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

[TimG]

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

I rest my case. People like you are greater threat to our society than any religious fundamentalist.

[The_Squid]

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.

Exactly... No institution would EVER do that anymore, althought they used to.

Sooner rather than later, these institutions will have to drop their homophobic, bigoted policies as well.

Edited June 15, 2014 by The_Squid

[jacee]

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.

"Their faith" is ... THEIR faith. No gay sex or gay marriage for them. Fine.

But they have no right to impose THEIR faith on others.

.

[TimG]

Exactly... No institution would EVER do that anymore, althought they used to.

No institution ever did what you suggested. What some may have actually did was ban all interracial relationships which has no relationship to what TWU is doing.

And society may change its view and that is OK. But for now TWU is expressing legitimately held views which the legislature has explicitly affirmed in the 2005 law on civil unions. That means they deserve to have their beliefs respected until they decide to change them.

Edited June 15, 2014 by TimG

[TimG]

But they have no right to impose THEIR faith on others.

They are not imposing their faith on anyone. People have to choose to come to the school and there are other schools available. So no one is forced to adhere to those views.

OTOH, you want to impose your faith on TWU and that is wrong.

Edited June 15, 2014 by TimG

[jacee]

They are not imposing their faith on anyone. People have to choose to come to the school and there are other schools available. So no one is forced to adhere to those views.

OTOH, you want to impose your faith on TWU and that is wrong.

This is not about TWU's religious or private status as an institution," Wardle said. "This is about TWU seeking the right to have us accredit their law school and we are a public institution."

[TimG]

"This is about TWU seeking the right to have us accredit their law school and we are a public institution."

The BCCT already tried the same argument and LOST because there is no rational connection between the covenant and the ability of graduates to do the job. The law society is just as wrong. Freedom of religion means the freedom to hold beliefs which others disagree with. Edited June 15, 2014 by TimG

[WestCoastRunner]

The BCCT already tried the same argument and LOST because there is no rational connection between the covenant and the ability of graduates to do the job. The law society is just as wrong. Freedom of religion means the freedom to hold beliefs which others disagree with.

I hope you don't have a gay son.

[TimG]

I hope you don't have a gay son.

Why? Because you are afraid I would teach him that his freedom to believe what he wants depends on the freedom he gives to others to believe what they want - even if they believe things which he finds objectionable?

As I said: a diversity of opinions is essential to a free society.

[WestCoastRunner]

Why? Because you are afraid I would teach him that his freedom to believe what he wants depends on the freedom he gives to others to believe what they want - even if they believe things which he finds objectionable?

As I said: a diversity of opinions is essential to a free society.

You obviously have no gay son nor do any of your neighbours have a gay son that you know of.

[TimG]

You obviously have no gay son nor do any of your neighbours have a gay son that you know of.

Why is this relevant? I could say that you obviously don't know anyone who has a devout faith in a religion but that does not make my argument stronger and, like your comment, is a really stupid thing to say. Edited June 15, 2014 by TimG

[WestCoastRunner]

Why is this relevant? I could say that you obviously don't know anyone who has a devout faith in a religion but that does not make my argument stronger and, like your comment, is a really stupid thing to say.

Believe what you will.

[TimG]

Believe what you will.

I will. It is one of the benefits of living in a free country and I want to keep it that way which so I will argue against the politically correct zealots that seek to stamp out all opinions which they disapprove of. I don't want to live in a country with an opinion monoculture. Edited June 15, 2014 by TimG

[jacee]

The BCCT already tried the same argument and LOST because there is no rational connection between the covenant and the ability of graduates to do the job. The law society is just as wrong. Freedom of religion means the freedom to hold beliefs which others disagree with.

Freedom of religion does not mean the right to impose those beliefs on others.

.

[Michael Hardner]

Freedom of religion does not mean the right to impose those beliefs on others.

.

Right. So how does this school do that ? They offer religious education to people who come to them for that.

[Michael Hardner]

You obviously have no gay son nor do any of your neighbours have a gay son that you know of.

I have discussed these things with gay people that I know, and they realize that freedom of religion requires that there are certain things they will not be able to do, such as:

- get married in a Catholic church

- become a priest

- teach in a religious school and be open about their sexuality

This is discrimination allowed in the law because religions have views about sexuality, gender, marriage, what have you that are at odds with popular (and ever shifting) morality. As such, discrimination against woman in these same religions has always been with us and continues.

There's nothing new here, except possibly that the average Canadian accepts homosexuality where they didn't 20 years ago.

[Rue]

I would like to try explain why a law school is different than a public school. or a private school when it comes to getting accreditation by a Law Society.

Law Societies are given a legal monopoly to self regulate the legal profession. The governments of each province believe lawyers should police themselves.

So we have that system.

Law Societies can not accredit law schools that openly engage in practices that violate human rights laws it would start a precedent where the very Society set up to inspire confidence in lawyers would be sending the public a message that lawyers from schools that engage in human rights violations can practice law.

So its just not going to happen.

This notion you can engage in violation of the human rights laws is not going to happen.

It was not that long ago law schools prevented admission based on peoples' religious beliefs.

We aren't going back there.

Law schools that want to promote specific views contrary to public policy should not expect their graduates to be placed in a profession that requires they follow public policy even when they do not like it.

No please do not argue to me you can have personal beliefs that discriminate and this will not negatively impact on the profession as a whole.

No I do not want a profession full of lawyers whose pronounced religious views turn our practice into ghettos.

What next I can see the advertising-MUSLIM SHARIA LAW FIRM. CHRISTIAN BORN AGAIN LAW FIRM.

No and no.

[TimG]

Law Societies can not accredit law schools that openly engage in practices that violate human rights laws it would start a precedent...

They have been doing it for years since graduates of Christian law schools in the US are allowed to practice in Canada (after a few course credits on Canadian law).

I also see no reason for the BCCT SCC decision not to apply in this case. In fact, the ability of law society to discipline lawyers for discriminatory actions is much higher than the BCCT which means law societies have even less justification for an apriori rejection of law school credentials.

This has nothing to do with determining the qualifications for lawyers and everything with bullying a religious institution into recognizing gay marriages despite the fact that religious institutions are not required to recognized gay marriage under the 2005 law.

Edited June 16, 2014 by TimG

[Michael Hardner]

Why do we let people become lawyers when they went to high schools that don't hire gay teachers ?

[TimG]

Why do we let people become lawyers when they went to high schools that don't hire gay teachers ?

Why do we let people with undergraduate degrees from Universities like TWU from becoming lawyers? Edited June 16, 2014 by TimG

[cybercoma]

Being gay is not a choice.

Even if it was, it's irrelevant. How does their sexual orientation affect their ability to be students or their ability to be lawyers? It's an unnecessary qualification that discriminates unfairly against married homosexual couples.

More to the point, what if an employer acted in the same fashion, i.e., dictating to their employees how they should live in their private lives? The Ontario Catholic school boards do this and I think it's BS. They shouldn't exist. This isn't some club or some private social group. It's a school that offers a service to the public and must offer it to the entire public equally and without discrimination. There is absolutely no rational justification for discriminating against gay couples this way, which is probably why TimG is twisting himself into logically inconsistent pretzels trying to argue that there is no discrimination at all. He would be better off admitting there's discrimination and trying to argue that it's justified.

[cybercoma]

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.

haha! You're against people imposing their values on others.

Oh wait. Just some people. It's perfectly fine for Trinity to impose its values on people by discriminating against gay people.

[cybercoma]

I have discussed these things with gay people that I know, and they realize that freedom of religion requires that there are certain things they will not be able to do, such as:

- get married in a Catholic church

- become a priest

- teach in a religious school and be open about their sexuality

This is discrimination allowed in the law because religions have views about sexuality, gender, marriage, what have you that are at odds with popular (and ever shifting) morality. As such, discrimination against woman in these same religions has always been with us and continues.

There's nothing new here, except possibly that the average Canadian accepts homosexuality where they didn't 20 years ago.

This is a school, not a church.

[cybercoma]

Why do we let people become lawyers when they went to high schools that don't hire gay teachers ?

Do those high schools confer law degrees?

Edited June 16, 2014 by cybercoma

[Michael Hardner]

This is a school, not a church.

Right. But the point keeps getting made that institutions are ignoring the charter of rights. This is nothing new.

I guess maybe the question is "should we have religious universities at all"