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

[WestCoastRunner]

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.

No. Married gay couples have rights.

[TimG]

No. Married gay couples have rights.

You are just making crap up. There are no "rights" conferred by getting married. People have rights. If a single straight person's "right to have sex" can be curtailed by a code of conduct then so can a gay person's. Why do you support discrimination against single people? Edited July 7, 2015 by TimG

[The_Squid]

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.

Who is demanding to "fornicate anywhere, any way"? That's an asinine straw-man.

They have no right to enforce views that go against the Charter and have an accredited law program.

[TimG]

They have no right to enforce views that go against the Charter and have an accredited law program.

Talk about strawmen! Please point to the exact clause in the Charter which TWU violates (hint: you won't find it). You will find a clause that prohibits *governments* from passing laws that discriminate and that is why the laws that differentiated between gay and hetero marriage were struck down. But you will find no clauses that says private institutions cannot discriminate. In fact, private institutions discriminate all of the time.

OTOH, the law societies because of their quasi government role regulating who can be a lawyer *are* violating the charter rights of people who attend the school by refusing to certify them soly because of the religious beliefs of the school. So you clearly think the charter is irrelevant so it is not clear why you think it matters in this discussion.

Edited July 7, 2015 by TimG

[Michael Hardner]

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

The thing you're missing is that 'married' by the state means nothing to a religion. Divorced people who remarry aren't considered married to the new partner in the Catholic church.

[Michael Hardner]

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.

I agree. It's a double standard. No Jewish, Islamic, or Christian religious school would allow acceptance of homosexuality, and it's possible to accommodate that within the Charter as evidenced by the quoted past ruling.

[Michael Hardner]

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

No, unmarried straights or divorced straights presumably have to abstain from sex outside religious marriage. That's the religious culture that they own, that they can engage in as part of their guaranteed rights within the Charter.

There is a schism between secular values and religious values here, but the answer shouldn't be to impose secular values on a religious institution.

[Michael Hardner]

It's not pornographic and it's not a sin.

You don't get to decide that for religious people any more than they get to decide that for you. Their religious community is necessarily segregated from secular society so that they can have their own moral code.

Separate schools can also, and have I believe, terminate teachers who don't comply with moral codes.

[cybercoma]

Why is it "unreasonable"? It is not as if gay couples don't have plenty of choices when it comes to law schools.

Why is it discriminatory for a law school to say, "No Blacks Allowed" when they have "plenty of choice" when it comes to law schools?

[cybercoma]

The thing you're missing is that 'married' by the state means nothing to a religion. Divorced people who remarry aren't considered married to the new partner in the Catholic church.

What other laws should religious people be allowed to ignore? Can radical Sikhs for instance beat their children for bringing shame on their family in the name of religious freedom too?

[cybercoma]

No, unmarried straights or divorced straights presumably have to abstain from sex outside religious marriage. That's the religious culture that they own, that they can engage in as part of their guaranteed rights within the Charter.

You're not being cute by continuing to ignore the fact that a number of posters have brought up legally married couples and you keep changing the channel back to single people.

Edited July 7, 2015 by cybercoma

[cybercoma]

Their religious community is necessarily segregated from secular society so that they can have their own moral code.

Then presumably you're ok with them remaining segregated and not receiving secular accreditation.

[Michael Hardner]

What other laws should religious people be allowed to ignore? Can radical Sikhs for instance beat their children for bringing shame on their family in the name of religious freedom too?

Thanks for providing a specific example. The answer, to my mind, is no.

You're not being cute by continuing to ignore the fact that a number of posters have brought up legally married couples and you keep changing the channel back to single people.

Ok, but 'Legally married' means nothing to a religion.

Then presumably you're ok with them remaining segregated and not receiving secular accreditation.

They're not getting 'secular' accreditation, they're getting public accreditation. If we're going to have religious institutions providing education then reasonable accommodation needs to be made to allow that to happen. Religions necessarily discriminate based on religion, sexual orientation, and gender too.

Rather than redefine religious education to be whatever morality the state forces them to teach, we should just come out and say that religious education isn't allowed.

[Mighty AC]

There is a schism between secular values and religious values here, but the answer shouldn't be to impose secular values on a religious institution.

The same argument was made when religion was being used to condone slavery. How dare we allow the descendants of Ham to be treated as equals?

Religions necessarily discriminate based on religion, sexual orientation, and gender too.

Why is it necessary? Some would argue that it is necessary to kill heretics and apostates. Christians have been forced to improve their moral code many times throughout history.

Edited July 7, 2015 by Mighty AC

[Argus]

1 - OK... but you can't discriminate and expect to have a law school with proper accreditation.

2 - My moral code has nothing to do with this... when did I say my morals should trump theirs? Never. It's about what is allowable by Canada's Charter.

The Charter has nothing to do with this. The Charter is a guide for government, not private institutions.

[Argus]

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.

First, it's not in the charter.

Second, the charter is irrelevant to this discussion.

Third, you don't get to tell churches what is sinful.

[Michael Hardner]

The same argument was made when religion was being used to condone slavery. How dare we allow the descendants of Ham to be treated as equals?

Yes it was.

Why is it necessary? Some would argue that it is necessary to kill heretics and apostates. Christians have been forced to improve their moral code many times throughout history.

The answer would be to outlaw religion, and by extension all thought that reflects dissenting moral values.

[Michael Hardner]

Third, you don't get to tell churches what is sinful.

I would say the very term 'sinful' makes no sense outside a religious context.

[Mighty AC]

The answer would be to outlaw religion, and by extension all thought that reflects dissenting moral values.

Do you really think that's the answer? I think things are proceeding in the right direction with banning mythologies and woo. People are free to believe what they want, up until the point those beliefs infringe on the rights and freedoms of others.

[Mighty AC]

The same argument was made when religion was being used to condone slavery. How dare we allow the descendants of Ham to be treated as equals?

Yes it was.

Do you believe that it should be acceptable for religions to discriminate based or race, sexual orientation or gender?

[Michael Hardner]

People are free to believe what they want, up until the point those beliefs infringe on the rights and freedoms of others.

That's starting to sound to me like a stupid statement, the more I hear it. It only makes sense from, oddly, a religious non-religious viewpoint wherein you assume that your morality trumps those of others. Religious people used to be more like that, but now non-religious types are.

[Michael Hardner]

Do you believe that it should be acceptable for religions to discriminate based or race, sexual orientation or gender?

The question can't be separated from 'Should religions be allowed ?' in my opinion. I don't think religions can be banned without a fascistic thought-control effort by the government, supported by the pitchfork'd types. Again - oddly - this mob mentality used to adhere to religious morals back in the day, and now it's something else that causes it.

[Mighty AC]

That's starting to sound to me like a stupid statement, the more I hear it. It only makes sense from, oddly, a religious non-religious viewpoint wherein you assume that your morality trumps those of others. Religious people used to be more like that, but now non-religious types are.

How relativist of you. Some morals are definitely superior to others. Some morals definitely clash with the laws, rights and freedoms declared by the state. Edited July 7, 2015 by Mighty AC

[Michael Hardner]

How relativist of you. Some morals are definitely superior to others.

Yes, I usually hear that line of reason used to discuss why Islam is inferior to 'the west'. Of course I believe that my morals are superior to others', that's because I'm a human. I get that you think that too. You get religious when you want to impose your viewpoint on others who have no choice.

[Mighty AC]

The question can't be separated from 'Should religions be allowed ?' in my opinion. I don't think religions can be banned without a fascistic thought-control effort by the government, supported by the pitchfork'd types. Again - oddly - this mob mentality used to adhere to religious morals back in the day, and now it's something else that causes it.

The question of should religions be allowed can definitely be separated from should religions be able to ignore the laws, rights and freedoms of the state. Religious practices have been moderated by society for centuries, why should that change now? In the developed world we no longer accept murder, torture, slavery and racism in the name of religion. Why must tempering some forms of religious discrimination that conflict with state practices now lead to an all or nothing ultimatum?