Supreme court decides that faith is now banned from Canadas public spaces

[hedrick]

In Canada it is simple --- the government will not legitimize much less fund discrimination, hate or the removal of rights. I am very comfortable with that.

I'm not. I think conservative Christians are wrong, but I don't think it's right to turn them into second-class citizens. Rights buy us nothing if they apply only to people we approve of.

However the jobs application mentioned above require the applicant to acknowledge the following:

• Both the job* and my organization's core mandate* respect individual human rights in Canada, including the values underlying the Canadian Charter
of Rights and Freedoms as well as other rights. These include reproductive rights and the right to be free from discrimination on the basis of sex,
religion, race, national or ethnic origin, colour, mental or physical disability or sexual orientation, or gender identity or expression;

This says nothing about the person's political views. It simply warns them that these types of discrimination will not be permitted on the job. I think that's OK, and it might be OK even in the US (though not politically possible under a Republican administration).

 

[hedrick]

Now, the OP. First the title is a overblown. This doesn't remove faith from public spaces.

I read the Supreme Court decision. Here’s the key section:

“The LSBC’s decision also reasonably balanced the severity of the interference against the benefits to its statutory objectives. The LSBC’s decision did not limit religious freedom to a significant extent because a mandatory covenant is not absolutely required to study law in a Christian environment in which people follow certain religious rules of conduct, and studying law in an environment infused with the community’s religious beliefs is preferred, not necessary, for their spiritual growth.

“On the other side of the scale, it is clear that the decision not to approve TWU’s proposed law school significantly advanced the LSBC’s statutory objectives by maintaining equal access to and diversity in the legal profession and by preventing the risk of significant harm to LGBTQ people. The public confidence in the administration of justice could be undermined by the LSBC’s decision to approve a law school that forces some to deny a crucial component of their identity in the most private and personal of spaces for three years in order to receive a legal education.”

It’s an interesting argument. In another part of the opinion, they agree that this does in fact impact rights guaranteed by the Charter. However they don’t treat those rights as absolute. They have to be balanced against the objectives of the LSBC. The point is that you don’t need to prohibit non-Christians from being in your school to live as a Christian, while making that restriction limits access to law schools for gays.

It’s hard to argue with the analysis, given the basic approach. In the US we give higher priority to constitutional rights. Admittedly there are varying degrees depending upon the situation, with “strict scrutiny” applying only in some cases. But still, from a US point of view it looks like people in Canada don’t have rights, just things that would be nice to have.

 

[redleghunter]

Christians are not banned. Not as a group or otherwise.
One must acknowledge the rights of others under the law in order to receive funding from the government.

I don't see how that is any different than our government telling the Catholic adoption agency that if they want funding from the US government that they must agree to allow same sex couples to adopt children from their agency. If they don't agree to do that they can't be a part of the government program and will loose funding.

One is adoption which is related to well adopting kids.

One is summer jobs for young people based on their views of abortion.

 

[JackRT]

I'm not. I think conservative Christians are wrong, but I don't think it's right to turn them into second-class citizens. Rights buy us nothing if they apply only to people we approve of.

I can fully agree with this. However, as a Canadian citizen I do not see that happening here. What I do see is some resentment that finds its roots in a sense of Christian entitlement. In fact, I see this sense of entitlement very strongly in these forums and very much less so in Canada itself.

 

[redleghunter]

I can fully agree with this. However, as a Canadian citizen I do not see that happening here. What I do see is some resentment that finds its roots in a sense of Christian entitlement. In fact, I see this sense of entitlement very strongly in these forums and very much less so in Canada itself.

I'm not seeing much of the way of an entitlement mentality towards Christians in your country. Far from it. Yet I probably know why many Christian schools even the Catholic ones are constantly in conflict. They take public funding.

 

[S.O.J.I.A.]

it is what it is,

good on that university for attempting to establish an institution that would uphold biblical moral standards dealing with marriage. this isn't just about homosexuality here. it's saying that all sexual activity is to be relegated to heterosexual marriage. so this affects fornicators and fapdragon inappropriate content watchers too.

however, all governments are derelict of their romans 13:1-7 duty of promoting good and punishing the evil of society so this was bound to happen. it happened in Paul's day and it's no different now.

nothing you can really do about it.

 

[Paidiske]

MOD HAT ON
This thread has been moved to the Current News & Events forum.​

Please note and abide by the SOP of this forum.​

MOD HAT OFF​

 

[JacksBratt]

In Canada, we have an actor for a Prime Minister. He is a theater performer and his lines are written by those like the Aga Khan.

He gives so called refugees, who are fleeing from all the so called "hostility" of the US, free passage and $1700.00 a month. Meanwhile decorated veterans who fought to keep our country free get nest to nothing.

Trump made some comment about Muslims and Trudeau had to open his big mouth and show how kind he was....and do the opposite of Trump.

I have no problem with treating people of every religion and every belief the same... It matters not what you believe or worship.... until.... you encroach on the rights of any other human being.

It matters not if you are a gang banger shooting up a street, or a suicide bomber, cereal killer or whatever. ..... If you hurt someone else, on purpose, it's wrong.

Trudeau brought out a law where you are not allowed to criticize a Muslim. Now everyone is labeling anyone else ( new word alert ) "Islamophobes". Changing all the laws to do with human rights when, all the while, we already have laws against "hate" crimes....that cover this issue already.

I think that Trudeau is a Muslim wannabe. He is definitely bought and paid for by the Aga Kahn.

He won't do anything, however, if someone says something against Christians.

I'm not surprised though... It is 2018 after all.

Canada is going down the same road as other countries who try to befriend an influx of a new culture but neglect to say as Australia did...." You want to live here.... accept our ways.....don't go running from your home and trying to set up the same thing that you ran from, here."

I'm not sure of the exact wording but there are a lot of places that are attractive to other people from other countries... then the people go there and try to make it like home.... I say.. go back then.

Sorry for the rant... I'm tired... I'll stop.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

If I understand the ruling, it is saying you cannot have a perspective on human sexuality at odds with the government's perspective if you wish for the government to recognize your education. To expect Christians to comply with secular ethics that inspire the government's take on these issues is to hamper any prospect of a legitimate Christian education except for the most liberal kind. It's obvious they don't want conservative Christian schools involved in educating lawyers and other secular professions.

The Logic of the court is odd. They ruled that because an LGBT would be unlikely to go to this university that therefore they were guilty of being inequal of their treatment. The obvious counter point is duh, of course they are inequal in that they are Christian. Why would an LGBT person ever want to attend a conservative Christian school which espouses that ethic? Heck, why would an Atheist want to attend such a religious institution? Why does every school have to cater to every person? Institutions have unique character be they religious or secular and we should prefer the institution be honest about who they are and what they offer rather than be vague.

I'm not surprised either way and expect nothing less of secularists. They are advancing their goals and doing what their conscience tells them to do.

 

[hedrick]

If I understand the ruling, it is saying you cannot have a perspective on human sexuality at odds with the government's perspective if you wish for the government to recognize your education.

Please note that I think the Canadian approach to rights is wrong. But it's not wrong in the way you suggest. Indeed the Court agrees that conservative Christians have the right to follow their own standards of human sexuality. That right is protected by the Canadian Charter. They point out that if the covenant required by the schools is removed, conservative Christians can still live according to their standards.

It is not a tenet of the Christian faith (they say) that Christians must be educated in an environment with only other Christians of the same type, but only that Christians must act as Christians themselves. While they accept that being educated in a Christian environment is a legitimate desire, being deprived of it is not an attack on their religious liberty. So the desire to be in an exclusive Christian environment is a desire that can be balanced against the legal mandate to give equal access to the legal profession for LBQT students.

To some extent this is about equal access. At least in the US, it's hard to get into law school. Having two law schools that are effectively closed to LBQT students would tend to make access to the legal profession more difficult for LBQT students.

However I believe there was in the opinion a certain sentiment in opposition to conservative Christianity. Clearly the court did not, and I think would not, say that conservative Christians should not be allowed to become lawyers. Although this argument isn't quite explicit, I think the opinion does suggest that the court thinks law students ought not to be educated in an anti-gay environment. You can see this in their comments about fostering distrust in the legal profession. So I don't think the decision was just about equal access for LBQT students.

 

[hedrick]

If you look at the decisions in the US and Canada, the right of conservative Christians to advocate and live by their own standards is not at risk. What is at risk is the ability to impose those standards on others or refuse to deal with others on the same basis as people with which they agree.

That is, in a sense, a restriction of the role of religion in the public square. It is now being treated as a purely private preference much like being a fan of science fiction. However that change in approach is to a reasonable extent the result of the history of Christianity of attacking the rights of others: slaves, black people, women, gays. Everybody knows that Christianity is anti-gay. Not as many know what Jesus is really about. As many people have come to see those attacks as immoral, the Church is beginning to be treated like the KKK: something that constitutionally we have to allow the freedom to exist, but something whose influence has to be contained.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

Please note that I think the Canadian approach to rights is wrong. But it's not wrong in the way you suggest. Indeed the Court agrees that conservative Christians have the right to follow their own standards of human sexuality. That right is protected by the Canadian Charter. They point out that if the covenant required by the schools is removed, conservative Christians can still live according to their standards.

It is not a tenet of the Christian faith (they say) that Christians must be educated in an environment with only other Christians of the same type, but only that Christians must act as Christians themselves. While they accept that being educated in a Christian environment is a legitimate desire, being deprived of it is not an attack on their religious liberty. So the desire to be in an exclusive Christian environment is a desire that can be balanced against the legal mandate to give equal access to the legal profession for LBQT students.

To some extent this is about equal access. At least in the US, it's hard to get into law school. Having two law schools that are effectively closed to LBQT students would tend to make access to the legal profession more difficult for LBQT students.

However I believe there was in the opinion a certain sentiment in opposition to conservative Christianity. Clearly the court did not, and I think would not, say that conservative Christians should not be allowed to become lawyers. Although this argument isn't quite explicit, I think the opinion does suggest that the court thinks law students ought not to be educated in an anti-gay environment. You can see this in their comments about fostering distrust in the legal profession. So I don't think the decision was just about equal access for LBQT students.

If I understanding your opinion of their argument: Christians have a right to follow their standards, but not a right to require their prospective students from respecting and adhering to those standards? This is because there is a 'right to equal access' and requiring LGBT persons not to engage in that sort of activity is to deny their access to an institution. The solution then is deny accreditation so that... what exactly?

As you pointed out this doesn't seem to be about equal access at all but rather encouraging an LGBT accepting culture. A right to equal access is so loose a right as to not require anything of a student at all lest we tamper with this so called right. Are universities now required to not consider the grades of their applicants in Canada lest they deny someone's right to equal access?

It's absurd to me that the reason for denying accreditation is not on the basis of the course structure or that somehow they weren't giving these students a good education but because they were asking those who attend to adhere to Christian values. This is the violent side of secularism that tolerates no religious perspective in matters of the public square.

 

[PaulCyp1]

Obviously no-one can ban faith. They can ban public group expressions of faith, but I have my faith and live by it wherever I go, and no-one can stop me from doing so.

 

[hedrick]

This is because there is a 'right to equal access' and requiring LGBT persons not to engage in that sort of activity is to deny their access to an institution. The solution then is deny accreditation so that... what exactly?

If it's difficult to get into a law school, there are N schools that LGBT can go to and N+2 that anti-LGBT can go to, LGBT find it somewhat more difficult to get into law school than others.

I'm not sure how serious the bias is, but I agree that there is some.

It's absurd to me that the reason for denying accreditation is not on the basis of the course structure or that somehow they weren't giving these students a good education but because they were asking those who attend to adhere to Christian values.

I looked at the decision again. The primary reasons for it had to do with access to the profession, not the nature of the education at those schools. Here's the key points they made.

By having some Law schools that don't allow LGBTQ people, or restrict them from living as LGBTQ people

* LGBTQ people are given less access to the law profession than others.

* Some LGBTQ people (presumably the concern is that someone might only be admitted to one of the two schools involved, and thus would have no choice but to go there) who are training to be a lawyer would be forced to do so in a school "that forces some to deny a crucial component of their identity in the most private and personal of spaces for three years in order to receive a legal education."

Is it reasonable that an LGBTQ person might end up in one of those schools? I think so. In very highly selective programs, it is very hard to find the best people in a completely consistent way. There's a large random component to which school you get into. It's quite plausible that only one law school would admit someone, and thus the an LGBTQ person might only be admitted by one of the two schools in question.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

If it's difficult to get into a law school, there are N schools that LGBT can go to and N+2 that anti-LGBT can go to, LGBT find it somewhat more difficult to get into law school than others.

I'm not sure how serious the bias is, but I agree that there is some.

I looked at the decision again. The primary reasons for it had to do with access to the profession, not the nature of the education at those schools. Here's the key points they made.

By having some Law schools that don't allow LGBTQ people, or restrict them from living as LGBTQ people

* LGBTQ people are given less access to the law profession than others.

* Some LGBTQ people (presumably the concern is that someone might only be admitted to one of the two schools involved, and thus would have no choice but to go there) who are training to be a lawyer would be forced to do so in a school "that forces some to deny a crucial component of their identity in the most private and personal of spaces for three years in order to receive a legal education."

Is it reasonable that an LGBTQ person might end up in one of those schools? I think so. In very highly selective programs, it is very hard to find the best people in a completely consistent way. There's a large random component to which school you get into. It's quite plausible that only one law school would admit someone, and thus the an LGBTQ person might only be admitted by one of the two schools in question.

If access to law schools is so low, why does denying accreditation to this school help anyone?That just causes there to be less access all around. The logic of the decision is non-sensical and isn't about equal access (which should not be considered a right) or providing more access to schools. If an LGBT person wants to join and knows the rules, they should abide by those rules if they value the education offered. This is simply the enforcement of secularism and the sexual revolution.

It is amazing to think a school is denied it's accreditation because it asks of its students to refrain from pre-marital sex.

 

[ubicaritas]

If you look at the decisions in the US and Canada, the right of conservative Christians to advocate and live by their own standards is not at risk. What is at risk is the ability to impose those standards on others or refuse to deal with others on the same basis as people with which they agree.

That is, in a sense, a restriction of the role of religion in the public square. It is now being treated as a purely private preference much like being a fan of science fiction. However that change in approach is to a reasonable extent the result of the history of Christianity of attacking the rights of others: slaves, black people, women, gays. Everybody knows that Christianity is anti-gay. Not as many know what Jesus is really about. As many people have come to see those attacks as immoral, the Church is beginning to be treated like the KKK: something that constitutionally we have to allow the freedom to exist, but something whose influence has to be contained.

It's just European-style Laïcité.

It's not clear to me if the issue is public funding or accredation, though it seems to be an issue of accredation?

 

[hedrick]

It's just European-style Laïcité.

It's not clear to me if the issue is public funding or accredation, though it seems to be an issue of accredation?

Yes. It’s accreditation.

 

[grasping the after wind]

Yes. It’s accreditation.

If it is accreditation I have a number of questions. Would graduation from a non accredited university hamper one's ability to practice law in Canada? Why would a rule about premarital sex be especially onerous only for LGBT? I do not understand the logical train of thought behind that concept. If no student is supposed to engage in premarital sex then where is the discrimination toward LGBT? Does the college say only LGBT students are to refrain form premarital sex? If not, then if there is any discrimination it is discrimination against all those that are not married not against one particular group of the unmarried. If Christians found themselves in a university situation analogous to the one portrayed here as unwelcoming to LGBT. i.e. an atmosphere that they feel uncomfortable in because they find that being who they are is frowned upon in that community, would the government of Canada refuse accreditation for that university based upon the same consideration it has done so in this case?

 

[JackRT]

I think that the posts by hedrick on this thread have been informative and insightful --- as they invariably are in any thread he posts in. At any rate the thread title, Supreme court decides that faith is now banned from Canadas public spaces, is both sensationalist and highly misleading.

 

[ubicaritas]

Yes. It’s accreditation.

That's unfortunate, then. I'm no fan of the university's policies, but I value religious freedom also.