TWU law school snub
- Thread starter gerryh
- Start date
any kind of sexual conduct outside of marriage..... this NOT just about Gay's, as much as you and paradox would like to make it just about gays.
Either way, I'm done. You and paradox want to support the discrimination against those with specific religious beliefs, go for it.
Any sex outside of marriage between a man and a woman. That last part is pretty explicit about who it does not include.
The entire rule is ridiculous, but people who are straight are at least permitted to have sex if married. Gay people are prohibited from having sex period.
Why is claiming something to be a religious belief an argument in itself? Why is it ok to claim this is a religious belief, but me claiming that I want to own slaves because the bible mentions that too is somehow ridiculous? If you can ignore parts of the bible, why do you have to uphold this one part?
You can screw right off with that BS.
I already stated that the Statement of Responsibilities of Membership that I was relying on for my argument was superseded in 2008, apologized for my error, and acknowledged that the term “homosexual behaviour” is no longer referenced in the post-2008 Community Covenant (see post #177). Do not purport to lecture me on sexual orientation.
The University is absolutely asking more from “homosexuals” than they are “heterosexuals.” The said heterosexual students are required to abstain until marriage. The said homosexual students (or bisexual students in a same-sex relationship, or a number of other sexually-diverse orientations) are required to never have sex with their same-sex partners during their time at University, whether or not they are married. That is clearly a higher and different threshold, and is discriminatory.
I'll lecture your young a$$ whenever I think it needs to be lectured. This is one of those times. The fu cking law society is over stepping their bounds and so are you. It is not up to them, you, or anyone else that does not have a direct and personal relationship with TWU to have them change their policies. I can guarantee that if the student body stood up and said screw you and went to a different University because of TWU's policy you could bet your RSP's on TWU changing their policy. At this time, however, the student body is willing to sign the covenant. That includes GLBT's that attend TWU.
If this was a Public University, then it would be different. This is a Private Christian University that makes it very clear that they are completely based on Christian and Biblical beliefs. EVERYONE knows what TWU is all about and what is expected right from the get go. Those that attend TWU do so because they WANT to attend TWU, not because they HAVE to.
NO ONE is being discriminated against.
Why do you refuse to acknowledge that they are not just minding their own business. They are applying to other institutions to get their endorsement and approval.
Except gay people.
Yup, because they have students that want to study law at TWU and would like to be able to practice law in any and all Provinces of this Country. Unfortunately, the law society, and you, and paradox seem to feel that those students that CHOOSE to attend TWU aren't good enough to study law or become Lawyers, just because they are Christian and are willing to sign a covenant that you people aren't.
Still waiting for you, or anyone else to come up with one single Gay person that has been discriminated against by TWU since 1962.
What students? The law school doesn't exist. Students have not applied.
This private university wants to make money by offering a professional program. This is not an altruistic endeavor. To do so, they need approval from the professional organization that they are trying to produce members for.
Nobody has said they can't offer the program if they are christian, they just can't have explicitly discriminatory policies in their admission process. Not too hard.
Lol, seriously? They have discriminated against every gay person, since they have rules specifically prohibiting people from living a gay lifestyle if they want to attend their school.
You are such a f*cking retard! How many times do you need it explained? They are a private institution exempt from discrimination based upon the biblical teachings they follow. They have broken no laws ergo have NOT discriminated against anybody. You repeating your opinion 200 times that it is discrimination does not make it so. 7 billion people can share your opinion and it still isn't discrimination. The only way it becomes discrimination is if the law changes. You might think about starting a petition and rallying the troops to try to get the law changed but until you do that you are wrong in your assessment of the whole situation.
This equates to you calling an ambulance driver a speeder when they are rushing to an accident with emergency lights on. They are not guilty of speeding because they are exempted from the law at that point. At this point TWU is exempt from the law you are trying to accuse them of breaking.
Do you get it yet meathead?
BTW...I support gay marriage and equal rights but that doesn't matter in this case as the law clearly states different.
Ironic how discrimination is looked upon as justifiable in one instance and yet celebrated as a societal triumph in another.
Lol, seriously? How many times does this need to be explained to you?
"Discrimination" is not a crime.
There are laws that make some forms of discrimination in some circumstances illegal.
The law in BC in no way says that the school is not discriminating based on sexual orientation, the law simply says that they are allowed to discriminate based on sexual orientation because they claim it to be a religious belief.
You are arguing this point against nobody, since nobody has claimed that what TWU is doing is illegal. The law societies have always explicitly said that they oppose this on moral and ethical grounds, not that they think what they are doing is illegal. Just because you are legally allowed to do something doesn't mean other people are forced to support it.
Yes, and I think one thing people who are focussing on the discriminatory nature of the school's covenant are failing to remember, is that even though homosexual marriages are the law of the land, at the time the law was passed, the government made assurances to protect religious freedoms by giving them an out when it comes to performing the ceremonies.
If you start weighing the rights here, the law society is discriminating based on the religious values of where the graduate comes from, they are saying that the university and it's student's do not have the freedom to associate with whom they please, they're imposing mobility restrictions on graduates.
On the balance, I think the amount of restrictions and the number of people affected will ensure that the school wins out, but I guess time will tell.
No sir, they exist to protect the public. You cannot practice law if you are not a member of the bar. You can be disbarred for a number of offences. Contrary to popular opinion, lawyers can be quite zealous pursuing disciplinary meaures against other lawyers--and tehre is an element of self-interest in that. The first is because the public needs to trust lawyers (I know, try not to laugh) and the second is because if the government suspects hat lawyers are protecting their own, they will take away thir privilege of self-governance.
I know we all like to make fun of lawyers but you do trust them not to telll adversaries confidential information that will hoop you. And it quite rare that that trust is broken. You do trust them to hold large amounts of money as an independent third-party for certain business transactions. And it's very rare that trust is broken.
I have no horse in this race myself. I can see both sides.. If this goes ahead, next it'll be some more fundamentalist religious types pushing the envelope further. On the other hand the gay lobby is just a little "in your face" right now for my liking. A Solomon solution would be nice.
It is a bit of a philosophical question I guess, but the people who benefit the most from this are lawyers themselves. Even when they say that they are there to protect the public, it is to protect the public from bad lawyers who hurt the profession, which is a benefit to all the practicing lawyers.
They are there to protect and advance the legal profession. That often means being very harsh on some of their own, but it is for the benefit of the group at large.
As for the "Solomon Solution", the one on the table, at least in Nova Scotia, is that they will accept them as long as they remove the specific rule that targets homosexuals. They can still keep the vast majority of the covenant, they probably just need to get rid of the "man and a woman" part.
I really dislike comments like this. Standing up for equal treatment shouldn't be viewed as some partisan political movement.
People complain about a particular group being "in their face", but it just happens to be the exact same group that they are explicitly discriminating against in their rules.
It is not like this is some roving band of activists looking for people to attack. The school is the one who decided to put this rule on their books, and the school is the one who decided to go out to these law societies and seek their approval.
I think we have come far enough to recognize that nobody should be discriminated against simply because of intrinsic aspects of who they are. No matter which group you choose to discriminate against, you should feel like people are "in your face" about it, since enough people realize that is wrong.