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

[Hieronymus]

Certainly it does.

Only in your mind.

 

[Hieronymus]

No, you're just a liar.

But the self identifying Christians were not?

I don't believe 95% of the Germans were lying on their census forms.

Well, we were discussing WWII nazi-ism.
I think many Christian Germans were fooled into following it.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

Certainly it does. I don't care whether they satisfy you. I know they weren't worshipping Jupiter or Aphrodite. They were Christians who worshipped Jesus. That is the god they thought was with them, in answer to the question asked of me.

Absolutely wrong! The devil himself will ID as a Christian if conducive to his plans, and as seen in many forums, so do many liberals who oppose basic Scripture teaching on faith and morals.

The term "Christian" comes from the Bible - "And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch: - Acts 11:26) - and refers to a people who effectually believed the gospel of salvation by obedient faith and doctrines preached to them, and thus could testify to a definite manifest conversion and lived it out (not merely given assent to a creed), and worshiped the Christ of Scripture in spirit and in truth. (Acts 1-5)

And those among them who backslide where chastised, and told to separate from the impenitent and disfellowship them. (Acts 2,3; 1+2Co.) And who at first were only Jewish and converts to it, and who gave the Jews priority in conversion.

And after being shown the Gentiles were also to be recipients of the gospel, as foretold, then they were taught that spiritually there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free: but Christ is all, and in all, (Colossians 3:11) while affirming the Jews as being historical recipients of grace and beloved for the father's sake, with a future conversion yet promised . (Romans 9-11)

And which Christians, even when persecuted by unbelieving Jews, though they warned them of making themselves objects of Divine judgment (as with others), yet they did not raise arms against them, while Paul expressed how that (like Moses) he was willing to be accursed if that would mean their conversion. (Romans 9:3)

And who were often persecuted by the state for not giving Caesar the degree of homage and allegiance required.

In contrast, Lutheranism had evidently become more form than substance, much like Catholicism whom it did not separate enough from, and thus gave Hitler what he required, with only remnant evangelicals daring to dissent.

 

[Hazelelponi]

Spoken like a true Pharisee!

If I pay for a private "Christian" education then I don't expect a typical secular collegiate experience, it's not what I'm paying for.

If I want a typical secular education then that's what ill pay for.

As a matter of course, 99% of Christian denominations believe and teach homosexuality to be a sin on par with other sins like fornication - whether or not a state issue marriage license exists.

What I'm noticing from the "we don't want to interfere with you practicing your religion the way you see fit, we just want the tax breaks and other governmental perks of marriage for our homosexual relationships" crowd is that they are chasing down all these obscure private Christian institutions to attack Christianity and its freedom of practice the way Christians see fit.

I'm fairly certain that there wasn't mass homosexuality in this Christian college that was having their rights violated, it's a bunch of homosexuals using government to interfere in the practice of Christianity where homosexuality doesn't exist.

Just like everyone was promised would never happen. Go figure.

 

[hedrick]

I'm fairly certain that there wasn't mass homosexuality in this Christian college that was having their rights violated, it's a bunch of homosexuals using government to interfere in the practice of Christianity where homosexuality doesn't exist.

They wanted to create a new program. Because people graduating from the program are pretty much automatically accepted as lawyers, the legal licensing people have to approve new programs. The program was initially approved, but it was eventually rejected, based on a referendum of members of the law society that did the licensing.

The vote was triggered by Michael Mulligan, an expert on constitutional law and civil liberties, who gathered signatures of 5% of the members needed to trigger a review. Here's what he said:

“The discriminatory principles reflected in the Trinity Western University covenant would appear to be inconsistent with one of the core principles reflected in the barristers’ and solicitors’ oath: that barristers and solicitors uphold the rights and freedoms of all persons according to the laws of Canada and British Columbia,” [Victoria lawyer fights sex policy at proposed law school]

At about the same time, "lawyers for openly gay Vancouver park board commissioner Trevor Loke filed a B.C. Supreme Court petition to sue the provincial government for approving the law school.

"Loke, who identifies himself as a Christian, said the decision fosters a discriminatory policy, denies him access to one of the four law schools in the province, and violates his rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms." [op cit]

However it's not clear how much effect Loke's suit had, since the eventual refusal of licensing would have made it moot.

As I understand the news articles, it was actually up to provincial law societies whether to accept the degree in their province. Two ended up saying no, one (Nova Scotia) yes. I'm a bit vague here because it ended up with the Supreme Court. But I think the Supreme Court affirmed that BC and Upper Canada could refuse licensing. As far as I can tell, Nova Scotia's decision was not appealed, and would stand. However I doubt TWU would operate a program just for Nova Scotia.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Absolutely wrong! The devil himself will ID as a Christian if conducive to his plans,

Ah, but the Devil is a Christian... you have to believe in Jesus' mission in order to want to sabotage it.

 

[rambot]

If I pay for a private "Christian" education then I don't expect a typical secular collegiate experience, it's not what I'm paying for.

If I want a typical secular education then that's what ill pay for.

As a matter of course, 99% of Christian denominations believe and teach homosexuality to be a sin on par with other sins like fornication - whether or not a state issue marriage license exists.

What I'm noticing from the "we don't want to interfere with you practicing your religion the way you see fit, we just want the tax breaks and other governmental perks of marriage for our homosexual relationships" crowd is that they are chasing down all these obscure private Christian institutions to attack Christianity and its freedom of practice the way Christians see fit.

I'm fairly certain that there wasn't mass homosexuality in this Christian college that was having their rights violated, it's a bunch of homosexuals using government to interfere in the practice of Christianity where homosexuality doesn't exist.

Just like everyone was promised would never happen. Go figure.

IS there a "critical mass" of rights violations before you being to be concerned?

 

[Hazelelponi]

They wanted to create a new program. Because people graduating from the program are pretty much automatically accepted as lawyers, the legal licensing people have to approve new programs. The program was initially approved, but it was eventually rejected, based on a referendum of members of the law society that did the licensing.

The vote was triggered by Michael Mulligan, an expert on constitutional law and civil liberties, who gathered signatures of 5% of the members needed to trigger a review. Here's what he said:

“The discriminatory principles reflected in the Trinity Western University covenant would appear to be inconsistent with one of the core principles reflected in the barristers’ and solicitors’ oath: that barristers and solicitors uphold the rights and freedoms of all persons according to the laws of Canada and British Columbia,” [Victoria lawyer fights sex policy at proposed law school]

At about the same time, "lawyers for openly gay Vancouver park board commissioner Trevor Loke filed a B.C. Supreme Court petition to sue the provincial government for approving the law school.

"Loke, who identifies himself as a Christian, said the decision fosters a discriminatory policy, denies him access to one of the four law schools in the province, and violates his rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms." [op cit]

However it's not clear how much effect Loke's suit had, since the eventual refusal of licensing would have made it moot.

1 school out of 4 in an entire area wanted to run its private Christian school according to their religious faith.

Three secular choices.

Yes, they are going after Christian institutions for no other reason than to interfere in the practice of (mainstream) Christianity.

 

[hedrick]

1 school out of 4 in an entire area wanted to run its private Christian school according to their religious faith.

Three secular choices.

Yes, they are going after Christian institutions who should have the same rights to the practice of their faith and beleifs as do other private institutions.

That's not the problem. The problem (at least according to the argument made) is that the program asked prospective lawyers to sign a covenant that contradicted the oath that they would eventually take to practice law. Other arguments could be made. If it's anything like the US, admission to law school is very restrictive. Allowing that program would give extra opportunities to conservative Christians, and thus tend to bias the future members of the legal profession. But I think the real problem was that the covenant itself was seen as discriminatory.

The problem isn't Christianity, it's opposition to gays. You may not see the distinction but there is one. (Not to mention the fact that many Christians don't object to homosexuality, so it's not Christianity, but conservative Christianity.) Legally, there no problem with outlawing something done by members of a religion if there are secular reasons to object. Consider laws against animal sacrifice and female circumcision. Because both the US and Canada believe in religious freedom, such laws have to survive scrutiny as to how important the secular purpose is and whether there are ways to achieve the goal that doesn't affect the religion as much. But that scrutiny is weaker in Canada than in the US, and at least in Canada, it now appears that conservative Christian attempts to prevent others from doing something aren't given a high priority.

 

[Hieronymus]

Well, thank you hedrick, for clearing that up.
16 pages of disagreements for nothing.
A law school violating (the principles of) the law...
And frankly, i thought it was a bit of a silly thing all along, but i figured it was the right of a Christian organisation to uphold Christian morals and values.
But i got caught up in defending it because of silly leftist double standards...

So what have we learned today?
Probably nothing to prevent me doing the same in another topic...

 

[PeaceByJesus]

Ah, but the Devil is a Christian... you have to believe in Jesus' mission in order to want to sabotage it.

That definition is another example of your perverse idea of what a Christian can be. But at least you do not self-ID as a Christian yourself, though based on your fluidity, you could.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

That's not the problem. The problem (at least according to the argument made) is that the program asked prospective lawyers to sign a covenant that contradicted the oath that they would eventually take to practice law.

I see this as a deceptive lawyer tactic. I do not see where a Community Covenant that requires assent to not engage in “sexual intimacy that violates the sacredness of marriage between a man and a woman” in order access the school, so that they "need to abstain from sex under the school’s community covenant," means they must keep that oath after graduation, and or that they necessarily will not treat homosexuals like as straights.

But disallowing any moral or ideological requirements for membership that would exclude some persons, then what the state is effectively doing is effectively prohibiting any manner of Biblically Christian school.

 

[CRAZY_CAT_WOMAN]

1 school out of 4 in an entire area wanted to run its private Christian school according to their religious faith.

Three secular choices.

Yes, they are going after Christian institutions for no other reason than to interfere in the practice of (mainstream) Christianity.

Or thats just the best lawyer school.
All I see. Gay marriage or gay sex seem to the the main sin Christians focus on. Even though they do a lot of sinning them selve.

 

[TLK Valentine]

That definition is another example of your perverse idea of what a Christian can be.

"Another" example of "my" perverse idea? Odd, I don't recall ever discussing this matter -- or anything else with you -- before.

But at least you do not self-ID as a Christian yourself, though based on your fluidity, you could.

Fluidity? You make that sound like a bad thing. Could you explain?

 

[Hieronymus]

Or thats just the best lawyer school.
All I see. Gay marriage or gay sex seem to the the main sin Christians focus on.

Perhaps because there's so much focus on it in the world.
An eye sore.
Holy matrimony vs unholy matrimony.

Even though they do a lot of sinning them selves.

But they don't promote it or demand others to embrace it.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

Or thats just the best lawyer school.
All I see. Gay marriage or gay sex seem to the the main sin Christians focus on. Even though they do a lot of sinning them selve.

When you stand in the middle of a golf course during a thunderstorm with upraised club, calling all clouds to salute it, do not be surprised at the kind of attention you can get.

If adultery was promoted like homosexuality/relations/marriage/affirmation has been and is, and even mild opposition strongly censored, then it also would become much the lightening road as an example of immorality.

How much when the first command given to man as regards others was that of male and female being what is joined in marriage, she being what was created for man (after animals would not do).

Thus the devil, who seeks worship via a alternative society, promotes perversions of what God has ordained, first on the spiritual level by seducing man to lust after and worship created things (including not just things but proxy servants of his) vs. the creator, and then on the horizontal level perverting the foundational union for man. The rest follows.

Freedom not Sodom!

There's freedom in America, the land of the red white and blue;

but there still must be laws, things you just can't do.


You can't marry your sister, your brother, or the family pet;

a sheep, or a goat - at least not yet!


That how is it with homosexuality, what the Bible calls sodomy;

men lying with men as with women, is perversity!


That they're not designed that way, tis easy to perceive,

but yielding to sinful desires, man is soon deceived.


A moral wrong is not a civil right; like the sin itself, that's confusion;

calling evil good and exchanging light for darkness, is sure delusion!


History tells us where this will lead, from societies now in dust,

When a nation casts off the laws of God, and follows it's own lusts.


Promoting a sin which sends one to Hell from an early grave,

dishonors God and robs man of the Life He gave.


There's but one answer: the Risen Jesus gave Himself for our sins;

Repent and believe, then truly follow Him!

_____________________________________________________________

1Cor. 6:9-11 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

"Another" example of "my" perverse idea? Odd, I don't recall ever discussing this matter -- or anything else with you -- before.

You mean who never presented an idea of who/what a Christian can be?

Fluidity? You make that sound like a bad thing. Could you explain?

In definition: that what constitutes what a Christian is can even make the devil one. That is quite a degree of fluidity.

 

[Hieronymus]

"Another" example of "my" perverse idea? Odd, I don't recall ever discussing this matter -- or anything else with you -- before.

It's true though.

 

[Sparagmos]

I knew a young Christian man a few years ago who took his own life because of how vicious and cruel his evangelical Christian family and fellow church members treated him after he came out.

That’s horrible. And happens far too often.

My father is bisexual and has tried to “pray away the gay” for 50 years. He was a minister for most of his life and is still a very devout Christian. He gave his life to god and ministering to others, yet stayed in the closet until he was “found out” because there was no way to come out to his “brothers and sisters in Christ” without being ridiculed, shamed, and shunned. Yet he tried EVERYTHING to get rid of his attraction for men. He has finally accepted it and found a church that accepts him.

 

[Kenny'sID]

I beg to differ. Homosexual rape has been used since antiquity as a way for one heterosexual male to humiliate and dominate another. This has nothing whatsoever to do with an innate homosexual attraction in the same way that in most cases a man raping a woman has nothing to do with heterosexual attraction. Both situations are about power, humiliation and domination. BTW there are a number of such rapes that are recorded in history --- both Richard III and Mohamar Ghadaffi were raped before being killed. This is in strong contrast to the ancient Middle Eastern tradition of hospitality.

Then you are saying the term 'sodomy' did not come from the city that was clearly destroyed for the act of homosexuality because men sleeping with men isn't really homosexuality because it was an act of violence in Sodom? When in fact God calls all homosexuality an abomination?

You didn't manage to create quite enough confusion there to get that one by us.