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

[hedrick]

Hmm, Christian educational institutions are basically unable to require of their students an adherence to Christian morality in Canada. I wonder if other faith based institutions will be forbidden to require certain moral requirements of their students to receive accreditation.

This doesn't apply to most educational institutions. It applies to law schools because of their involvement in licensing for the legal profession.

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.

I did read it. Courts make the narrowest possible ruling. In this case the complaint was that it discriminated against gays. I'm not aware of a Canadian law school with a covenant to confine sex to any marriage including gay marriage. So whether there's a double standard is hypothetical. Courts don't rule on hypothetical questions.

It's worth noting that under Canadian law, issues involving religious freedom are subject to balancing. That makes it different from the US. The Supreme Court acknowledged that going to school with people who agree with them is something people might want, and that this infringes their ability to do that. So religious freedom is involved. However that must be balanced against the obligation to protect against discrimination. Because students can live according to their convictions even when the whole student body isn't obligated to do so, they believe the compromise of religious freedom is less important. However they acknowledge that there is some.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

This doesn't apply to most educational institutions. It applies to law schools because of their involvement in licensing for the legal profession.

Would this not apply to all Christian institutions with moral standards or covenants expected of their students beyond law? The medical field perhaps? Either way this is unfair to the students currently studying there, including the non-existent gay students at this institution.

 

[Arcangl86]

Would this not apply to all Christian institutions with moral standards or covenants expected of their students beyond law? The medical field perhaps? Either way this is unfair to the students currently studying there, including the non-existent gay students at this institution.

Medical school possibly, but my understanding was that law schools were considered different because there are so few of them to begin with.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

Medical school possibly, but my understanding was that law schools were considered different because there are so few of them to begin with.

Even less now.

 

[Arcangl86]

Even less now.

Huh? What do you mean?

 

[hedrick]

Would this not apply to all Christian institutions with moral standards or covenants expected of their students beyond law? The medical field perhaps? Either way this is unfair to the students currently studying there, including the non-existent gay students at this institution.

It could apply to medical schools and other professions, I suppose. But you'd need an expert in Canadian law. I did a small amount of reading, which wasn't enough to see whether the med schools are tied into licensing in the same way as law schools.

As far as I can tell, there are no students in the JD program at Trinity Western. (They may well have a pre-law program.) This was to be a new program.

Increasingly I believe discrimination against LGBTQ will be treated the same as racial discrimination. As a Christian, I agree.

 

[Sparagmos]

I guess it doesn't matter then. But if you are a Christian school, as opposed to just any school, you ought to uphold biblical standards.

You know, the school could teach and promote its idea of Christian standards without also acting as religious police. Churches don’t generally expel congregation if they do not follow a morality code. The congregation is not required to sign a pledge to attend the church. I went to Christian high school and college and signed such pledges. About 85% of the students violated the code. It was useless.

 

[Sparagmos]

Hmm, Christian educational institutions are basically unable to require of their students an adherence to Christian morality in Canada. I wonder if other faith based institutions will be forbidden to require certain moral requirements of their students to receive accreditation.

Only if the moral requirements violate the law.

 

[TLK Valentine]

I gotta wonder how they planned to enforce this rule.

I was about to ask the same thing.

 

[JackRT]

I was about to ask the same thing.

It can only be enforced after the fact by expulsion or some other discipline in order to save face by the university.

 

[TLK Valentine]

It can only be enforced after the fact by expulsion or some other discipline in order to save face by the university.

Which would require the "offending" student to be caught in flagrente delicto.

 

[JackRT]

Which would require the "offending" student to be caught in flagrente delicto.

Or perhaps a snitch.

 

[Hieronymus]

I gotta wonder how they planned to enforce this rule.

I don't think it was about enforcing it.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Or perhaps a snitch.

Generally speaking, it's going to take more than the word of a snitch to expel two students.

 

[TLK Valentine]

I don't think it was about enforcing it.

Then it was a pointless rule to begin with.

 

[Shiloh Raven]

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.

Well said, Jack.

 

[Sparagmos]

Or perhaps a snitch.

I attended a conservative Christian college many years ago with the same types of morality code. “Snitches” were exactly how the rules were enforced. The rules didn’t change anyone’s behavior, they just extended the adolescence of the students. If an adult needs the threat of punishment to keep them from having premarital sex or smoking a cigarette, they aren’t learning self control or making a real commitment to a “moral” life.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Cave to Canada's social vision or lose your accreditation?

Yep, and it's good they did that.

For far too long, people have used the "religious freedom" argument to try to have it both ways. They want to be able to circumnavigate certain rules they don't care for, all the while, they want to reap the same benefits as every other entity in the same sector... they want business licenses, state accreditation for the educational institutions, and tax exemption for certain parts of their business.

If you want "government recognition" and "government perks" then you have to play by "government rules"...simple as that.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Except for the LGBTG community apparently...
They can force their convictions on anybody..

I think people seem to have a hard time understanding what "force" actually means with regards to various lifestyles.

Example:
School telling students they're forbidden from engaging in consensual activities with their own bodies (not harming anyone else or violating their rights) is an example of forcing convictions on someone else.

Wanting to be able to do what makes you happy provided that you don't violate anyone's rights, and vehemently rejecting the notion of other people telling you that you're not allowed because "I don't like to see that" isn't force, that's fighting for the right to own one's self.

 

[Hieronymus]

I think people seem to have a hard time understanding what "force" actually means with regards to various lifestyles.

How about media platform?