The TWU Controversy

[simnut]

All those acts that you describe are conscious acts that an individual performs against someone else, against that persons wishes. You inflict murder on someone who doesn't want it to happen. That's what makes it immoral.

To the "outsider", or anyone of us looking at a murderer, it is wrong. To the murderer, 99% know it's wrong also, but do it any ways. But how many murderers get "off" , or receive a lesser charge/sentence because of underlying issues ......mom drinking habits while pregnant, father beating them when young...or mental capabilities....or mental conditions that the law says "made" this person a murderer. To society these people are murderers, but there are "good" reasons for it. PLEASE....I am NOT comparing homosexuality to murder......I am ONLY using it as an example, an explanation to why a person is "that" person.

If someone chooses to murder themselves (suicide), is that as immoral?

I don't believe we should commit suicide, but in saying that.....if I were to have a terminal, painful disease ......it would certainly look like a good option. I have not yet been in that situation yet, so for me that is an unknown.

Homosexuality effects no one other than the two consenting people participating in it. You also consider homosexuality to be a persons free choice. Think about this. I don't know if you're married (or even a male, but I think you are) but if you are,could you consciously stop yourself from wanting to love your wife? If you have kids, coudl you chose not to love them? Because that is how gay people feel for their spouses. Now is that free will or nature?

Yup, you are correct....male and married with kids. I love my wife (when she's not mad at me, well...a little bit then). I have never argued the point that gay people have a strong love for each other....never have...and never will. I see it in our neighbors almost every day.....and even appreciate the way they DO love each other. They are a happy, cohesive couple and a joy to be around. This may surprise you, but I've even hugged them! They are neighbors that you CAN love!

If your son commits a murder, does your love for him change?

[Rosieodonell]

http://www.macleans.ca/news/canada/b-c-lawyers-vote-against-trinity-western-university-amid-claims-of-gay-discrimination/

VANCOUVER — Lawyers in British Columbia have rejected a Christian university’s plans to open a law school — a result that, while not binding, represents a strong rebuke of the school’s policies forbidding sex outside heterosexual marriage.

The vote is the latest setback for Trinity Western University, a school with about 4,000 students in B.C.’s Fraser Valley, and is sure to amplify an ongoing debate over the rights of a private institution to impose its religious views about homosexuality on students.

The university, which plans to open a law school in the fall of 2016, requires students to sign a so-called community covenant. The document includes a passage that forbids sex outside of marriage, defined as between a man and a woman, and students can be disciplined for violating it.

The Federation of Law Societies of Canada and the Law Society of B.C.’s benchers have already voted to accept graduates of Trinity Western, which has also been accredited by the province’s Advanced Education Ministry.

But more than a thousand B.C. lawyers signed a petition asking that the issue be put to the B.C. society’s general membership, which happened at various locations through the province on Tuesday.

Lawyers voted 3,210 to 968 in favour of a motion calling on the society’s benchers to reject the school.

The vote doesn’t have any immediate effect, but the results will likely put considerable pressure on the law society’s benchers to reconsider their earlier decision.

If the benchers don’t substantially implement the results of the vote within a year, lawyers can submit another petition that could trigger a binding referendum.

Trinity Western has also faced resistance elsewhere.

The Law Society of Upper Canada’s board of directors voted not to accredit graduates from the school, while the council of Nova Scotia’s law society voted not to accredit graduates unless the school either exempts law students from its covenant or removes the offending passage from the document.

Before Tuesday’s vote, Trinity Western president Bob Kuhn urged the law society not to stand in the way of the university’s plans.

“What is at stake here is the right to hold a belief, unpopular as it may be, and maintain it as a standard, as an ethos for its university environment,” said Kuhn.

“A vote to disapprove TWU’s law school communicates to TWU, its religious community and many other men and women of faith that they’re not welcome to engage in the public square of Canadian pluralistic society.”

The school has launched legal challenges of the decisions in Ontario and Nova Scotia.

If the B.C. law society’s benchers implement Tuesday’s vote, a similar challenge is almost certain to be filed in the province. In addition, Toronto lawyer Clayton Ruby has filed a lawsuit in B.C. objecting to the provincial government’s decision to accredit the school.

The issue could very well end up at the Supreme Court of Canada, which has previously ruled in the school’s favour on the very same issue.

In 2001, the court overturned a decision by the B.C.’s teachers’ college to reject the school’s teaching program.

The university’s president said the high court’s ruling remains the law, while opponents argued much has changed since the 2001 judgment, which occurred before a string of court cases that led to the legalization of same-sex marriage.

Lawyers who spoke against the school on Tuesday frequently invoked historic struggles for the rights of black people, women and other groups, while also noting that gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people still face discrimination today.

“I support religious freedom: you have every right to believe that I am a sinner,” barbara findlay, a self-described “lesbian lawyer” who spells her name in lowercase letters, told her colleagues.

“But when your discriminatory beliefs turn into actions that discriminate against me, then that’s where you’ve crossed the line.”

Lawyer Vicente Asuncion said students who disagree with the university’s community covenant can simply attend law school somewhere else.

“Law students have a choice to go to different universities, just like elementary and high school students have a choice go to public school or private school,” Asuncion told the meeting.

“In effect, (a vote against the school) will be saying that all lawyers in B.C. must believe in same sex marriage.”

[Donald G]

Some of the comments would cause one to wonder what lawyers who receive their law schooling (and qualify to practice) in other countries have to do in order to become eligible to practice law in British Columbia? In other Canadian provinces?

Are such immigrants held to the same restriction as being ineligible if they have trained at a school in a country where same sex relationships are considered immoral and illegal?

In Canada should all public funding not carry with it the provision that the institution receiving the funding respect all codified Canadian Rights then in existence?

[Rosieodonell]

Those are some good questions.

I don't know enough what qualifications, doctors, lawyers have to prove for Canada to authorize their training from another country.

[hobbyguy]

Secularism is extremely important to democracy. Theocracy is an enemy of democracy (Just look at Iran as an example).

Any organization that opposes "freedom of religion" and secularism, and the religions of atheism, agnosticism etc. and attempts to impose its beliefs on others is undemocratic and dangerous. I'm fine with them privately believing whatever they want, but the instant they try to start pushing their beliefs into the public sphere, tough toenails, go away.

The tactic of the far right religious groups is to infiltrate - look south and you see many examples. The danger in this is that they want to start infiltrating the legal system (whether that is a conscious tactic or not). A lawyer graduates from TWU and is on board with their theocratic hard line views. That lawyer becomes a judge - you can't convince me that said judge will be impartial when faced with a case that say, involves homosexual prostitution, or an atheist who says her human rights have been infringed upon, etc etc. It is paramount that we maintain the maximum impartiality in our legal system in order to maintain democracy.

That excludes TWU and its theocratic philosophy from eligibility to educate such key figures in our democracy. Canada is a multicultural multi-religion country, that requires as broad a view as possible in our legal system. Their narrow views are fine, I accept their right to hold their beliefs, but not in positions where there is a built in conflict of interest with the public good.

I do not see a conflict if they are training for positions where there is no serious overlap with the foundations of democracy. An engineer, or a nurse, or an agronomist, or a graphic designer etc. who is not required to regularly make decisions that overlap with their theocratic views - just fine by me.

TWU are, however, disqualified from educating people who will consistently be faced with decisions that represent a conflict of interest with the fundamental principles of the profession - law - and society as a whole.

Ironically, the very laws and constitutional rights that allow TWU to espouse their theocratic impulses are those that will most be in conflict with their graduates, and those same laws and rights are what they will use to try to impose their views on the law societies. If they are successful, then they imperil the religious freedoms of all those who hold different views.

I'm on the side of the lawyers who voted overwhelmingly to not accredit TWU for lawyers.

[Rosieodonell]

I agee with everything you wrote except the point that atheism is a religion. An atheist is someone without a belief is a god. But good post and right on the money!

[Glacier]

The fix is quite simple. They could amend the covenant to say, "you cannot have sex outside of marriage, unless you are a gay lawyer." No discrimination then.

[simnut]

Secularism is extremely important to democracy. Theocracy is an enemy of democracy (Just look at Iran as an example).

Any organization that opposes "freedom of religion" and secularism, and the religions of atheism, agnosticism etc. and attempts to impose its beliefs on others is undemocratic and dangerous. I'm fine with them privately believing whatever they want, but the instant they try to start pushing their beliefs into the public sphere, tough toenails, go away.

The tactic of the far right religious groups is to infiltrate - look south and you see many examples. The danger in this is that they want to start infiltrating the legal system (whether that is a conscious tactic or not). A lawyer graduates from TWU and is on board with their theocratic hard line views. That lawyer becomes a judge - you can't convince me that said judge will be impartial when faced with a case that say, involves homosexual prostitution, or an atheist who says her human rights have been infringed upon, etc etc. It is paramount that we maintain the maximum impartiality in our legal system in order to maintain democracy.

That excludes TWU and its theocratic philosophy from eligibility to educate such key figures in our democracy. Canada is a multicultural multi-religion country, that requires as broad a view as possible in our legal system. Their narrow views are fine, I accept their right to hold their beliefs, but not in positions where there is a built in conflict of interest with the public good.

I do not see a conflict if they are training for positions where there is no serious overlap with the foundations of democracy. An engineer, or a nurse, or an agronomist, or a graphic designer etc. who is not required to regularly make decisions that overlap with their theocratic views - just fine by me.

TWU are, however, disqualified from educating people who will consistently be faced with decisions that represent a conflict of interest with the fundamental principles of the profession - law - and society as a whole.

Ironically, the very laws and constitutional rights that allow TWU to espouse their theocratic impulses are those that will most be in conflict with their graduates, and those same laws and rights are what they will use to try to impose their views on the law societies. If they are successful, then they imperil the religious freedoms of all those who hold different views.

I'm on the side of the lawyers who voted overwhelmingly to not accredit TWU for lawyers.

Show me one instance where they ask someone to change.......one instance where they prohibit gays and lesbians from attending and KEEP being gays and lesbians. All they are asking is to abide by a community standard of NOT practising sex, both gay AND heterosexual. There have been many gay students that have graduated from TWU with NO harm done to their sexuality AND their schooling.

You're worried about a lawyer that comes from this school with Christian values and becomes the downfall of society? Well, that's kind of a laugh isn't it? I know a number of Christian lawyers that everyone seems to have no problems with what so ever, and they come from the normal lawyer mill!!!!!!! What is the difference between having Christian values and attending a "secular" university as opposed to having Christian values and attending TWU? Nothing! You would be very naive if you thought that "normal" universities DIDN'T graduate Christian lawyers, doctors...accountants and so on.

All TWU asks is to abide by a community standard WHILE attending the university. They are not trying to change anyone......

[simnut]

I do not see a conflict if they are training for positions where there is no serious overlap with the foundations of democracy. An engineer, or a nurse, or an agronomist, or a graphic designer etc. who is not required to regularly make decisions that overlap with their theocratic views - just fine by me.

So you would be fine if a bakery refuses to make a wedding cake for a gay couple?

[maryjane48]

Good im glad they disallowed it My community standard allows freedom to be who you are

[simnut]

Good im glad they disallowed it My community standard allows freedom to be who you are

And yet you are not letting "them" be who they are............double standard..........

[maryjane48]

They can be who they are when they decide to be supportive ov the gay community Orthwise its discrimination And why would anyone support that ?

[alfred2]

yet you are discriminating at them . double standard what ever you think it is right no one else is, GOD.

[simnut]

They can be who they are when they decide to be supportive ov the gay community Orthwise its discrimination And why would anyone support that ?

Well, lets' see. Gays and lesbians are MORE than welcome to enroll in the school (there's support), heterosexuals are more than welcome to enroll (there's support). Gay and lesbians have graduated with high honors.....pretty supportive of the school if you ask me. The school may not agree with being gay, but are AS supportive to those students as they are to blacks, whites.....Christians....non Christians etc. I do believe if you are a convicted murderer....more questions may be asked...or they may be a bit more guarded about it (sarcasm)....but I'll tell you one thing, they probably will still support that person in other ways.

TWU is less discriminatory to others, than you are to them.

I went to a Catholic school without being a Catholic, was not asked to participate in the Catholic methodologies. But was treated as well as any of the Catholic kids. There was also many openly gay students enrolled also, which by NO means followed the Catholic religion at that time. No worries....., oh....and no one tried to change them either.

Unless you can understand how to disagree with what someone is or does, but still consider them to be the same quality person you are...you will never understand how TWU CAN produce good lawyers, regardless of race, religion or sexual orientation "despite" the community "contract" ALL students (meaning not just gays) have to agree too.

[hobbyguy]

You need to go back to my statement that Theocracy is antithetical to democracy.

A broad view is necessary for the law to be applied evenly across the diversity of our country. TWU is demonstrably putting forth a narrow view. That disqualifies them.

My bet is that a bakery that refused to make a wedding cake for a gay couple would rightly wind up in big trouble with the law. Part of that case being heard fairly is the PERCEPTION of an objective legal profession. TWU grads could not maintain that perception. - and their education, given the stance of the institution that educated them, would not give them sufficient breadth of view to be impartial.

If the legal system is, or is perceived to be biased, then the rule of law begins to break down.

Our legal system is a secular institution that is fundamental to our democracy.

TWU is inherently NOT qualified to train our future lawyers and judges.

It also begs the question: TWU has not had a law program before - why do they want one now??