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

[Michael Hardner]

Dishonest tactic out of you. This isn't about the Trinity being Christian. It's about the discrimination against gay students. If a Muslim school did the same thing, let's hope the Law Societies would respond in kind.

Yes, let's hope. But would they ?

[cybercoma]

Understood. If people on here were just saying "I don't agree with this" then I would be onside with that argument. I find the public funding of one religion to be troublesome at best myself.

However, that's not the same thing as arguing that it's illegal or boycotting an institution that is exercising a legal right.

This is a tricky discussion, and I'm trying to get those who drag their feet on these discussions to do a little better than to just post "It's discrimination !". We already know that.

To be clear, the Catholic School Board thing is troublesome, not because of the schooling, but the hiring practices. Anyone can go to a Catholic school in Ontario. When I went to Catholic high school, there were other denominations of Christianity there as well as a Muslim contingent. The school served a multicultural section of my city. What's difficult to suss out about the hiring practices is that they don't single out a particular group for discrimination. They single out everyone who is not Catholic. So it's a bit different than the Trinity College thing. At Trinity the language is written such that it discriminates particularly against gay and lesbian students. It targets an identifiable group with negative repercussions. It's an important difference when it comes to violating human rights codes.

[cybercoma]

Yes, let's hope. But would they ?

The answer to your question is opinion. I would assume if the Muslim school or Jewish school or any other school were doing the same thing, then yes. If there was a university that didn't admit black students, I'm pretty sure they would do the same thing. If there was a university that openly shunned students with disabilities, I believe they would still do the same thing. The point is that the university is targeting a particular group for exclusion and that's what violates their human rights.

[Michael Hardner]

At Trinity the language is written such that it discriminates particularly against gay and lesbian students.

I'm pretty sure an open gay/lesbian teacher could be fired with cause by a Catholic board.

It targets an identifiable group with negative repercussions. It's an important difference when it comes to violating human rights codes.

The grey area is that freedom of religion is allowed, and religions discriminate. How to resolve fairly so that everybody is 100% happy ? Very easy right ? Just tell me how to do it.

[cybercoma]

The courts consistently rule against religious discrimination all the time. People are allowed to privately practice their religion and laws will not be made to restrict their freedom to practice. However, time and again when public services are offered, freedom of religion does not allow them to discriminate. For other examples, you can look at cases where the Knights of Columbus tried to reject gay wedding receptions, photographers have refused to photograph gay weddings, or barbers have refused to give women male haircuts. Freedom of religion doesn't fly when it comes to offering services to the public then turning around and using your religion as an excuse to discriminate. So I don't know if you're just playing Devil's Advocate here or you genuinely don't understand the difference.

[Michael Hardner]

If there was a university that didn't admit black students, I'm pretty sure they would do the same thing.

A university that was Afro-centric though would be allowed. There are types of discrimination that are socially/legally permitted, and types that aren't.

If there was a university that openly shunned students with disabilities, I believe they would still do the same thing. The point is that the university is targeting a particular group for exclusion and that's what violates their human rights.

Yes, but your assertion that non-Catholics are not "a" group doesn't really capture the legal problem. They can fire people for living in sin, being gay... lots of things. These legal battles are as old as the hills. My problem with the discussion is that so few people are aware of the types of discrimination that are out there, that they think the law disallows it.

[cybercoma]

A university that was Afro-centric though would be allowed. There are types of discrimination that are socially/legally permitted, and types that aren't.

Really, MH? I've already explained this one. What group are they targeting for undue hardship and harassment with this? An "afro-centric" school is not targeting a particular group and is in fact levelling the playing field for a group that has been historically disadvantage and lacking power in society. That afro-centric school also doesn't allow Asians or Latinos or any other race. It's not outcasting a group. It's providing an opportunity for a group that has historically been without opportunities.

Yes, but your assertion that non-Catholics are not "a" group doesn't really capture the legal problem. They can fire people for living in sin, being gay... lots of things. These legal battles are as old as the hills. My problem with the discussion is that so few people are aware of the types of discrimination that are out there, that they think the law disallows it.

Non-Catholics aren't a group. Full stop. It does capture the legal problem because human rights legislation actually lists the protected groups that have been historically disadvantaged.

[TimG]

However, time and again when public services are offered, freedom of religion does not allow them to discriminate.

Discrimination happens when people are denied service for how they look or what they believe. In this case, the rules only control how people act. i.e. a gay person would be welcome at the school if they abstain from sex. That means this is not a question of discrimination.

Like I said before: no one is complaining about the rules that prohibit pornography or drinking despite the fact that people are entitled to engage in these activities. Engaging in gay sex is no different than those. Would you still be upset if the criteria was worded differently and specifically said that students are not to engage in oral or anal sex? Would you insist that sodomy is a charter protected right? Because that is what you are really arguing here.

Edited April 27, 2014 by TimG

[Michael Hardner]

For other examples, you can look at cases where the Knights of Columbus tried to reject gay wedding receptions, photographers have refused to photograph gay weddings, or barbers have refused to give women male haircuts.

For sure, and these cases all made sense to me.

So I don't know if you're just playing Devil's Advocate here or you genuinely don't understand the difference.

"Understand the difference" - that term implies that what I call the grey area is clear. I have marked out the general precepts of the Charter and I'm giving YOU examples on here as both of us move through this discussion, so I'm not sure why you think I'm the one who needs to understand anything.

Catholic boards have fired people for being transgendered:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/transgendered-teacher-fired-from-catholic-school-board/article4348364/

And also for being gay:

http://dailyxtra.com/canada/news/discrimination-in-ontario-catholic-schools

....

I'm not as interested in the individual examples as I am in establishing a civil public dialogue that understands the precepts at play. Religious values and societal values will clash in certain instances, and religious freedom means the right to express opinions, and to perpetuate and educate values that are discriminatory, strange of even offensive to the general public.

A good conversation on this topic would start with the understanding that this is so.

[Bryan]

No one's stopping them from practicing their religion. They're refusing to acknowledge degrees from a school that practices discrimination that violates human rights legislation in every province.

The school is doing nothing of the sort.

[Bryan]

This is the biggest load of bullshit I've ever seen on this forum. A christian student can study wherever the hell they want. Your post is not only wrong, it's absolutely appalling that you would somehow twist this into a case for discriminating against Christians when the school's rules are clearly discriminating against gay and lesbian students. It's ridiculous that you don't see that. Christians are not oppressed anywhere in Canada. They're free to study at any school they want including Trinity. It's the gay students that have their choices limited and are facing restrictions that others don't have. In response, the Law Societies have decided to punish Trinity for their discrimination. Turning this around and crying the Christians have no place to study is not only wrong but painfully ignorant.

There's ignorance here alright, and it's all yours.

[Michael Hardner]

Really, MH? I've already explained this one. What group are they targeting for undue hardship and harassment with this? An "afro-centric" school is not targeting a particular group and is in fact levelling the playing field for a group that has been historically disadvantage and lacking power in society.

I guess if "non-blacks" aren't a group in your books then neither are "non-whites" ? So a "whites only" school is ok because it doesn't discriminate against a single identifiable group ? As I said above, I don't think this line of thinking addresses it.

It's providing an opportunity for a group that has historically been without opportunities.

Why add this to your argument ? You make it sound like I'm against Afro-centric schools when that has nothing to do with the legal consideration here.

Non-Catholics aren't a group.

I don't think that covers it - see my other posts.

[Michael Hardner]

This touches on Waldo's point to me on the facilitation thread: when am I arguing about facilitation vs being devil's advocate ?

The answer here is that I think that religious freedom is necessary, and will be necessary for the foreseeable future. As such, they have to discriminate against behaviors that contravene the precepts of their religion. The details of these things are for the courts to decide, but popular opinion and the moral outrage of the day really shouldn't play into it.

That's how I feel about it, but the overlap between my facilitation (of the discussion on MLW) and my overarching opinion of how these are dealt with in the public sphere is this: a clear process and careful discussion is the most important thing - more important than the questions themselves in many cases.

[Wilber]

For the sake of argument, lets say Trinity is turning out the best law graduates in the country. Do you want a law society preventing those graduates from practicing because of any PC ideological position that society chooses to take, rather than using the legal system this organization claims to represent. Is this an organization you want determining who can represent you in court? Be careful what you wish for.

Basically the law society is saying, if you can discriminate, we can to. Hardly the high ground.

[bush_cheney2004]

I guess if "non-blacks" aren't a group in your books then neither are "non-whites" ? So a "whites only" school is ok because it doesn't discriminate against a single identifiable group ? As I said above, I don't think this line of thinking addresses it.

Well done...a delightful display of logic and objectivity.

[Michael Hardner]

As with most things human, logic need not apply.

[bush_cheney2004]

As with most things human, logic need not apply.

Indeed...maybe we need a forum area dedicated just to "feelings" and "emotion". Logic would be verboten.

[WestCoastRunner]

The answer here is that I think that religious freedom is necessary, and will be necessary for the foreseeable future. As such, they have to discriminate against behaviors that contravene the precepts of their religion. The details of these things are for the courts to decide, but popular opinion and the moral outrage of the day really shouldn't play into it.

Using 'religious freedom' as an argument is an easy way out for the University but it simply does not apply here. It's about a University forcing its students to sign a document that discriminates against LGBTQ members of the public. Ontario made a decision to protect the public interest of their province and rightfully so.

Another issue that I have wondered about, "what if a student decides in their 2nd or 3rd year that they are gay"? They would be forced to deny their personal identity if they wanted to finish the program. It's the old 'don't ask, don't tell'. Haven't we moved beyond that.

[WestCoastRunner]

Indeed...maybe we need a forum area dedicated just to "feelings" and "emotion". Logic would be verboten.

Humans have feelings and emotions when responding to issues that they are concerned about.

[Wilber]

Humans have feelings and emotions when responding to issues that they are concerned about.

Yes but professional societies have an obligation to be professional.

Ontario made a decision to protect the public interest of their province and rightfully so.

Professional societies taking ideoligical stands on professional issues is not in the public interest. It is pandering to a mob mentality.

[WestCoastRunner]

Yes but professional societies have an obligation to be professional.

We are not professionals. The comment above related to this forum.

[WestCoastRunner]

Another issue with forcing students to sign this covenant is the example below:

What if a student's parents were willing to pay for their education, housing etc, but only if they attended this University. And what if that student had not 'come out' yet. In order for them to get this education, they would need to sign this covenant which clearly is prejudicial to who they are. Why not just get rid of the covenant?

[WestCoastRunner]

Professional societies taking ideoligical stands on professional issues is not in the public interest. It is pandering to a mob mentality.

Why do you think this is mob mentality? It is in the public interest of the citizens of Ontario, so they have decided.

[Wilber]

Why do you think this is mob mentality? It is in the public interest of the citizens of Ontario, so they have decided.

How happy do you think these lawyers would be if judges started handing down rulings based on their ideology rather than the law?

All in the public interest of course.

[WestCoastRunner]

How happy do you think these lawyers would be if judges started handing down rulings based on their ideology rather than the law?

All in the public interest of course.

Forcing students to sign a covenant that is discriminatory to the gay community goes against the policies of Ontario.