Canadian SC: Christian law school can't forbid students from gay sex

[JackRT]

A fairly large block of my fellow Christians have what could be called an entitlement mentality. For a great many centuries we Christians have had things our own way and have controlled society to such an extent that we have been able to impose our own agenda without challenge. However, when minority groups started demanding and receiving rights that they had previously been denied, rights that Christians held all along, these same Christians felt threatened and some even claimed that they were being persecuted. Rights and freedoms are not part of a zero-sum game. Expanding them does not thereby reduce them for some other group. For example, extending marriage rights to homosexuals has not reduced the rights of heterosexuals in the slightest way. In reality Christians have lost no rights and are not threatened in any meaningful way. In Canada and the USA Christians are certainly not being persecuted.

 

[Arcangl86]

Since most estimates put the numbers of gays at 10% or less of the population, I think the extramarital sex prohibition would have the much greater impact.

So why is this only about the gay side of it?

I didn't read the opinion, but I suspect because of the double standard. It's fine for somebody who was straight and married to have sex, but it was never ok for gay people to have sex, even if they are also married.

 

[Shiloh Raven]

I'm not sure you understand what a conviction is. If those two people over there are allowed to do something you don't like, it has not changed your conviction that it is wrong.

And here I thought Christians were suppose to be concerned with their own sins. It has something to do with being concerned with the speck in their own eye and not the plank in another person's eye.

 

[essentialsaltes]

I understand that but you did bring up the church.Try and keep track of what your posting. See below:

Sorry, there is no reference to a church there. The subject of the sentence is nobody. We're talking about people. Bob can't stop Fred and Frank from getting married. Fred and Frank getting married does not force Bob to change his opinion.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Sorry, there is no reference to a church there. The subject of the sentence is nobody. We're talking about people. Bob can't stop Fred and Frank from getting married. Fred and Frank getting married does not force Bob to change his opinion.

Yahweh never forced anyone to change their opinion or their lives - in fact most people never turn to Yahweh to be saved - so they are simply thrown in the lake of fire that was prepared not for people, but was prepared for satan and his angels who rebelled.

 

[Shiloh Raven]

Sorry, there is no reference to a church there. The subject of the sentence is nobody. We're talking about people. Bob can't stop Fred and Frank from getting married. Fred and Frank getting married does not force Bob to change his opinion.

And Fred and Frank getting married does not effect Bob whatsoever and it is none of Bob's concern if Fred and Frank get married. Bob seriously needs to learn how to mind his own business and he needs to concern himself with the speck in his own eye before he goes after the plank in someone else's eye.

 

[Hieronymus]

Wait a moment.
What exactly are we talking about here anyway?
We have only a short OP to go by here.
Probably a summary of a news article, which may be biased in itself.
Or maybe not, but chances are they are.

Canada’s top court

Okay, Canada.
Trudeau's globalist puppet country, who submitted to the new immigration mandates from the UN.
Just as bad as most EU governments basically.
Kalergi plan in effect...
Political Climate regarding this sort of things: anti Christian.

has ruled in favour of denying accreditation to a Christian law school that banned students from having gay sex.

No surprise there.
But is it justified?
Maybe.
Depends.
I don't think they have that right if they don't actually witness it or have proof of an other nature.
I assume it's not about having gay sex on the school grounds.
But if it does, i think they should have the right to ban students who do.
It is afterall a Christian University.
But then all sexual intercourse on the school grounds should be a problem, unless perhaps if those students were married according to how God envisioned marriage.

But i don't know, so i read on:

Friday’s ruling against Trinity Western University in British Columbia (BC) was closely watched by both religious freedom and gay rights advocates.

The university made students promise not to have extra-marital or gay sex.

Again, where?
Anywhere?
Okay, probably anywhere.
So i take it they have to fill in some form and this is one of the questions.
They probably do this so that only God fearing Christians attend.
Who fears God will (at least in the university's view) have at least some kind of problem with homosexual behaviour, sodomy in particular.
Afterall, God did not intend the male exit to be a sexual entrance..
Also, in and of itself it can be considered quite disgusting to put a body part inside where the excrements are.
It can rightfully be considered 'dirty' in the most literal sense.

Either way, this question / promise thing is put there by the University because, as a Christian University, they want to limit their services to people who have a problem with gay sex.
The Bible is quite clear about what God thinks of it, and that justifies a Christian organisation to uphold the same standards.

However, this question / promise thing says nothing about students having homosexual feelings / inclinations.
And i don't think it's their place to ban people because of homosexual feelings / inclinations.
It is their place though, to discourage homosexual behaviour, at least, on the school property.
It is also their place to prohibit any promotion of homosexuality.
They are afterall Christians, and they run this University accordingly (or so they are expected to).

The Supreme Court found that protecting LGBT students from discrimination trumped religious freedom.

Well, they would, wouldn't they...
But they forget that they discriminate Christians by doing so..
But that's okay, apparently...
I mean, they're only stupid Christians.
No way they would rule similarly if it was about an Islamic university implementing their religious convictions.

Besides that, it's actually the LGBT (not LGBGT? oh wait, that was the MG B GT, a British car from the 60s ) community that very much wants to discriminate (means differentiate basically) themselves from the traditionally inclined majority of the people.
Most of that majority of the people don't care what makes someone's hormones rush, as long as it doesn't hurt anyone, and as long as they don't demand approval.
But the LBGT community claims to be a victim when people don't embrace them and what they stand for.
Meanwhile they themselves refuse to embrace the more traditional majority of people or what they stand for.

But don't be fooled by their large presence and representation in the media !!
It's not like that in the real world.



So, in short, a typical modern day case about feigned victimhood versus Christian morals and values.

 

[Hieronymus]

Since most estimates put the numbers of gays at 10% or less of the population, I think the extramarital sex prohibition would have the much greater impact.

So why is this only about the gay side of it?

Probably because it is an abomination to God.

 

[Daniel C]

Sorry, there is no reference to a church there. The subject of the sentence is nobody. We're talking about people. Bob can't stop Fred and Frank from getting married. Fred and Frank getting married does not force Bob to change his opinion.

Marriage. What do people get married in? Two things-registry offices and churches. Registry offices already accept gay marriage so who (justifiably) has a ban on it?The church!Your response was in relation to communities (LGBT) and gay marriage being refused.

Don't be stubborn.It's there for everyone to see.

 

[Hieronymus]

And Fred and Frank getting married does not effect Bob whatsoever and it is none of Bob's concern if Fred and Frank get married. Bob seriously needs to learn how to mind his own business and he needs to concern himself with the speck in his own eye before he goes after the plank in someone else's eye.

It's obviously about Christian morals and values as given by God.
I think you may find i've explained things better in my previous post.
And you don't have to agree, but then you probably wouldn't want to go to a / that Christian University.
I suspect i wouldn't want to be a student there either, by the way.

 

[Shiloh Raven]

Proverbs 6:16-19 states that there are seven things abominations God detests: haughty eyes, a lying tongue, hands that shed innocent blood, a heart that devises wicked schemes, feet that are swift in running to mischief, a false witness who utters lies, and one who spreads strife among brothers.

Where's the moral outrage and indignation to all these other biblical abominations? And there is also this: What are abominations according to the Bible? That's a very long list to be indignant over.

A lying tongue? No one can tell me that there's not a single Christian in this thread who is condemning homosexuality as an abomination isn't guilty of lying. So, do we cast stones at these Christians now?

 

[Hieronymus]

Marriage. What do people get married in?

In / into eachother, essentially.
And they (a man and a woman) become one flesh.
They have children too, usually.

 

[Hieronymus]

Proverbs 6:16-19 states that there are seven things abominations God detests: haughty eyes, a lying tongue, hands that shed innocent blood, a heart that devises wicked schemes, feet that are swift in running to mischief, a false witness who utters lies, and one who spreads strife among brothers.

Where's the moral outrage and indignation to all these other biblical abominations? And there is also this: What are abominations according to the Bible? That's a very long list.

A lying tongue? No one can tell me that there's not a single Christian in this thread who is condemning homosexuality as an abomination isn't guilty of lying. So, do we cast stones at these Christians now?

Hey, anyone can cast stones at Christians.
We're used to it.
And don't tell us that homosexuality is not an abomination to God when you can't find the verse to support it is.

 

[Hieronymus]

Is there a Muslim law school in Canada that is preventing its students from having gay sex?

Probably, if there's one at all.
Besides, there are plenty of Islamic teachings and rules that should offend the LGBT community and other 'Social Justice Warriors'.
Double standards.

 

[Shiloh Raven]

Hey, anyone can cast stones at Christians.
We're used to it.
And don't tell us that homosexuality is not an abomination to God when you can't find the verse to support it is.

I never said the bible didn't say it. I was just pointing out the fact that homosexuality is apparently some Christians pet sin to condemn while conveniently ignoring every other sin in the bible. I guess it would easier for these Christians to condemn the one sin they aren't likely to commit themselves.

In other words, those who live in glass houses should not throw stones.

 

[Hieronymus]

I never said the bible didn't say it. I was just pointing out the fact that homosexuality is apparently some Christians pet sin to condemn while conveniently ignoring every other sin in the bible.

That's your crooked perception, i´m afraid...
Your favourite mouthpieces have probably portrayed it that way.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Marriage. What do people get married in? Two things-registry offices and churches. Registry offices already accept gay marriage so who (justifiably) has a ban on it?The church!

What's this 'the' church? The only gay marriage I've attended was at a church.

Your response was in relation to communities (LGBT) and gay marriage being refused.

No my response was about people not being able to prevent (not refuse) somebody's marriage.

Don't be stubborn.It's there for everyone to see.

Certainly the word church is not there to see. But let's do this. Let's talk about churches.

Legalizing gay marriage does not force any individuals to change their opinions; nor does it force any churches to change their by-laws or theology or whatever. Or at least that's how it has been done in the US and (I presume) elsewhere. No one, so far as I know, has been advocating to change churches' theology from the outside to force them to perform gay marriages.

Women's equality has not forced the Catholic church to ordain women.

 

[Hieronymus]

I think God does agree with me that Christians shouldn't force their faith upon others.

Nobody forces anyone to go to that university.

You didn't answer my question though.

 

[Hieronymus]

Well, they don't seem to have forced their convictions on you, or me or anyone else that I know.

O they had, but not anymore.
It's still deeply embedded in our modern culture.
Maybe you just haven't noticed it, or it's different in your environment.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Probably, if there's one at all.
Besides, there are plenty of Islamic teachings and rules that should offend the LGBT community and other 'Social Justice Warriors'.
Double standards.

In the US, First Amendment protections of religion and speech exist precisely to protect offensive things.

Nobody's trying to use the force of law to change your offensive opinions or teachings. Or theirs. There's no double standard.

But if you apply those rules to injure people unequally, then you will find some legal resistance in places where equality under the law is important.