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

[RestoreTheJoy]

You'll have to give a little more detail as to what you're referring to?

When you say "media platform" you mean radio/TV/movies? If so, those are 100% optional and nobody is being forced to consume any of those media platforms if they don't want to.

Stopping someone else from doing what they want to do (when they're not harming anyone) is force.

Not allowing people to dictate the actions of others based on "I don't like that, so I don't want them doing it because I don't want to see it" isn't force...it's preventing them from using force on others.

But no one is "stopping" anyone either. The school should be permitted to uphold their own religious teachings, and those students who do not uphold those teachings should find another school.

 

[Sparagmos]

You are right that a church doesn't do this, generally (though I hear some do).

But a private school is permitted to have its own rules. You don't have to follow them, but if you voluntarily apply, you are accepting the terms.

I’m not arguing that the school doesn’t have the right to have rules. We have the right to do all kinds of things that aren’t a good idea.

 

[TLK Valentine]

But no one is "stopping" anyone either. The school should be permitted to uphold their own religious teachings, and those students who do not uphold those teachings should find another school.

I can't speak for Canadian law, but here in the States, Bob Jones University tried that approach when they tried to keep out the coloreds... on religious grounds, of course.

...they lost.

 

[Tinker Grey]

I can't speak for Canadian law, but here in the States, Bob Jones University tried that approach when they tried to keep out the coloreds... on religious grounds, of course.

...they lost.

IIRC, it was about a policy on interracial dating.

 

[essentialsaltes]

IIRC, it was about a policy on interracial dating.

Nobody changed their policy about race-mixing. But they lost their tax break.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Nobody changed their policy about race-mixing. But they lost their tax break.

IIRC, they changed their policy on interracial dating in order to keep their tax-exempt status.

 

[Arcangl86]

IIRC, they changed their policy on interracial dating in order to keep their tax-exempt status.

They lost their tax-exempt status and didn't change their policy for almost 2 decades.

 

[Dave-W]

In Geneses, the scripture I mentioned earlier, and asked you to read

Actually, that gives no reason other than wickedness. Genesis never says what that wickedness is. Ezekiel DOES say.

 

[Dave-W]

......do you really think that is Sodomy?

“Sodomy” is not a biblical term. The Bible does talk about “sodomites” but those are people, not actions; and it never defines what makes them sodomites.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Hello?

...ah yes. the old "drag queen storytime" thing. I like how every single push for LGBT equality and demanding the removal of discriminatory rules is somehow equated with a drag queen in bad makeup reading to kids and somehow evidence of how any push for equality is somehow "forcing homosexuality on children". Ever since it happened, many anti-gay folks try to use that as their trump card in debates about the topic when it seems the facts aren't on their side.

C'mon, you know why this is a ridiculous slippery slow (and false equivalency) argument. Can we keep the conversation in the realm of realistic?

If you want to debate a topic about drag queen story time, then start a thread about it. This topic is about an institution (that receives public funding), making discriminatory (religious-based) rules that don't conform to public standards.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Exploiting an often assumed victim status.

It's not assumed victim status...they are, in many cases, legitimate victims. Being targets of discrimination, and having other people try to restrict your actions (that don't impact them), as an adult, because of their preferences would make you a victim of discrimination.

Meanwhile pushing enmity towards people with traditional views.

Using the "traditional" adjective is just a way to give discrimination a noble-sounding attribute. Please call it what it is, discriminatory. Wanting to have codified rules that blatantly establish gay people as "less than" others are discriminatory. We're not talking about views, we're talking about official rules. You're free to have whatever views you'd like, what you're not free to do is use the force of rule to make everyone else conform to them if what they're doing isn't violating anyone else's rights.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

But no one is "stopping" anyone either. The school should be permitted to uphold their own religious teachings, and those students who do not uphold those teachings should find another school.

Does that school receive any form of public accreditation or public funding? If so, then they do have to play by certain rules because either of those things are true, it's not just "your" money paying for it anymore, it's "our money".

 

[Hieronymus]

...ah yes. the old "drag queen storytime" thing.

It's not old.
This was fairly recent and something that has never been done before.
Programming toddlers.

I like how every single push for LGBT equality and demanding the removal of discriminatory rules is somehow equated with a drag queen in bad makeup reading to kids and somehow evidence of how any push for equality is somehow "forcing homosexuality on children".

Then what would you call a campaign like that?
Not to mention that the person looks demonic.

Ever since it happened, many anti-gay folks

Hold your horses amigo.
Nobody here said anything about being anti-gay.
It rather seems that you have been programmed to react that way when people have objections to promoting / pushing the LGBT narrative.
That's NOT the same as being "anti-gay".
It's probably you who is anti Christian.

 

[Hieronymus]

It's not assumed victim status...they are, in many cases, legitimate victims.

Of what?
People finding their lifestyle wrong?
IS that an offence?
Is that illegal?
How about they themselves finding other people wrong and objectionable?
Or is that all of a sudden justifiable?

Being targets of discrimination,

They themselves choose to be different and show it off.
Not all of them of course.

 

[Hieronymus]

You’re full of it. What you describe isn’t happening.

You're full of denial.
As if i'm making stuff up here.

 

[Hieronymus]

There's no such thing as consensual sex with children because children can't consent.

Of course children can consent.
It's still illegal though.

Why is that so hard to understand?

It's baloney.

 

[Hieronymus]

OK, now it is 'social justice warriors' that you object to? Personally, I am a big fan of justice ---

Ah, right...
That doesn't stop you from doing my post injustice by implying i don't like justice...
How cheap...

of all varieties not just social.

Yes yes yes...
So what then would it be that i actually object to?
I already told you all.
Hypocrisy.
I object to hypocrisy, to double standards, and, as a Christian, to imposing anti Christian ideas and ideologies on people.

 

[Hieronymus]

And hiding what these priests and bishops have done, even protecting them from punishment.

Well, indeed that's a horrible disgusting thing that should be battled hard.
In stead of protection these people should get the heaviest sentences for their crimes, because they claim to be representatives of (what) God (stands for), which is the opposite of what they have done / do.

...but it has nothing to do with this case...

 

[Hieronymus]

This statement would appear to be ludicrously wrong. Both historically and in current alt-reich politics.

So which God / god do you think was with them?
Or did you just want to take another cheap shot?

 

[TLK Valentine]

IIRC, it was about a policy on interracial dating.

Ah, yes, my bad. I thought their line in the sand was deeper.