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

[The_Squid]

At a certain point, it's not religious education. This is that point. They can't teach people about amoral behaviour if they are forced to accept it.

You failed to answer the fornicator label for married gay people. Since you insist that they are only discriminating against "fornicators"...

[cybercoma]

At a certain point, it's not religious education. This is that point. They can't teach people about amoral behaviour if they are forced to accept it.

Amoral? You spelled "immoral" wrong and it's exceedingly insulting to call loving, committed, and married gay couples "immoral."

[Michael Hardner]

You failed to answer the fornicator label for married gay people. Since you insist that they are only discriminating against "fornicators"...

I did answer - that my morality and yours doesn't matter. It's their definition.

[Michael Hardner]

Amoral? You spelled "immoral" wrong and it's exceedingly insulting to call loving, committed, and married gay couples "immoral."

Why would someone be offended because they offend morals they don't ascribe to ?

[Michael Hardner]

There is absolutely no objective way to look at the circumstances here and say it doesn't discriminate against gay people.

I don't agree. Same sex people can't marry in a church- is that wrong too?

[The_Squid]

I did answer - that my morality and yours doesn't matter. It's their definition.

You brought up that the school discriminated against fornicators and not gays as a specific group. Do you not remember what you posted yourself?? I didn't bring it up!

[The_Squid]

I don't agree. Same sex people can't marry in a church- is that wrong too?

Churches aren't giving credentials to lawyers.

[Michael Hardner]

But they are discriminating. Schools do too.

[cybercoma]

Why would someone be offended because they offend morals they don't ascribe to ?

I never said anything about people being offended. I said it's insulting to call someone immoral for being in a loving, legal, and consensual relationship that you don't agree with.

[cybercoma]

I don't agree. Same sex people can't marry in a church- is that wrong too?

A school is not a church, is it?

[cybercoma]

But they are discriminating. Schools do too.

And I discriminate between skim milk and homo milk at the grocery store. Since I bring skim milk home, I must hate gay people too.

[TimG]

Their freedom of religion does not include telling people they cannot attend their school if they perform certain sexual acts.

Seems to me that setting moral codes about things such as sexual acts is one of things religions do. Freedom of religion means people must be free to have such codes and create private institutions where such codes are enforced. There is no "right to fornicate anywhere, any way" in the charter despite the claims of the law societies.

[TimG]

What I find amusing is all of people who get so hot and bothered about TWU's request for "reasonable accomodation" are the first to demand "reasonable accommodation" for whatever victim group they happen to care about (e.g. the niqab). Seems to me that if society needs to tolerate the intolerance represented by the niqab then it has to tolerate the intolerance represented by TWU stance on gay marriage.

[cybercoma]

Discriminating against gay people isn't reasonable.

[TimG]

Discriminating against gay people isn't reasonable.

Except they are NOT discriminating against gay people. They are saying no sex before marriage. Openly gay couples would be welcome to attend TWU as long as they, like their unmarried peers, refrain from sex. Not being able to have sex is not a barrier to education.

Basically there is no argument against TWU's policies that does not also support a ban on Niqabs at citizenship ceremonies. You can either accept that freedom of religion is a right to be protected even when that means people hold view which are repugnant to you or you argue that religious rights are subject to popular approval. Pick one. No more sniveling hypocrisy.

Edited July 7, 2015 by TimG

[WestCoastRunner]

Except they are NOT discriminating against gay people. They are saying no sex before marriage. Openly gay couples would be welcome to attend TWU as long as they, like their unmarried peers, refrain from sex.

Basically there is no argument against TWU's policies that does not also support a ban on Niqabs at citizenship ceremonies. You can either accept that freedom of religion is a right to be protected even when that means people hold view which are repugnant to you or you argue that religion rights are subject to popular approval. Which is it?

So are you saying that as long as gay couples are married they are welcome to attend?

[TimG]

So are you saying that as long as gay couples are married they are welcome to attend?

Gay married couples are treated like single people. They are welcome to attend as long as they refrain from sex. Asking that people follow a code of conduct does not discriminate. If it was then the next step would be for alcoholics and drug addicts to argue they are being discriminated against because the university tells them they have to give up their substances while attending. Edited July 7, 2015 by TimG

[WestCoastRunner]

Gay married couples are treated like single people. They are welcome to attend as long as they refrain from sex. Asking that people follow a code of conduct does not discriminate. If it was then the next step would be for alcoholics and drug addicts to argue their are being discriminated against because the university tells them they have to give up their substances while attending.

Foflmao. So we are now comparing a married gay couple to people with substance abuse issues. Wtf is wrong with you. Edited July 7, 2015 by WestCoastRunner

[TimG]

Foflmao. So we are now comparing a married gay couple to people with substance abuse issues. Wtf is wrong with you.

I am comparing people who think their need to have sex trumps whatever moral code the university may have. If someone's need to have sex trumps the TWU right to have a code of conduct then that also applies to people who need to drink or use drugs or engage in any other behavior prohibited by the code. Like drinking no one has to have sex. It is an optional behavoir.

Personally, I think it would be worth looking at the moral codes of Islamic schools in Canada and see how many of them have rules which depend on gender. I suspect it would not be hard to show that TWU is simply the victim of intolerant crusaders looking to use whatever leverage they can find to suppress opinions they disapprove of.

Edited July 7, 2015 by TimG

[poochy]

This is not an argument about a law school, it is an argument about which religious practices and beliefs progressives believe should be allowed, and if they themselves should allow them, because after all who else should get to decide. Practices from the middle east that clearly treat women like something less than equal to men, well, that we can tolerate, one school that wants to provide a law degree in a religious school environment, a place people can choose or not choose to attend...grab your pitchforks, the charter be damned.

By this standard all religious schools should be banned (which is of course what they really would like to see), promoting the religion exposes people to all aspects of the religion, including those that are often unsavory to our modern way of looking at the world, clearly this is wrong, and is really the under pinning of the argument against this school, whether they admit to it or not.

[cybercoma]

Gay married couples are treated like single people. They are welcome to attend as long as they refrain from sex. Asking that people follow a code of conduct does not discriminate. If it was then the next step would be for alcoholics and drug addicts to argue they are being discriminated against because the university tells them they have to give up their substances while attending.

An unreasonable and discriminatory code of conduct that singles out gays.

[WestCoastRunner]

I am comparing people who think their need to have sex trumps whatever moral code the university may have. If someone's need to have sex trumps the TWU right to have a code of conduct then that also applies to people who need to drink or use drugs or engage in any other behavior prohibited by the code. Like drinking no one has to have sex. It is an optional behavoir.

Personally, I think it would be worth looking at the moral codes of Islamic schools in Canada and see how many of them have rules which depend on gender. I suspect it would not be hard to show that TWU is simply the victim of intolerant crusaders looking to use whatever leverage they can find to suppress opinions they disapprove of.

A married gay couple has every right to have sex as much as a married heterosexual couple. It's in the charter. It's not pornographic and it's not a sin.

[TimG]

An unreasonable and discriminatory code of conduct that singles out gays.

Why is it "unreasonable"? It is not as if gay couples don't have plenty of choices when it comes to law schools. They are not prevented from attending TWU because of who they are. They, like people who drink, smoke or use drugs, just have to curtail their behavior while they attend.

Seems to me what you mean when you say "unreasonable" is "you don't like it" but the definition of "reasonable accommodation" requires that people accept things they don't like. If "reasonable accommodation" is a principal worth upholding then the TWU code should be accepted.

Edited July 7, 2015 by TimG

[TimG]

A married gay couple has every right to have sex as much as a married heterosexual couple.

People have a right to drink, smoke and use drugs - but not while at TWU. You are basically arguing that all codes of conduct are wrong and all schools with codes of conduct should not be accredited. Edited July 7, 2015 by TimG

[WestCoastRunner]

Why is it "unreasonable"? It is not as if gay couples don't have plenty of choices when it comes to law schools. They are not prevented from attending TWU because of who they are. They, like people who drink, smoke or use drugs, have to curtail their behavior.

Seems to me what you mean when you say "unreasonable" is "you don't like it" but the definition of "reasonable accommodation" requires that people accept things they don't like.

Again, why are you comparing gays to people who smoke , drink, or use drugs. Because they are married and have sex with their lawfully married partner?