TWU law school snub

PoliticalNick

The Troll Bashing Troll
Mar 8, 2011
7,940
0
36
Edson, AB
If you live a gay lifestyle and attend the school you are lying.
So you are trying to say lawyers don't lie :roll: Kinda like that unheard of activist lawyer you put forward as an argument earlier. :lol:

The school itself is breaking those rules, which is why they refuse to approve the school.
You just can't see past your own narrow opinion can you? The school isn't breaking any rules or breaking any laws. That is where your arguments end. You can phrase it as many ways as you like but the school is not doing anything wrong other than 'in your opinion'.

You have changed your arguments sooo many times in this thread and given 150 reasons why you think the covenant is wrong while I have always held the same argument, the rule of law says the school is not in violation of any law, statute, Act, rule or the Charter. Your opinion it is doing something wrong is just that...your opinion, nothing more. Most Laweyrs across the country see it this way which is why TWU is being given accreditation across Canada except for ONT and NB. That is why the BCTF lost in the SCOC and that is why the LSUC will lose there too. What I will concede is you are entitled to your opinion no matter how wrong it may be.
 

BornRuff

Time Out
Nov 17, 2013
3,175
0
36
Exactly. My much-loved brother is gay, Christian.......and celibate.

Did someone force him to do that, or was that his choice?

and how is that? Are you saying that Gay's HAVE to have sex? They are physically and mentally required to have sex? They can't abstain like hetero's are expected to do?

This is false, sex is perfectly fine by them if it is between and man and a woman who are married.

So you are trying to say lawyers don't lie :roll: Kinda like that unheard of activist lawyer you put forward as an argument earlier. :lol:

Lying is something taken very seriously by the law society. It can get you disbarred.

You just can't see past your own narrow opinion can you? The school isn't breaking any rules or breaking any laws. That is where your arguments end. You can phrase it as many ways as you like but the school is not doing anything wrong other than 'in your opinion'.

You have changed your arguments sooo many times in this thread and given 150 reasons why you think the covenant is wrong while I have always held the same argument, the rule of law says the school is not in violation of any law, statute, Act, rule or the Charter. Your opinion it is doing something wrong is just that...your opinion, nothing more. Most Laweyrs across the country see it this way which is why TWU is being given accreditation across Canada except for ONT and NB. That is why the BCTF lost in the SCOC and that is why the LSUC will lose there too. What I will concede is you are entitled to your opinion no matter how wrong it may be.

The problem with your argument is that you still don't know what we are even talking about. Nobody claimed that they broke the law.

If there are 150 reasons why they are wrong, and all you can do is repeat something that isn't relevant, what does that say?

Also, the BC law society is in the process of trying to change their decision.
 

gerryh

Time Out
Nov 21, 2004
25,756
295
83
This is false, sex is perfectly fine by them if it is between and man and a woman who are married.


.

That;s right. That's what the Bible says. Sex bewteen any unmarried person is not ok, gay, straight, bi, whatever.

Now how about you answer the question, numbnuts. Are you says gays can not go without sex?
 

PoliticalNick

The Troll Bashing Troll
Mar 8, 2011
7,940
0
36
Edson, AB
Did someone force him to do that, or was that his choice?
Once again you are an idiot!
Lying is something taken very seriously by the law society. It can get you disbarred.
We shouldn't have any lawyers then.
The problem with your argument is that you still don't know what we are even talking about. Nobody claimed that they broke the law.
Which is why the SCOC will rule in their favor.
If there are 150 reasons why they are wrong, and all you can do is repeat something that isn't relevant, what does that say?
It says you are grasping at straws. It is about law. That is why it has gone through the courts and why it is going to the SCOC. Do you think the lower courts and SCOC deal with matters outside the law? It isn't a monday night debating club where opinions matter, public opinion matters not in the eyes of the law, it is about the rule of law
Also, the BC law society is in the process of trying to change their decision.
The process is to take it to a full vote of members set in motion by a group who think their personal opinions matter more than the law. The article says nothing about the required number of signatures other than it was enough to force the full vote. That could be 10% or 20% or 50%, I don't know what their requirement is. We shall see what the outcome of that vote is and how the benchers react to it before anything else. To make a statement implying the entire BCLS wants the stance changed is reckless disregard for the facts.

Everyone who wants changes in the school is welcome to petition parliament or the SCOC to have the law changed but right now they don't have to change just because you want them to. If the law does change I will support the law against the school but at this time the law is on their side.
 

BornRuff

Time Out
Nov 17, 2013
3,175
0
36
Once again you are an idiot!

Do you not get the difference between someone choice and being forced?

Just because you might never want to have sex doesn't mean it should be forced on other people.

We shouldn't have any lawyers then.

If you are now going to argue that lying isn't against the rules for lawyers, you are out of your mind.

Which is why the SCOC will rule in their favor.

It says you are grasping at straws. It is about law. That is why it has gone through the courts and why it is going to the SCOC. Do you think the lower courts and SCOC deal with matters outside the law? It isn't a monday night debating club where opinions matter, public opinion matters not in the eyes of the law, it is about the rule of law

Lol, there are other laws than the one you are fixated on. The issue isn't if the school violated the human rights code, that would be an issue for the human rights tribunal. The issue is if they can force law societies to accredit them even if they disagree with their practices.

The process is to take it to a full vote of members set in motion by a group who think their personal opinions matter more than the law. The article says nothing about the required number of signatures other than it was enough to force the full vote. That could be 10% or 20% or 50%, I don't know what their requirement is. We shall see what the outcome of that vote is and how the benchers react to it before anything else. To make a statement implying the entire BCLS wants the stance changed is reckless disregard for the facts.

When did I use the word entire?

Everyone who wants changes in the school is welcome to petition parliament or the SCOC to have the law changed but right now they don't have to change just because you want them to. If the law does change I will support the law against the school but at this time the law is on their side.

Lol, can you still not fathom the difference between something being illegal and something that you can force other people to support? Those are two very different things.
 

FiveParadox

Governor General
Dec 20, 2005
5,875
43
48
Vancouver, BC
Let's attempt this in a way that is, perhaps, more straightforward for some.

Pursuant to the Community Covenant that Trinity Western University students must sign:

At Trinity Western University, if you are in a heterosexual relationship,
  • Unmarried heterosexual couples CANNOT have sex
  • Married heterosexual couples (legally married) CAN have sex

At Trinity Western University, if you are in a same-sex relationship,
  • Unmarried same-sex couples CANNOT have sex
  • Married same-sex couples (legally married) CANNOT have sex

This is discrimination. Heterosexual and homosexuals persons who are in relationships are being treated differently by the University, and held to different standards of conduct. Discrimination does not necessarily have to be unlawful to be, in fact, discrimination. Even the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (which does not apply to Trinity Western University, whether for religious freedoms or equality rights) has a delimiting clause, in section 1, which states that discrimination is okay if it can be "reasonably and demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society." Nevertheless, the word "discrimination" would apply in such cases.

The Charter notwithstanding, if the Law Society of Upper Canada believes that it would not be in the "public interest" to recognize degrees at Trinity Western University, then they may refuse to recognize them, because they have the statutory right to exercise that discretion pursuant to the Law Society Act, in the same way that the BCCT had that discretion when it attempted to refuse accreditation to Trinity Western University's teaching program.

It should be noted that the Supreme Court of Canada did not rule that the BCCT did not have the right or the discretion to weigh the public interest and to refuse accreditation; quite on the contrary, they ruled that they did have that statutory authority, but that they had not adequately considered the balance of the rights and freedoms involved in the discussion.
 
Last edited:

Locutus

Adorable Deplorable
Jun 18, 2007
32,230
47
48
66
Until the 1940s, Jews were banned from the professions in Canada. Not completely banned – that would be unseemly. But universities like McGill had quotas.

And once those few Jewish students graduated, they were blacklisted by many law firms and hospitals. It’s the reason why so many cities have Mount Sinai hospitals today. Those are the hospitals the Jewish doctors themselves set up, when the establishment wouldn’t hire them.

That was so long ago, wasn’t it? The professions aren’t bigoted like that anymore. If you doubt it, look at the recent election in Quebec. The proposed Charter of Values attempted to limit ostentatious religious symbols – like a Muslim veil or a Sikh turban – worn by government employees. The Parti Quebecois that proposed this ban was given a thrashing.

But of course there is one religious group against which it is perfectly acceptable to discriminate in 2014: Christians. Because in recent weeks the Law Society of Upper Canada and the Nova Scotia Barristers' Society have both voted to ban from practising in their provinces any student who graduates from the new law school at B.C.’s Trinity Western University.

This isn’t just a ban on ostentatious displays of religiosity or a ban for people working in government jobs, like Quebec proposed. Ontario and Nova Scotia will ban any graduate of this school from working as a lawyer, at all, in private or in public, no matter how they conduct themselves. They won’t even be allowed to draft a will or a contract.

It’s all because Trinity Western University is a Christian university. It’s been around for more than 60 years. Its law school, slated to open in 2016, is accredited, like any other. It’s similar to Catholic school boards in any province. They teach the same basics and give the same diplomas as public schools, but do so in a Catholic religious tradition. It’s as Canadian as maple syrup.

Trinity Western is the one Christian law school in Canada. They don’t discriminate against non-Christians – anyone can attend classes there. But, like Catholic schools, they have a code of conduct. It’s a university, so adult students willingly and thoughtfully choose to go to school there – they’re not forced to by their parents. As part of that enrolment, students promise to “observe modesty, purity and appropriate intimacy in all relationships, reserve sexual expressions of intimacy for marriage, and within marriage take every reasonable step to resolve conflict and avoid divorce,” to quote the student handbook. Of course, being Christian, Trinity Western believes marriage is between a man and a woman – just like Catholic schools do.

Why have law societies in Ontario and Nova Scotia have decided, in advance, to blacklist any student from this school, without meeting them, without knowing them, without a complaint against them, without a hearing? Is it because they have taken this pledge? Because that would be the dictionary definition of religious prejudice and bigotry. It’s the Jewish quotas all over again. And how ironic would that be, considering how many benchers on Ontario’s law society are Jewish and understand religious prejudice?


The student handbook applies to everyone: straight or gay, male or female, Christian or not. It is a personal pledge of modesty. If you don’t like it, go to any other law school in the country – there are plenty who like to sell themselves as party schools, where sex, booze and drugs are part of the experience. Just not Trinity Western.

This is an unacceptable act by our legal elites – the people we are supposed to count on to uphold our Charter of Rights, not destroy it. I’ve launched a petition to rescind this new blacklist. If you want to learn more, visit Index of /.


Ban on Christian values

le comment most excellent:
Ezra points out that the action by the Law Society of Upper Canada against Trinity Western amounts to a rebirth of this old prejudice, except now it's targeted to Christians who still adhere to their traditional moral code.

The purpose of a governing body for lawyers is to deal with those who prove less than competent at their profession. It is not to enforce ideological compliance -- which is what the law society's stance amounts to.

The decree by the LSUC cannot be allowed to hold in a free society. I haven't checked but presumably the LSUC is governed by legislation, and if necessary the legislation should be changed to ensure that it sticks to its proper functions.

And if ideological tests were somehow deemed acceptable, any lawyer caught wearing a t-shirt featuring the murderous psychopathic scum Che Guevara should be instantly disbarred.

 

PoliticalNick

The Troll Bashing Troll
Mar 8, 2011
7,940
0
36
Edson, AB
Do you not get the difference between someone choice and being forced?

Just because you might never want to have sex doesn't mean it should be forced on other people.



If you are now going to argue that lying isn't against the rules for lawyers, you are out of your mind.



Lol, there are other laws than the one you are fixated on. The issue isn't if the school violated the human rights code, that would be an issue for the human rights tribunal. The issue is if they can force law societies to accredit them even if they disagree with their practices.



When did I use the word entire?



Lol, can you still not fathom the difference between something being illegal and something that you can force other people to support? Those are two very different things.

You are an idiot for asking such a question of a gay person. Not because I dont understand the difference.

I fully know lawyers are not allowed to lie 'perpetrate a fraud upon the court' is the customary term. I said lawyers will lie. Dependant on the situation lawyers will go from little white lies to gross misrepresentation of the facts. Are you claiming they don't?

The LSUC has its rights as per their charter and controlling legislation. The issue is if they have exercised those rights with due care and dillivence and if their decision violates the rights of the school or students. That is a legal issue which is why it is in a court, not with a mediator.

Your statement implied that the entire BCLS is for hanging the decision of the executive. I believe most lawyers can understand the difference between what is actually in the law and what is personal opinion and the decision will stand.

I also know the difference between what is law and what is opinion. You don't seem to grasp that concept. It is my opinion that the covenant is discriminatory against married homosexuals but the law at this time says different. Unfortunately we have to abide by the law and so does the LSUC. One would think a group of lawyers would understand that. What they are doing is discriminatory based upon religious beliefs and that my friend is illegal. If they chose to refuse accreditation based upon the proposed curriculum or upon the methods of instruction or the accreditation of instructors then they have valid reasoning but that is not what they chose to rest their decision on. They chose to rest on religious beliefs and will have their pee-pees smacked for it. To call it 'based upon the public interest' is ludicrous. The public interest is served by allowing the school to operate within the law which it does at this time. The public interest is served by students recieving proper instruction in the law.
 

BornRuff

Time Out
Nov 17, 2013
3,175
0
36
You are an idiot for asking such a question of a gay person. Not because I dont understand the difference.

No, it is stupid to put that forward as some sort of proof that it is ok to force gay people not to have sex.

It is fine if that is your choice, but it is wrong to force choices on others.

I fully know lawyers are not allowed to lie 'perpetrate a fraud upon the court' is the customary term. I said lawyers will lie. Dependant on the situation lawyers will go from little white lies to gross misrepresentation of the facts. Are you claiming they don't?

I'm sure people do lie, but when caught, they face discipline, up to and including disbarment. For that reason, everyone saying that gay people can just attend the school and ignore the covenant are suggesting a solution that is entirely against the rules of the law society.

The LSUC has its rights as per their charter and controlling legislation. The issue is if they have exercised those rights with due care and dillivence and if their decision violates the rights of the school or students. That is a legal issue which is why it is in a court, not with a mediator.

Nobody said it wouldn't be a legal issue if brought before the courts(is it before any courts right now?). You just keep focusing on the wrong legal issue.

Your statement implied that the entire BCLS is for hanging the decision of the executive. I believe most lawyers can understand the difference between what is actually in the law and what is personal opinion and the decision will stand.

You can believe whatever you want to believe, the fact is that the process is in motion to try to change that decision. We will see what comes of it.

I also know the difference between what is law and what is opinion. You don't seem to grasp that concept. It is my opinion that the covenant is discriminatory against married homosexuals but the law at this time says different.

You still can't grasp this basic concept? The law in no way says that it is not discriminatory. The law says that since the school is exempt, they are allowed to discriminate. It is clearly discrimination by any definition of the word.

Unfortunately we have to abide by the law and so does the LSUC.

Just because something isn't punishable by law doesn't mean other people have to support your choice.

Just because you have not murdered anyone doesn't mean I have to support your opinions and invite you into my house.

One would think a group of lawyers would understand that. What they are doing is discriminatory based upon religious beliefs and that my friend is illegal.

Nope. They are discriminating based on discriminatory admissions policies.

If they chose to refuse accreditation based upon the proposed curriculum or upon the methods of instruction or the accreditation of instructors then they have valid reasoning but that is not what they chose to rest their decision on. They chose to rest on religious beliefs and will have their pee-pees smacked for it. To call it 'based upon the public interest' is ludicrous. The public interest is served by allowing the school to operate within the law which it does at this time. The public interest is served by students recieving proper instruction in the law.

Moral and ethical considerations have always been a huge aspect of approving anything in the legal field. Why do you just get to change that now?
 

Zipperfish

House Member
Apr 12, 2013
3,688
0
36
Vancouver
Why the hell are you going on about how to best treat pedophiles? That has nothing to do with this thread.

U mad bro?

As I have said, there is next to no research of this nature on pedophiles, so
you are just talking out of your *** anyways. If you can point to a significant
body of evidence on this, please prove me wrong.

Simply restating your false premise doesn't make it true. There's a large body of knowledge on the subject. And you just finished tellling me that it has nothing to do with the thread anyways, so why continue the argument?




I have pointed out about a million times in this thread that the laws only make certain types of discrimination illegal in certain cases. You still don't seem to understand what the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is though, since you still seem to think it is the basis for other human rights legislation.

A disagreement over ethics doesn't necessarily mean that I don't understand. I understand just fine. I just don't agree. I pointed out the fact that it is not just a matter of freedom from (certain) discrimination, there is also the competing right to freedom of religion and belief. As for knowing the Charter--you who knows the Charter? The Supreme Court justices. You know what they said when the Teachers College in BC pulled this same stunt? Well they ruled in favour of TWU in that case. "For better or for worse” the Court said, “tolerance of divergent beliefs is a hallmark of a democratic society." It's a good read--maybe you should look at it before accusing me of ignorance. SCC Cases (Lexum) - Trinity Western University v. British Columbia College of Teachers





If nothing changes, the students who graduate wont be denied access to
practicing in Ontario and Nova Scotia because they are christian, they will be
denied access because they chose to go to a school that is not accredited in
those provinces. That is their choice to make.

They will be denied access though. Even though they have the same education, and even though they may never have practiced any kind of discrimination.
 

BornRuff

Time Out
Nov 17, 2013
3,175
0
36
U mad bro?


Simply restating your false premise doesn't make it true. There's a large body of knowledge on the subject. And you just finished tellling me that it has nothing to do with the thread anyways, so why continue the argument?

Yes, that goes the same for you.

Produce some evidence or shut up about it.

A disagreement over ethics doesn't necessarily mean that I don't understand. I understand just fine. I just don't agree. I pointed out the fact that it is not just a matter of freedom from (certain) discrimination, there is also the competing right to freedom of religion and belief. As for knowing the Charter--you who knows the Charter? The Supreme Court justices. You know what they said when the Teachers College in BC pulled this same stunt? Well they ruled in favour of TWU in that case. "For better or for worse” the Court said, “tolerance of divergent beliefs is a hallmark of a democratic society." It's a good read--maybe you should look at it before accusing me of ignorance. SCC Cases (Lexum) - Trinity Western University v. British Columbia College of Teachers

Point me to where they reference the charter in that decision.

They will be denied access though. Even though they have the same education, and even though they may never have practiced any kind of discrimination.

No, they don't have the same education. The people called to the bar went to an accredited school, they did not.

For the 100th time, the issue isn't with the students, it is with the school.
 

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
118,052
14,452
113
Low Earth Orbit
I find it highly unlikely that gays in Vancouver (Canada's San Fransiski) give a sh-t about the Covenant or they would have been all over TWU covenant a long long time ago and it would no longer exist.

The LGTB community here have a lot of clout in BC. Far more than people realize.
 

BornRuff

Time Out
Nov 17, 2013
3,175
0
36
I find it highly unlikely that gays in Vancouver (Canada's San Fransiski) give a sh-t about the Covenant or they would have been all over TWU covenant a long long time ago and it would no longer exist.

The LGTB community here have a lot of clout in BC. Far more than people realize.

I doubt the university ever approach the "gays in Vancouver" for an endorsement.
 

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
118,052
14,452
113
Low Earth Orbit
BumFluff said:
Produce some evidence or shut up about it.
Wasn't that asked of you? Did you ever find a student that has made a complaint?

I doubt the university ever approach the "gays in Vancouver" for an endorsement.

Why would the school approach them? If the covenant was truly discrimating they would have taken TWU to task a long long time ago.

Check this out:

Frequently Asked Questions
*

Would gay students be welcome to attend the proposed law school at Trinity Western University?

Yes. Anyone is welcome to attend Trinity Western University, regardless of their sexual orientation or religious beliefs. Many gay students have attended—and graduated—from our university, as have students from many different faiths and ethnicities.

But doesn’t your “Community Covenant” preclude gay students from attending the university?

No. As mentioned, gay students do attend our university. But like their heterosexual counterparts, they do so on the basis of agreeing to honour the traditional, biblical Christian values and principles as set out in our Community Covenant. The sanctity of Christian marriage between a man and a woman is addressed in that Covenant, and is of essential importance to us as Christians. Therefore, we ask members of our community to respect our Christian belief that sexual intimacy be restricted to married men and women.

So “extramarital” sexual relations between an unmarried couple—whether gay or straight—is unacceptable. But what about legally married same-sex couples?

“Civil” same-sex unions are now recognized by Canadian law. But views on same-sex marriage differ widely. Many religions—including many Christian denominations, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists and Jews—have chosen not to bless same-sex unions, and have drafted resolutions or official church policies, based upon their traditional religious teachings, defining marriage as between a man and a woman. We share those views.

Yes, but Trinity Western isn’t a church—it’s a university. So why wouldn’t the university’s proposed law school recognize the legality of same-sex marriage?

Trinity Western University’s proposed law school would most certainly be founded on and teach the principles of Canadian law. There would be nothing in our curriculum that is “anti-gay” or contrary to current Canadian law. But Canadian law also recognizes the right for people to express and honour their religious beliefs. That is particularly important to us as a community. Trinity Western University has been designated by law as a private religious institution, founded on traditional, biblical Christian values and principles. As such, we are entitled to our beliefs and fully authorized to set standards for our community that are based on those Christian beliefs. The Supreme Court of Canada recognized that in a 2001 ruling on our right to train and certify teachers. The Supreme Court also noted that religious public education rights are enshrined in Section 93 of the Constitution Act, which was drafted in 1867. The pursuit of freedom has always been a guiding force in the constitutional framework of Canada—and freedom includes the right for people to hold their own religious beliefs.

Given the need for students to abide by those standards, could a gay couple be expelled from the university for having sexual relations?

The Community Covenant is primarily based on the integrity of the person signing it. We don’t police compliance by our students, staff, or faculty—nor has anyone ever been expelled from the University for failing to abide by this standard. But we do make it clear to prospective students, staff and faculty that membership within our community is a matter of personal integrity.* As such, if a member of the University community can’t or won’t accept those standards, we invite them to seek one of many other living/learning situations that would be more acceptable to them.

So you expect gay students to ignore their natural instincts and remain chaste the entire time they attend your university?

We expect any student—gay or heterosexual—to honour the traditional, Bible-based Christian standards that guide us as a community. While that may demand a high level of self-discipline for unmarried students, we believe (as do members of most other world religions) that sexual promiscuity (in any form) is unhealthy—to both the individuals involved and the community at large. Prospective students are well-aware of that—and gay or straight, they have the option to go elsewhere if the prospect of honouring those standards would be too rigorous for them. Having said that, we are also a highly forgiving community. We are not saints—and no one among us can claim perfect adherence to these principles. Our goal is to achieve spiritual progress rather than spiritual perfection.

Still, aren’t your Christian values biased against the gay community?

The Supreme Court of Canada ruled that there was “not a shred of evidence” to suggest any bias on the part of Trinity-educated teachers towards gay students (in the decision to allow our Teacher Certification Program). Our university prides itself on open dialogue and critical examination of beliefs and values. Further, our Christian values are founded on love and respect for others. So while some of our beliefs and values may differ from those held by the gay community, we are taught to love and respect all peoples, regardless of their race, religion or sexual orientation. And we practice what we preach: Trinity Western students routinely volunteer to assist low-income residents in Vancouver’s Downtown Eastside; build houses with Habitat for Humanity; support health clinics in developing countries; and many of our students, faculty and staff members have performed mission work around the globe in the most immediate of schools, hospitals, shelters and churches.

What other behavioral standards must students agree to uphold?

At the heart of our beliefs is the need for members of our community to conduct themselves with a high degree of personal integrity and self-discipline, and to exhibit the kind of love and respect for others that is so important to Christian life. We ask our members to develop healthy living habits and to refrain from the use of tobacco, alcohol or other forms of substance abuse; to have a positive regard for the well-being of others and to avoid swearing or the use of profane language; to refrain from harassment, and all forms of dishonesty including cheating and stealing; to avoid gambling or the viewing of pornography; and to respect our views on the sanctity of marriage. Through the application of those core values, our community has been infused with a loving, positive spirit that has helped transform the lives of countless students.

Isn’t it strange for a university to try to dictate the behavior of its students?

We don’t “dictate” anyone’s behavior. Ours is but one of many universities in Canada, and students have many other academic options available to them if they feel Trinity Western isn’t right for them. As for the “strange” nature of our community standards, many world-renowned universities have religious affiliations, along with defined codes of behavior to encourage academic and personal integrity. But aside from universities, most “communities” enact standards of behavior. If you join the military, for example, you must respect the authority of your superiors and obey a chain of command. If you’re a man entering a synagogue, you are required to cover your head. If you’re a woman in a devout Muslim country, you must cover both your face and your body. And if you attend a spiritual retreat in India, you might be required to remain silent, or observe a strictly vegetarian diet. Our beliefs point to the larger experience of a segment of Canadian society. Trinity Western serves the Evangelical Christian community of Canada. There are millions of Canadian employees, students, and congregants who adhere to these principals for daily living.*

But doesn’t adherence to Trinity Western’s Community Covenant effectively limit the opportunities for gay students to apply for and be accepted into Canadian law schools?

Again, anyone is welcome to attend Trinity Western University. Their sexual orientation is never a consideration. Further, there are many well-established law schools across the country—so prospective law students have many options to choose from. Those options don’t currently exist, however, for law students interested in a “faith-based” law school education. Faith-based law schools have long been established in the United States and other parts of the world, but do not exist in Canada. We would like to address that need in building a faith-based, ethically-driven, privately-funded Canadian law school.

What is a “faith-based” law school?

A great deal of our western legal system is based on Judeo-Christian values and principles—from a moral code that condemns theft and murder to ethical standards that have guided civilization. We see the opportunity to connect those ethics and values to our students’ Christian beliefs as a very positive way to reinforce both their faith and their professional standards as lawyers. We also foresee a unique opportunity for our students to examine the connection between other world religions and the evolution of legal systems within those jurisdictions. As with any field of study, it’s always a worthwhile exercise to examine and learn from what’s being done elsewhere. Canadian law schools tend to focus solely on Canadian law, and we feel the Canadian legal system as a whole can benefit from a more global, faith-based approach to legal education. So, too, can lawyers.


Does Trinity Western University receive public funding?

As a private university, TWU does not receive public funding for its operations. However, there are two instances where TWU has received government financial support. First, the federal government is the largest source for research funding in the country. TWU’s faculty, like faculty at all universities in Canada, compete for research grants through the processes established by the various funding agencies. It is a small but important part of our budget and helps us raise the profile of TWU within the academic community in Canada. Second, back during the last recession, the federal government made available one-time funds under its Knowledge Infrastructure Program (KIP) to help stimulate the economy. TWU successfully applied for and received some funds at that time.

https://www.twu.ca/academics/school-of-law/faq.html
 

Zipperfish

House Member
Apr 12, 2013
3,688
0
36
Vancouver
Yes, that goes the same for you.

Produce some evidence or shut up about it.


Point me to where they reference the charter in that decision.


No, they don't have the same education. The people called to the bar went to an accredited school, they did not.

For the 100th time, the issue isn't with the students, it is with the school.

Well, the fact that you've just decided to be outright rude demonstrates you don't have much to add to the argument so we'll leave it at that.

I have thoroughly considered your argument and determined that you are wrong. Please adjust your opinion accordingly. Now apologize then f*ck off. :lol:
 

BornRuff

Time Out
Nov 17, 2013
3,175
0
36
Therefore, we ask members of our community to respect our Christian belief that sexual intimacy be restricted to married men and women.

And that is not discriminatory to gay people how?

BumFluff is a slow learner. Really really damn slow.

Lol, that is pretty rich coming from a group of people who after repeated explanations still don't even know what the charter of rights and freedoms is, though are happy to continue to incorrectly reference it.
 

pgs

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 29, 2008
28,597
8,166
113
B.C.
And that is not discriminatory to gay people how?



Lol, that is pretty rich coming from a group of people who after repeated explanations still don't even know what the charter of rights and freedoms is, though are happy to continue to incorrectly reference it.
You pretty much are the only one on this forum that has your stance . posters from all sides of the political and moral spectrum and you want them to go away and shut up . Hmmm then you could argue with yourself . Have fun .
 

BornRuff

Time Out
Nov 17, 2013
3,175
0
36
Well, the fact that you've just decided to be outright rude demonstrates you don't have much to add to the argument so we'll leave it at that.

I have thoroughly considered your argument and determined that you are wrong. Please adjust your opinion accordingly. Now apologize then f*ck off. :lol:

Constantly comparing gay people to pedophiles is rude at best. Refusing to back up your claims with anything shows that they are baseless.
 

Zipperfish

House Member
Apr 12, 2013
3,688
0
36
Vancouver
Constantly comparing gay people to pedophiles is rude at best. Refusing to back up your claims with anything shows that they are baseless.

It seems yet again my scintillating intellect and fierce repartee has once again bested you.

I'm still waiting for my apology...