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

[PeaceByJesus]

At best two guys holding hands might "weird you out", or the thought of two men together might make you think it's gross...but that's hardly on the same level as the other two things I mentioned above... If you want to consider "other people doing things that I find gross has a negative impact on me"...to the point where you want codification of the prohibition of those things, then you're opening up a serious can of worms.

The thought of two men kissing together is hardly on the same level as the other things I had in mind. And the fact is that homosexual rights do indeed substantially negatively effects others, from financial loss to freedom of expression, to custody of children. And thus as said, your argument must be that homosexual rights do negatively effects others, but only in ways that are justified since they otherwise would negatively effects homosexuals.

 

[CodyFaith]

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

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.

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

Is this not old news?

Trinity Western University Loses in Supreme Court | The Tyee

B.C.’s Trinity Western University drops mandatory covenant forbidding sex outside heterosexual marriage

Unless there's something new going on in the case I've yet to see? They already went before the Supreme Court and lost months ago.

 

[Sparagmos]

Except by introducing a alternative practice by 4% of the population that results in 80% of concussions via 4% after decades of attempting to tame it, and thus creating a financial burden on the rest, while censoring all who oppose it. Again, if the consensual practice of the Lord's supper has such results

The whole “disease is proof something is immoral” argument is rejected by most christians and the entire medical community. The cause of STD’s is unprotected sex, not any kind of extramarital sex. It’s like hand washing. Doctors were spreading bacteria and disease around like crazy before they figured out they needed to wash their hands religiously. The problem wasn’t surgery or medical attention, it was unsanitary medical attention. That’s how ridiculous your argument is. And your argument re suicide and homosexuality lacks a basic understanding of suicide and mental health. No one commits suicide for one reason, rather there are various risk factors that when compounded will cause suicide. Experiencing bullying is one factor, and a large one. The bottom line is you are not a mental health expert and are making claims that fly in the face of the conclusions that those in that field have drawn from years of careful study.

You are no different from Christians in the 60’s who said that THEY were the victims of the civil rights movement because they were being pressured to treat blacks as equals. Boohoo. You may not be personally involved in the bullying of gays but your beliefs and arguments are what feeds the bullies that do. And if you talk about these things at work I can almost guarantee there is a person there who is gay or who has a gay friend or family member who is hurt by your words. Just as people who espoused anti Semitic beliefs but took no action against Jews during the halocaust were still complicit in those atrocities, you are complicit in the bullying and abuse of gays that has led many to take their own life.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Is this not old news?

Correct. It's a few months old. But since it inspired some lively commentary, I'm letting it ride.

My bad.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

Is this not old news?

Trinity Western University Loses in Supreme Court | The Tyee

B.C.’s Trinity Western University drops mandatory covenant forbidding sex outside heterosexual marriage

Unless there's something new going on in the case I've yet to see? They already went before the Supreme Court and lost months ago.

Yes, it is old news.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

The whole “disease is proof something is immoral” argument is rejected by most christians and the entire medical community. The cause of STD’s is unprotected sex, not any kind of extramarital sex. It’s like hand washing. Doctors were spreading bacteria and disease around like crazy before they figured out they needed to wash their hands religiously. The problem wasn’t surgery or medical attention, it was unsanitary medical attention. That’s how ridiculous your argument is..

Your argument is simply sophistry, for of course unprotected sex enables the spread of STDs, but the fact is that it is promiscuous sex that is the cause of the spread of STDs via unprotected sex, and rarely monogamous marital relations.

If the law of God was followed STDs would be very rare, while after almost 40 years MSM remains the main cause of the spread of HIV and the death of over 600,000 Americans by it, with its costly treatment. While not having any negative effects on others according to the liberal delusion.

As said, if the consensual practice of the Lord's supper would be treated if it was accompanied by the diseases rate MSM is is would hardly be promoted and protected and critics roundly censored as is the case with MSM. But which is immoral anyway even if there are not negative medical effects.

And your argument re suicide and homosexuality lacks a basic understanding of suicide and mental health. No one commits suicide for one reason, rather there are various risk factors that when compounded will cause suicide. Experiencing bullying is one factor, and a large one. The bottom line is you are not a mental health expert and are making claims that fly in the face of the conclusions that those in that field have drawn from years of careful study.

Which is also an invalid argument, for of course there are factors behind taking your own life, but when a class of people subscribing to a certain way of life cannot overcome them then there is a problem.

If a Christian sect showed elevated rates of suicide then it would point to a deficiency, as we are to overcome, not succumb.

You are no different from Christians in the 60’s who said that THEY were the victims of the civil rights movement because they were being pressured to treat blacks as equals.

Unlike slavery as regulated in Scripture, there is zero support for racism in Christian teaching in Scripture, and many leading evangelicals were at the forefront of the abolitionist movement.

Boohoo. You may not be personally involved in the bullying of gays but your beliefs and arguments are what feeds the bullies that do

.
Which is simply no more a valid argument against my position than Hitler invoking Jews having slain Christ for support of eliminating Jews. And while it is homosexual apologist who (knowingly or not) follow who l Kirk and Madsen's tactics in "After the Ball," to associate all who oppose homosexuality with hysterical backwoods preachers, menacing punks, evangelical Christians orgs are characterized by rejecting Fred Phelps-type railings.

And if you talk about these things at work I can almost guarantee there is a person there who is gay or who has a gay friend or family member who is hurt by your words.

And the venom of homosexual activist is hateful and hurtful to the likes of myself, but it will be the Christian who can easily lose his job or freedom if it comes out that he somehow supports traditional marriage and beliefs, as opposes to homosexual relations.

Just as people who espoused anti Semitic beliefs but took no action against Jews during the halocaust were still complicit in those atrocities, you are complicit in the bullying and abuse of gays that has led many to take their own life

You mean conservative Christians are killing homosexuals and support placing great fines upon such if they did not want to be complicit in creating a special work for the expressed purpose of celebrating what was contrary to what they believed, or referring to people according to their biological gender vs. how they feel, or are being prevented from knowing or interfering in their children's transgender feelings, and can be maligned as Nazi's and driven by irrational phobia?

Or do you mean conservative Christians are the subjects of such, because they oppose homosexual relations?

 

[stevevw]

You can have whatever social vision you like. You just can't force it on your students.

So what about when governments impose restrictions on society with 100s of regulations and laws for which many are just personal values imposed on others. What about when minoirty groups are able to force their views on others such as politically correct language.

 

[stevevw]

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

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.

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

What I find concerning is this movement of people coming down on Christian schools and churches not just about saying they cannot force people to not do certain things which I think is a red herring because many don't anyway. It is the forcing of Christian schools and churches to not be able to even profess their views and they are gradually being muzzled under the guise of being politically correct and are then made out to be discriminatory or bigoted.

This is reverse discrimination and if anyone is forcing someone to do something or not do something it is secular society enforcing their views on religions today and denying religious freedom. You can't even say what you believe anymore and in many countries, priests are being stopped from preaching their sermons.

 

[essentialsaltes]

So what about when governments impose restrictions on society with 100s of regulations and laws for which many are just personal values imposed on others. What about when minoirty groups are able to force their views on others such as politically correct language.

Perhaps you can be clearer about what you mean. Most of these FORCED PC VIEW REGULATIONS IMPOSED ON OTHERS are things like "Someone walks into a cake shop and orders a cake and expects to receive a cake in exchange for money." Nobody wants to change anybody's views. They want a cake.

 

[essentialsaltes]

What I find concerning is this movement of people coming down on Christian schools and churches not just about saying they cannot force people to not do certain things which I think is a red herring because many don't anyway.

It was not a red herring in this case. It was the point of the whole lawsuit.

It is the forcing of Christian schools and churches to not be able to even profess their views

Where has that occurred? Certainly not in this case, which was not one of your red herrings.

 

[stevevw]

Perhaps you can be clearer about what you mean. Most of these FORCED PC VIEW REGULATIONS IMPOSED ON OTHERS are things like "Someone walks into a cake shop and orders a cake and expects to receive a cake in exchange for money." Nobody wants to change anybody's views. They want a cake.

Everyone knows society is becoming far too politically correct. That particular case was not just about someone innocently stumbling into a cake shop to "just wanting a cake". The gay couple planned and targeted the Christian cake shop to cause trouble when there were other cake shops they knew could have catered to what they wanted. The cake shop owner was willing to make them a cake but just not with any reference to homosexuality as this was against his belief. But he also did not do this for divorces and other occasions that went against his belief and di not just single gays out.

Using the same logic, because the gay couple were speechwriters the cake shop owner could have targeted a gay speechwriter out of all speechwriters in Colorado and demanded they write a speech based on Leviticus saying that homosexuality is a sin and should be condemned and the gay person would be bound to do it. Whose rights are being overlooked? Is it just the gay couples or is there also a right to freedom of religious belief for the cake shop guy.

Maybe people should just understand and respect the differences rather than demand others forgo their rights to cater to their needs and then destroy them for not doing so. As a result of the targeted agenda, the cake shop guy lost 40% of his livelihood and his family suffered when all he was doing was trying to practice his beliefs. Where does it end? Will people start on churches and demand they stop preaching certain things are sins because it offends them.

People cannot state their views about anything because it may offend someone or when they do proclaim their beliefs someone gets offended and they are called bigots or discriminatory. For examples, if someone says they believe the practice of homosexuality is a sin they are shot down. Yet people can proclaim all sorts of things about religious people like they are delusional and hypocrites and its OK. I have seen many examples of how people may express their rights about equality in dispelling some of the misinformation about unequal pay gaps or how males are stereotyped in society and they are accused of being chauvinistic or bigoted.

People are banned from expressing their views because it is deemed as hate speech yet others can say what they want and this is destroying free speech. How some minorities want to make others use certain language based on what they believe while disregarding the rights of others views when they may disagree. The list can go on as there are 100s of restrictions made by governments in mainstream society. It seems some can demand their rights but others can't. It depends on how loud you shout. People want the freedom to do just about anything nowadays and that's why religion is falling out of favour because it requires people to control themselves and sacrifice certain things.

 

[stevevw]

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

I am not sure of the details of the case. But if they are trying to force people in their private lives to conform to a certain behaviour then that is wrong. The problem I see is when this encroaches on the Christian organisation's rights to express their religious beliefs. That is why they set themselves up to cater to Christians and teach them Christian doctrines. If they teach that sex before marriage is wrong or practising homosexuality is wrong isn't this their right under the freedom of religious belief.

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

See how there is a clash of rights and everyone is concerned about what will happen. I see the right to practice and express religion will gradually be denied.

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

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

So how far does that go? Is the University allowed to express their belief that extramarital and homosexual sex is wrong? See how some rights are trumping others yet they are all rights people have. So someone's rights are being denied still which is wrong. It is all a matter of opinion and view. For all, we know the Universities position may be the best, as it may prevent other problems. But they are denied any chance of having their beliefs applied.

There are many examples of how mainstream society and the government force people to do things because they are reacting to situations where they allowed people the right to do something and it got out of hand. So they then put in laws to stop this and deny peoples rights. The lockout laws are an example which stops everyone having a good time at the clubs based on a minority of troublemakers and the evidence does not support their actions. Making people get drug tested so they can get welfare and making then conform to obligations just to get money to buy food. There are many more.

These are based on peoples beliefs just like religion and forced on others because they believe it is for the best. The difference is the government is acting in a public domain whereas Christian organisations are private and should have the right to have certain regulations just like any private organisation. When an elite sportsperson signs a contract they are agreeing to certain behaviours such as not taking drugs, or bringing the organisation into disrepute. This has been determined as not having extramarital affairs, getting too drunk, getting into fights etc.

Tell me do you think a religious school has the right to only have certain teachers who have certain beliefs teach at their school?

 

[stevevw]

It was not a red herring in this case. It was the point of the whole lawsuit.

So what about codes of conduct that people accept and sign up to when they join an organisation if they agree to behave a certain way which usually includes their behaviour outside the organisation that will go against the organisation values. Each organisation has different values and some are more strict than others. People are sort of promising to do the right thing when they sign the contract and can get dismissed if they breach the code of conduct. Sounds fairly similar to me.

Where has that occurred? Certainly not in this case, which was not one of your red herrings.

I am saying that it seems to be out of the norm. Churches don't even force people to behave a certain way outside the church. But like I said many organisation more or less expect people to act a certain way in their private lives as part of working for them. They don't have to adhere to this but they know there are consequences which are more or less putting pressure on people to do the right thing if they want to join their organisation. Much the same I think.

This may set a precedent that allows people to opt out of getting dismissed for bad behaviour based on their right to a particular lifestyle. It undermines the ability of an organisation to ensure that the people who represent them are doing the right thing according to the organisations values.

The only reason the law society ruled against them was becuase there was a case that the students may also be deemed as representing the public which then should inncorporate anti-descrimination laws and that the LBGTI communities equal rights compared to others may be compromised by asking them particularly to abstain from certain behaviours regarding sex. But the organisation was a private one and they were also asking everyone to uphold certain behaviours regarding sexual conduct. The lines were blurred by this decision and it opens the door for some to exploit things and undermine an organisations right and ability to have representatives adhere to their standards.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

When an elite sportsperson signs a contract they are agreeing to certain behaviours such as not taking drugs, or bringing the organisation into disrepute. This has been determined as not having extramarital affairs, getting too drunk, getting into fights etc.

Tell me do you think a religious school has the right to only have certain teachers who have certain beliefs teach at their school?

And I am sure hockey teams in Canada have moral requirements for players. The difference is that since it was religious beliefs then they are targeted, whereas if they were merely secular requirements all would be OK, even though both are in essence imposition of ideology.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

Perhaps you can be clearer about what you mean. Most of these FORCED PC VIEW REGULATIONS IMPOSED ON OTHERS are things like "Someone walks into a cake shop and orders a cake and expects to receive a cake in exchange for money." Nobody wants to change anybody's views. They want a cake.

That was simply not the case, and either you do not know this or you are misrepresenting it. The homosexual couple in the Masterpiece baker case could have bought anything that was for sale to the public on the shelf, but no one could demand the baker create a work for whatever they wanted. It was a case actually that of demanding a artist create a special work for the expressed purpose of celebrating what was both contrary to the Scriptural moral beliefs of the artist as well as the highest state law at the time.

 

[essentialsaltes]

That particular case was not just about someone innocently stumbling into a cake shop to "just wanting a cake". The gay couple planned and targeted the Christian cake shop to cause trouble when there were other cake shops they knew could have catered to what they wanted. The cake shop owner was willing to make them a cake but just not with any reference to homosexuality as this was against his belief.

You are just making things up. There is hardly a lick of truth in what you've written about the Masterpiece Cakeshop case.

They were referred to the cake shop by their reception planner. They did not ask for any 'reference to homosexuality' on their cake.

Maybe people should just understand and respect the differences rather than demand others forgo their rights

There is no right to not bake cakes. We as a society have decided that one of the ways we respect people's differences is that public accommodations must treat all protected classes equally.

People cannot state their views about anything because it may offend someone

The cake baker has stated his views on many occasions. Nobody cares. He is free to believe as he likes. No one has sued him for his views or his public expression of his views.

or when they do proclaim their beliefs someone gets offended and they are called bigots or discriminatory.

Oh noes! People reply to free speech with more free speech. Are you suggesting we must coddle one person's free speech by suppressing someone else's? Why are you only concerned about the speech that YOU think is correct?

 

[Sparagmos]

Your argument is simply sophistry, for of course unprotected sex enables the spread of STDs, but the fact is that it is promiscuous sex that is the cause of the spread of STDs via unprotected sex, and rarely monogamous marital relations.

If the law of God was followed STDs would be very rare, while after almost 40 years MSM remains the main cause of the spread of HIV and the death of over 600,000 Americans by it, with its costly treatment. While not having any negative effects on others according to the liberal delusion.

As said, if the consensual practice of the Lord's supper would be treated if it was accompanied by the diseases rate MSM is is would hardly be promoted and protected and critics roundly censored as is the case with MSM. But which is immoral anyway even if there are not negative medical effects.

Which is also an invalid argument, for of course there are factors behind taking your own life, but when a class of people subscribing to a certain way of life cannot overcome them then there is a problem.

If a Christian sect showed elevated rates of suicide then it would point to a deficiency, as we are to overcome, not succumb.

Unlike slavery as regulated in Scripture, there is zero support for racism in Christian teaching in Scripture, and many leading evangelicals were at the forefront of the abolitionist movement.
.
Which is simply no more a valid argument against my position than Hitler invoking Jews having slain Christ for support of eliminating Jews. And while it is homosexual apologist who (knowingly or not) follow who l Kirk and Madsen's tactics in "After the Ball," to associate all who oppose homosexuality with hysterical backwoods preachers, menacing punks, evangelical Christians orgs are characterized by rejecting Fred Phelps-type railings.

And the venom of homosexual activist is hateful and hurtful to the likes of myself, but it will be the Christian who can easily lose his job or freedom if it comes out that he somehow supports traditional marriage and beliefs, as opposes to homosexual relations.

You mean conservative Christians are killing homosexuals and support placing great fines upon such if they did not want to be complicit in creating a special work for the expressed purpose of celebrating what was contrary to what they believed, or referring to people according to their biological gender vs. how they feel, or are being prevented from knowing or interfering in their children's transgender feelings, and can be maligned as Nazi's and driven by irrational phobia?

Or do you mean conservative Christians are the subjects of such, because they oppose homosexual relations?

You’re not responding to my specific points, and have shown yourself willing to misrepresent the truth to make your point. I’m done with this convo.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

There is no right to not bake cakes. We as a society have decided that one of the ways we respect people's differences is that public accommodations must treat all protected classes equally.

Actually, it is not about just baking cakes, but creating a designed work for the expressed purpose of celebrating something that was contrary to the sincerely held traditional religious beliefs of the owner, and also contrary to the highest state law at the time, for a marriage it did not even recognize.

This was not about denying homosexuals any service available to anyone else, since they could not only buy anything available to all, and even contract to create a work for something like a college graduation, but not contract with the baker to create a special work for a expressed purpose, like as he had refuse to create a cake for straight people to celebrate other objectionable things, including a divorce.

Thus this was not actually about discrimination against two homosexuals because they were so, since creating this works would have been refused not matter how asked for it, but it was discrimination against homosexuals as having the same rights, though at the time the CO state constitutions defined marriage as btwn male and female (which was before even gender ID became fluid), and the state did not recognize out of state homosexual marriage.

This would be analogous to a Muslim artist refusing to create a work for the expressed purpose of celebrating the anniversary of the founding of the modern state of Israel. I am not sure how the gov. would rule in such a case, but i do not think it would pursue this with a vengeance as it did as re. Masterpiece.

Since SCOTUS was the court that required states to recognize the definition of marriage as including those of the same gender (which definition I do not think the Founders would support, nor that of btwn man and animals which can follow), then I think it was negligent in not actually ruling on the basic issue in the Masterpiece case.

 

[PeaceByJesus]

You’re not responding to my specific points, and have shown yourself willing to misrepresent the truth to make your point.

How and where?

I’m done with this convo.

How convenient.

 

[essentialsaltes]

This was not about denying homosexuals any service available to anyone else, since they could not only buy anything available to all, and even contract to create a work for something like a college graduation, but not contract with the baker to create a special work for a expressed purpose

How is a college graduation not an 'expressed purpose'?

I think it was negligent in not actually ruling on the basic issue in the Masterpiece case.

We agree there, but we will likely see them have to face it soon.