Trinity Western- Religious Freedom vs Human Rights

no actualy TWU doesn't get to ride on the bus at all period

As pointed out the TWU covenant goes against some very basic ideas in the charter of rights [HTML_REMOVED] freedoms, still nobody is stopping them just refusing to recognise them as officers of the court which sounds pretty tolerant to me and I can actualy acept TWU wants to have their covenant and should be allowed but they just don't get to have it both ways

there is no muslin/sikh university and the law society is never going to allow Sharia law either

Agreed - different comparison.

And as long as a lawyer does their best to represent a client and stay within the law, their personal beliefs are their right.

I would expect nothing less from a lawyer - but this action isn't about individual lawyers, it's about an institution's practices.

OK then, Supreme Court says it's OK.

http://ultravires.ca/2014/01/trinity-western-university-law-school-gets-approval-canadas-first-faith-based-law-school-is-set-to-open-its-doors-in-2016/

OK then, Supreme Court says it's OK.

http://ultravires.ca/2014/01/trinity-western-university-law-school-gets-approval-canadas-first-faith-based-law-school-is-set-to-open-its-doors-in-2016/

You should read the LSUC Convocation transcript I've linked here many times. They discuss this particular ruling (from 2001) and what's changed since then.

Too many soccer games… :)

Okay, doesn't matter which side one sits on, this is a very well presented article from someone who was on the inside:

http://www.vancouversun.com/life/Opinion+would+Jesus+discriminate+against/9944319/story.html

Too long to post the whole thing, but a few snips -

There has been much recent public debate about whether provincial law societies should recognize proposed law degrees issued by Trinity Western University, a private evangelical institution in Langley.

The issue revolves around what I see as TWU’s clearly discriminatory “community covenant,” which students and faculty must sign, forbidding them to engage in “sexual intimacy that violates the sacredness of marriage between a man and a woman.” Trinity argues that refusal to recognize their degree infringes on their right of religious freedom, while others say law societies should defend the rights and freedoms of gays and lesbians, and even unmarried heterosexual couples.

Trinity has argued that its position is the traditional Christian view, and seems to suggest everyone there shares it; they all sign the covenant, don’t they?

The covenant presumes sexual intimacy and commitment between anyone other than a married man and woman are aberrant, “unbiblical,” and sinful. The prohibition is based on an extremely narrow interpretation of scripture, and mostly on a few statements in letters written by Paul. The covenant speaks of “the Christian or biblical viewpoint” as if there is only one and they have it right. Jesus himself, as far as I can see, delivered no prohibitions against gays and lesbians.

The covenant is not just about belief: it’s about control. If it were about beliefs, Trinity could simply state, “We invite you to respect our community values.” But the Trinity covenant goes further in its effort to exclude, control, and discriminate against others. There’s a core distinction between holding beliefs and attempting to control people’s personal lives, particularly their private and intimate sexual lives.

In arguing they are the ones being discriminated against on the basis of religion, Trinity’s administration is engaged in a classic form of psychological projection. Discriminate against others; then accuse others of discriminating against you.

A 19-year old student who discovered he was gay during his time at Trinity summoned the confidence to “come out” during a presentation in his sex and gender class. One classmate challenged: “I read the King James Version [of the Bible]. It’s hard for me to see how homosexuality is the right choice. How do you expect to get into heaven?” Though other students supported the gay student, it’s hard to believe this atmosphere of intolerance doesn’t lead to psychological harm, especially at a crucial developmental stage in their lives.

Okay, doesn't matter which side one sits on, this is a very well presented article from someone who was on the inside:

http://www.vancouversun.com/life/Opinion+would+Jesus+discriminate+against/9944319/story.html

Too long to post the whole thing, but a few snips -

Reality is this whole issue in the end has nothing to do with religion. But everything to do with controlling people.

And found this tidbit courtesy of a clip from Newsroom. Interestingly the bible tells those who believe should pray in private and keep it private.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_6:6

And

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_6:5

Somehow I don't think that Jesus the one they all pray to would be impressed by these Covenants they impose on others.

And the religious zealots you may attack at will.

Im curious - if I applied to the law school at TWU, lets say because it had some professor's that I found to be highly desirable educators, but then refused to sign the covenant - could I claim discrimination? (assuming that they wont let you enroll unless you sign on the dotted line)…

just turning the tables -

Im curious - if I applied to the law school at TWU, lets say because it had some professor's that I found to be highly desirable educators, but then refused to sign the covenant - could I claim discrimination? (assuming that they wont let you enroll unless you sign on the dotted line)…

just turning the tables -

I am guessing BC Civil Liberties would be happy to help you with this.

Resurrecting this one cuz the BB vote is on and we will find out tomorrow

Resurrecting this one cuz the BB vote is on and we will find out tomorrow

Best Breasts in lawyer robes?

he said Breast! Thats a good one Beavis

In the historic province-wide poll conducted during the month, 5,951 voted in favour and 2,088 voted against a resolution declaring the Langley school not an approved faculty of law.

The referendum required one-third of the profession to participate and a two-thirds majority in order to pass and be binding on the governing benchers.

http://www.vancouversun.com/touch/story.html?id=10339932

thumbs down

Lawyers and doctors get to police themselves. Wish it were that way for everyone.

From the Sun's comments:
_Short and sweet. Holding to a certain core of behavior within a particular situation should have nothing to do with how a lawyer will conduct him/herself in relation to those they represent or the rule of law. The BCTF and The Law Society of B.C. perhaps fail to see that their position is discriminatory. I think it springs from a premise that truth is relative and tolerance is supreme. Ironic that this tolerance is only for those who hold the same beliefs as themselves. In fact such beliefs are very closed to any person, organization or group of Canadians who believe in absolute truths, which in my opinion means the BCTF and Law Society of BC are closed to the beliefs of many Canadians.

Can such lawyers properly represent all clients, even those who hold to absolutes, like a Christian who believes that homosexuality is a sin? In turn can a lawyer coming out of TWU properly represent someone who has beliefs different than their own, say for example a homosexual? Is not this the issue? What TWU requires of their students goes no further than that community. Anyone smart enough to become a lawyer is smart enough to make up their own mind, hold to their own beliefs and still objectively represent their clients. I would prefer a lawyer who had a similar worldview to my own, but if push came to shove I would prefer a competent lawyer who doesn't hold to my worldview over one who holds my worldview but is a poor lawyer._