?

dre · May 4, 2014

If the SC should not allow it, I mean ?

Im talking about whats fair and reasonable, and what normally takes place in a civilized society. People boycott people whos behavior they disapprove of. If the law is unreasonable or the courts make a bad decision theres not much I can do about that. But I dont see why anyone else shouldnt have the same right to discriminate against religious people or organizations as religious people and organizations have to discriminate homosexuals, women, and all the other groups the church had treated like crap over the years.