WestCoastRunner Posted June 24, 2014 Author Report Posted June 24, 2014 Is there some disagreement on the subject of homosexuals having sex amongst Christian scholars? Well, there is certainly disagreement among private christian colleges just across the border in Seattle. A few colleges there, including the Seattle Pacific University, are permitting gay and lesbian student clubs. Quote I love to see a young girl go out and grab the world by the lapels. Life's a bitch. You've got to go out and kick ass. - Maya Angelou
Argus Posted June 24, 2014 Report Posted June 24, 2014 Well, there is certainly disagreement among private christian colleges just across the border in Seattle. A few colleges there, including the Seattle Pacific University, are permitting gay and lesbian student clubs. Does it permit them to have sex? Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
guyser Posted June 24, 2014 Report Posted June 24, 2014 I am curious what sort of enrollment this Uni would have. Not to mention any potential candidate has to think....ya know I do want to work and it would be likely that I am passed over for Grads of reputable schools....Naw...UBC/UofT/York here I come ! I suspect someone who wants to work in some podunk little town doing low level law doesnt care much. Quote
WestCoastRunner Posted June 24, 2014 Author Report Posted June 24, 2014 Does it permit them to have sex? I think we can forget about the sex now and follow the money. Quote I love to see a young girl go out and grab the world by the lapels. Life's a bitch. You've got to go out and kick ass. - Maya Angelou
bush_cheney2004 Posted June 24, 2014 Report Posted June 24, 2014 Does it permit them to have sex? Unlike in Canada, there are no limitations for sodomy in Washington state for consenting adults. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
WestCoastRunner Posted June 24, 2014 Author Report Posted June 24, 2014 Unlike in Canada, there are no limitations for sodomy in Washington state for consenting adults. What a disguisting comment. Quote I love to see a young girl go out and grab the world by the lapels. Life's a bitch. You've got to go out and kick ass. - Maya Angelou
bush_cheney2004 Posted June 24, 2014 Report Posted June 24, 2014 What a disguisting comment. Why....another member asked a question, and I am a fountain of knowledge. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Michael Hardner Posted June 24, 2014 Report Posted June 24, 2014 The term doesn't mean what you think WCR. It's a general term for various forms of forbidden sex. Quote Looks like someone has a new patronizing catch phrase ! Michael Hardner
cybercoma Posted June 24, 2014 Report Posted June 24, 2014 The term doesn't mean what you think WCR. It's a general term for various forms of forbidden sex.it's quite obvious what Canadian law and thread he's calling back. Quote
The_Squid Posted June 24, 2014 Report Posted June 24, 2014 it's quite obvious what Canadian law and thread he's calling back. What is with this obsession with anal sex? lol Kinda creepy... Quote
cybercoma Posted June 24, 2014 Report Posted June 24, 2014 It's not trolling, according to Charles Anthony, so I don't know. Quote
Argus Posted June 24, 2014 Report Posted June 24, 2014 (edited) Unlike in Canada, there are no limitations for sodomy in Washington state for consenting adults. On a private Christian college campus? Edited June 24, 2014 by Argus Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
bush_cheney2004 Posted June 25, 2014 Report Posted June 25, 2014 The term doesn't mean what you think WCR. It's a general term for various forms of forbidden sex. Yes....I'm glad somebody here is informed on such matters. Gay rights groups actually want Canada to remove such legal restrictions...ironic given that the "lawyers" are up in arms over Trinity's policy. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Bryan Posted February 2, 2015 Report Posted February 2, 2015 Trinity wins their first provincial case (in Nova Scotia): http://news.nationalpost.com/2015/01/30/kelly-mcparland-crusade-against-trinity-western-law-school-runs-up-against-an-intelligent-judge/ On Wednesday, the Nova Scotia Supreme Court finally brought some sense to the argument, dismissing a decision by the province’s Barristers Society to deny TWU graduates the right to practice. Justice Jamie Campbell wrote that TWU’s code does nothing to discriminate against students or undermine the quality of their training. “People have the right to attend a private religious university that imposes a religiously based code of conduct,” he wrote. “That is the case even if the effect of that code is to exclude others or offend others who will not or cannot comply with the code of conduct. Learning in an environment with people who promise to comply with the code is a religious practice and an expression of religious faith. There is nothing illegal or even rogue about that.” Further: He also rejected the notion that TWU would be violating the Charter. In fact, he wrote, it is the legal community that has failed to adequately respect the Charter. “The [bar Society] has characterized TWU’s community Covenant as ‘unlawful discrimination’. It is not unlawful. It may be offensive to many but it is not unlawful,” wrote Justice Campbell. “Like churches and other private institutions [TWU] does not have to comply with the equality provisions of the Charter. It has not been found to be in breach of any human rights legislation that applies to it. … The Charter is not a blueprint for moral conformity. Its purpose is to protect the citizen from the power of the state, not to enforce compliance by citizens or private institutions with the moral judgments of the state.” It's going to be very interesting to see if the other provincial law societies continue with their opposition after this. Quote
TimG Posted February 2, 2015 Report Posted February 2, 2015 (edited) The Charter is not a blueprint for moral conformity. Its purpose is to protect the citizen from the power of the state, not to enforce compliance by citizens or private institutions with the moral judgments of the state.”This summarizes why the zealots that protest TWU are so odious. They are really no different than zealots demanding that abortion be banned because it violates their moral code. Edited February 2, 2015 by TimG Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted February 2, 2015 Report Posted February 2, 2015 What a disguisting comment. Surprised Quote
sharkman Posted February 9, 2015 Report Posted February 9, 2015 On Wednesday, the Nova Scotia Supreme Court finally brought some sense to the argument, dismissing a decision by the province’s Barristers Society to deny TWU graduates the right to practice. Justice Jamie Campbell wrote that TWU’s code does nothing to discriminate against students or undermine the quality of their training. “People have the right to attend a private religious university that imposes a religiously based code of conduct,” he wrote. “That is the case even if the effect of that code is to exclude others or offend others who will not or cannot comply with the code of conduct. Learning in an environment with people who promise to comply with the code is a religious practice and an expression of religious faith. There is nothing illegal or even rogue about that.” Quote He also rejected the notion that TWU would be violating the Charter. In fact, he wrote, it is the legal community that has failed to adequately respect the Charter. “The [bar Society] has characterized TWU’s community Covenant as ‘unlawful discrimination’. It is not unlawful. It may be offensive to many but it is not unlawful,” wrote Justice Campbell. “Like churches and other private institutions [TWU] does not have to comply with the equality provisions of the Charter. It has not been found to be in breach of any human rights legislation that applies to it. … The Charter is not a blueprint for moral conformity. Its purpose is to protect the citizen from the power of the state, not to enforce compliance by citizens or private institutions with the moral judgments of the state.” Finally some common sense from a court on the matter. Quote
kimmy Posted February 9, 2015 Report Posted February 9, 2015 Trinity wins their first provincial case (in Nova Scotia): http://news.nationalpost.com/2015/01/30/kelly-mcparland-crusade-against-trinity-western-law-school-runs-up-against-an-intelligent-judge/ Further: It's going to be very interesting to see if the other provincial law societies continue with their opposition after this. As much as I might disagree with what Trinity Western represents, I agree with this reasoning. -k Quote (╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻ Friendly forum facilitator! ┬──┬◡ﾉ(° -°ﾉ)
jacee Posted February 9, 2015 Report Posted February 9, 2015 This summarizes why the zealots that protest TWU are so odious. They are really no different than zealots demanding that abortion be banned because it violates their moral code. And all of them have the right to protest. . Quote
kimmy Posted February 9, 2015 Report Posted February 9, 2015 The right to protest is not in question here. What's in question here is the right to practice your profession. If a program doesn't meet the standards of the professional bodies, then so be it. But to propose that TWU law graduates should not be allowed to practice law because the TWU code of conduct prohibits unmarried sex is nonsensical. It has nothing to do with the graduates' fitness to practice law. -k Quote (╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻ Friendly forum facilitator! ┬──┬◡ﾉ(° -°ﾉ)
Michael Hardner Posted February 9, 2015 Report Posted February 9, 2015 It has nothing to do with the graduates' fitness to practice law. I agree. Until nobody cares about religion either way, then we will need provisions to protect religious rights as well as to protect the state from being influenced by religion. Until nobody cares about religion any more than about eye colour, we will need to keep these statutes around. How long will that be ? Maybe 1000 years, I don't know... Quote Looks like someone has a new patronizing catch phrase ! Michael Hardner
Argus Posted February 9, 2015 Report Posted February 9, 2015 The right to protest is not in question here. What's in question here is the right to practice your profession. If a program doesn't meet the standards of the professional bodies, then so be it. But to propose that TWU law graduates should not be allowed to practice law because the TWU code of conduct prohibits unmarried sex is nonsensical. It has nothing to do with the graduates' fitness to practice law. -k The thing that gets me about this is that this was patently obvious for some time. The actions taken by the various law societies exactly mirror the actions taken by the BC college of teachers, and they give exactly the same reasons for refusing to accept TWU grads - despite the Supreme Court making it very clear those reasons were unacceptable. I mean, these are lawyers and they can't understand a fairly recent, and very clearly stated Supreme Court judgement on this matter? Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
The_Squid Posted February 9, 2015 Report Posted February 9, 2015 The thing that gets me about this is that this was patently obvious for some time. The actions taken by the various law societies exactly mirror the actions taken by the BC college of teachers, and they give exactly the same reasons for refusing to accept TWU grads - despite the Supreme Court making it very clear those reasons were unacceptable. I mean, these are lawyers and they can't understand a fairly recent, and very clearly stated Supreme Court judgement on this matter? There are no TWU "graduates". This is about accrediting a program, not about "blacklisting" any graduates. Quote
Argus Posted February 9, 2015 Report Posted February 9, 2015 There are no TWU "graduates". This is about accrediting a program, not about "blacklisting" any graduates. It's the same thing. The BC Teachers college refused to certify the TWU teaching school saying it discriminated, and questioned the morality and ability of graduating teachers to not discriminate. It basically barred graduates from working in BC. The court ordered them to certify the college and shut up, by an 8-1 margin. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
The_Squid Posted February 9, 2015 Report Posted February 9, 2015 It's the same thing. The BC Teachers college refused to certify the TWU teaching school saying it discriminated, and questioned the morality and ability of graduating teachers to not discriminate. It basically barred graduates from working in BC. The court ordered them to certify the college and shut up, by an 8-1 margin. Nope. Not the same thing. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.