Supreme court denies Trinity U discrimmination

[WLDB]

The ruling doesn’t stop them from having this rule. They can still do that all they want. All the ruling did was give law societies the option to refuse accreditation.

 

[Colpy]

The ruling doesn’t stop them from having this rule. They can still do that all they want. All the ruling did was give law societies the option to refuse accreditation.

So, can they refuse accreditation to practicing Muslims?


So why is refusing accreditation to practicing Christians OK?


This was an activist court ignoring an enshrined Charter right in favour of creating the kind of society they think is ideal, despite the rules they are supposed to guide them. (the Charter, the constititution)

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

There is no getting around it.

In what society, ever, have all been equal?


Hierarchies are part of human nature, just as they are in so many other animals.

 

[petros]

Hoid will never piss like the big dogs, he's a squatter.

 

[Hoid]

They can only refuse accreditation to someone who is breaking the law.

Refusing to teach people because of their gender is against the law and if they don't like it they are free to move to the Philppines or Russia or any number of other places that have laws that are in lines with their beliefs.

 

[gerryh]

They can only refuse accreditation to someone who is breaking the law.

Refusing to teach people because of their gender is against the law and if they don't like it they are free to move to the Philppines or Russia or any number of other places that have laws that are in lines with their beliefs.

I know the dumb fu ck has me on ignore but I can't let this stupidity go by. TWU is NOT refusing to teach anyone because of their gender. They require ALL students and faculty to sign contract. This is done upon admission and they will not be accepted as a student, or as a faculty member without it. If one does not want to abide by the rule that one can not have sexual relations outside a heterosexual marriage, then they don't need to attend TWU.

Also, note what the wording is, this would include unmarried heterosexuals, or married heterosexuals that are cheating, not just members of the LGBTQ community.


What the SCC and the Law societies are doing is discriminating against freedom of religion. Obviously that freedom takes a back seat to others.

 

[Dixie Cup]

I am appalled at the decision and it sets a dangerous precedent. As one gay law student stated he disagreed with the decision as well as he stated that "neither he nor any of his gay friends would want to attend that University anyway." And, BTW there are gays that attend that university. The court ruling itself is contradictory; it states how we have the freedom of religion and speech on one hand and then denies the same on the other It's a ridiculous ruling and will affect more than this university. Turns out we do not have freedom of religion cuz the Supreme Court says so in this decision.


One may argue about the beliefs of the lawyers who would have come out of this institution. If they follow the rule of law, then that shouldn't be any different than any other lawyer graduating from any other law school. Besides, they wouldn't teach religion in law school; they would teach the tenants of the law and how it is to be applied. How would this be any different from any other law school except that the University has asked that students refrain from certain activities. That has nothing to do with what is taught in law unless you're talking about religious classes.


So this decision is truly disturbing and the law societies and judges should be ashamed of themselves. This is social engineering to the extreme and has to stop. I wonder if the government can fix this?


JMHO

 

[Hoid]

Religious freedom does not mean the right to break the law, and never actually did, although it was used to do so for generations.

Very confusing I know.

 

[Dixie Cup]

Religious freedom does not mean the right to break the law, and never actually did, although it was used to do so for generations.

Very confusing I know.

Yes, your response is very confusing - how their request to ask their potential students to refrain from certain activities breaking the law? That is an absurd conclusion.

 

[mentalfloss]

And Jordan Peterson wept that day, I believe is the next verse.

 

[petros]

Yes, your response is very confusing - how their request to ask their potential students to refrain from certain activities breaking the law? That is an absurd conclusion.

Hey there are people that think there are bouncers at the doors of a Catholic Church to keep the gays, divorced and those who aborted pregnancies out.

 

[Dixie Cup]

Hey there are people that think there are bouncers at the doors of a Catholic Church to keep the gays, divorced and those who aborted pregnancies out.

I know! Weird hey?

 

[petros]

Ignorance.

 

[coldstream]

What would you replace it with?

Sharia?

Keep the Charter but place its interpretation solely in the purview of Parliament, and by way of that, the people of Canada. The SCOC has become a hermetic cult.. unanswerable and incoherent to the people of Canada. They have become infested with arrogance, conceit and power lust. They are a power unto themselves, and absolute power corrupts, absolutely. The sheer gutlessness of our recent Parliamentarians has rendered the 'Not Withstanding' clause impotent and mute.

The Charter has become the most divisive instrument in Canadian history. Placing narrow and special interests in constant adverserial contention with each other; above and beyond the interests of the community of Canada as a whole. If it was anticipated the SCOC would deem Christianity as inconsistent with the moral order of Canada it would never have been adopted in the first place. These justices are sick and degenerate. They have become dangerous to the integrity and continuity of Canada.