Supreme court denies Trinity U discrimmination

[Hoid]

Trinity U will no longer be able to discriminate against LGTQ students as the Supreme Court votes 7-2 to disallow their rule that law students must sign a contract that says they will abstain from all sexual contact outside of heterosexual marriage.

I am left to wonder who would ever even want to attend such a ridiculous institution in the first place.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trinity-western-supreme-court-decision-1.4707240

 

[Jinentonix]

A no-brainer really. Not because of human rights laws or anything. It all depends on when the contract signing takes place. Is it a condition of being accepted into the law program? Or is it something you're made to sign after you've been accepted. If it's before the fact than the courts got it wrong. If it's after the fact then the courts got it right. The condition could be easily regarded as a position of duress which makes any contract null and void in Canada.

 

[White_Unifier]

What the university did wasn't even Christian anyway. For example, would it accept a heterosexual student who was womanizing around town? What about a homosexual celibate student? It's the action, not the state of being, that counts. If a higher-education institution purporting to be Christian can't even understand that distinction, that raises questions about the intellectual caliber of its professors.

 

[Jinentonix]

What the university did wasn't even Christian anyway. For example, would it accept a heterosexual student who was womanizing around town?

*sigh* Try reading.

that law students must sign a contract that says they will abstain from all sexual contact outside of heterosexual marriage.

What about a homosexual celibate student?

Again, read the condition! Reading is fundamental although comprehending what one is reading is also important.

 

[White_Unifier]

*sigh* Try reading.
Again, read the condition! Reading is fundamental although comprehending what one is reading is also important.

I confess I read it after my post. Shoot first ask questions later. Sorry.

Yeah, after reading it, it would seem the University was in the right, the judges in the wrong. My bad.

 

[petros]

LBGTQC aren't lining up for entrance to TWU.

 

[Jinentonix]

I confess I read it after my post. Shoot first ask questions later. Sorry.

Yeah, after reading it, it would seem the University was in the right, the judges in the wrong. My bad.

Well, like I said, it depends on where in the process the University makes them sign the agreement. If it's after they've been accepted into the law program then the courts did get it right. If it's simply part of the initial application process, then the courts got it wrong.

 

[White_Unifier]

LBGTQC aren't lining up for entrance to TWU.

The only exceptions I could think of would be gay Christians who'd agree with the celibacy rule anyway. And now that I've read the article, it seems like TWU would welcome them anyway.

Well, like I said, it depends on where in the process the University makes them sign the agreement. If it's after they've been accepted into the law program then the courts did get it right. If it's simply part of the initial application process, then the courts got it wrong.

I agree it should be laid out at the start to not waste the student's time. I will say though that if they receive any public funding, then while it might be fine to expect students to live by the social laws of the Christian Faith, it might cross a line to force them to process the Faith.

 

[Jinentonix]

LBGTQC aren't lining up for entrance to TWU.

That depends. If they really want to take law they may have little choice since many Canadian universities are all about foreign students who pay more to attend.

The only exceptions I could think of would be gay Christians who'd agree with the celibacy rule anyway. And now that I've read the article, it seems like TWU would welcome them anyway.



I agree it should be laid out at the start to not waste the student's time. I will say though that if they receive any public funding, then while it might be fine to expect students to live by the social laws of the Christian Faith, it might cross a line to force them to process the Faith.

IIRC, and I could be wrong, but I seem to recall hearing that TWU already had its public funding stripped because it was using at least some of that public money to promote private schools and home teaching.

 

[White_Unifier]

That depends. If they really want to take law they may have little choice since many Canadian universities are all about foreign students who pay more to attend.


IIRC, and I could be wrong, but I seem to recall hearing that TWU already had its public funding stripped because it was using at least some of that public money to promote private schools and home teaching.

So if no public funding, then the state should butt out.

 

[petros]

The only exceptions I could think of would be gay Christians who'd agree with the celibacy rule anyway. And now that I've read the article, it seems like TWU would welcome them anyway.



I agree it should be laid out at the start to not waste the student's time. I will say though that if they receive any public funding, then while it might be fine to expect students to live by the social laws of the Christian Faith, it might cross a line to force them to process the Faith.

How do they know if you boink someone or not?

 

[White_Unifier]

How do they know if you boink someone or not?

Oh yes, if a person pays money for a university education, even if that person signs that kind of contract, I would hope that the university would have the decency to include a clause in the contract that even if it's a civil contract, that the University willingly accepts a burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt. That would seem reasonable to me out of respect for any accused, but I guess that's a decision for the school to make.

It would seem reasonable that the university not spy on students either. In other words, unless it's done in open public or the students are openly bragging about it or someone reports it (which again would suggest a certain lack of indiscretion), then the school should not even know about it.

 

[Jinentonix]

So if no public funding, then the state should butt out.

Not necessarily. As I said, it all hinges on where in the process the contract is signed.
And if the state should butt out because there's no public funding involved, than one could easily claim the state needs to keep their noses out of private enterprise. But they're not. The Liberal govt has dredged up the idea that businesses must come up with an "action plan" to increase the number of women, LGBTQs, ethnic and racial minorities etc, into more top positions. If they don't, the Trudeau govt wants to force them to explain to their shareholders why they "refuse" to be all super-duper "progressive".

 

[White_Unifier]

Not necessarily. As I said, it all hinges on where in the process the contract is signed.
And if the state should butt out because there's no public funding involved, than one could easily claim the state needs to keep their noses out of private enterprise. But they're not. The Liberal govt has dredged up the idea that businesses must come up with an "action plan" to increase the number of women, LGBTQs, ethnic and racial minorities etc, into more top positions. If they don't, the Trudeau govt wants to force them to explain to their shareholders why they "refuse" to be all super-duper "progressive".

Any plans on increasing the number of women among the homeless and suicides too? Equality after all, right? And what about plumbers?

 

[Curious Cdn]

Jesus said exactly nothing about LGBTQ and such people would have been around him, even then. No mention... not a peep.

Jesus DID mention that we are commanded to be compassionate to the weak and defenseless.

"Christian University" eh?

Maybe, it's a test.

 

[coldstream]

It's time to take back control of Canada from the judicial tyranny that rules by way of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and is imposing a Culture of Death and Disorder amongst us.

The SCOC is filled with intellectual and moral mediocrities, political hacks and petty ideologues. They all support without question the ideology of moral relativism, radical individualism, atheistic humanism.. a pseudo religion.. as superior in every way to Christianity.

It is a prescription for societal dissolution. The Charter was Pierrre Trudeau's biggest blunder. It has become a disaster for the nation.

 

[Curious Cdn]

It's time to take back control of Canada from the judicial tyranny that rules by way of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and is imposing a Culture of Death and Disorder amongst us.

The SCOC is filled with intellectual and moral mediocrities, political hacks and petty ideologues. They all support without question the ideology of moral relativism, radical individualism, atheistic humanism.. a pseudo religion.. as superior in every way to Christianity.

It is a prescription for societal dissolution. The Charter was Pierrre Trudeau's biggest blunder. It has become a disaster for the nation.

What would you replace it with?

Sharia?

 

[White_Unifier]

What would you replace it with?

Sharia?

How about the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights to which Canada is a signatory member-state. Hong Kong inscribed that Convention into its Basic Law. In fact, it meets a higher standard than the Canadian Charter in some respects. For example, the Canadian Charter's provision for separate schools conflicts with the religious non-discrimination provision of the Convention. That said, the Convention limits the use of the death sentence but does not ban it outright. Hong Kong still has no death sentence anyway, but that's not inscribed into its Basic Law so Hong Kong could theoretically introduce it if it wanted to for at least more serious crimes.

I personally think the Convention stands far above the Canadian Charter on a number of fronts in its moderation and reasonableness.

 

[Hoid]

Common sense tells us that in a plural society all must be equal.

There is no getting around it.

 

[petros]

How about the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights to which Canada is a signatory member-state. Hong Kong inscribed that Convention into its Basic Law. In fact, it meets a higher standard than the Canadian Charter in some respects. For example, the Canadian Charter's provision for separate schools conflicts with the religious non-discrimination provision of the Convention. That said, the Convention limits the use of the death sentence but does not ban it outright. Hong Kong still has no death sentence anyway, but that's not inscribed into its Basic Law so Hong Kong could theoretically introduce it if it wanted to for at least more serious crimes.

I personally think the Convention stands far above the Canadian Charter on a number of fronts in its moderation and reasonableness.

Rights don't exist without Duties. Rights are not doled out freely or proportionately.

It's yours and my Duty to respect and uphold somebody else's Right even if you don't like it.