• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.

Featured Supreme court decides that faith is now banned from Canadas public spaces

Discussion in 'Current News & Events' started by friend of, Jun 16, 2018.

  1. grasping the after wind

    grasping the after wind That's grasping after the wind

    +2,957
    Lutheran
    Married
    US-Others
    As a citizen of the US. I would feel uncomfortable if my government was doing many of the things that the Canadian government has done. Since I am not a Canadian citizen, I do not feel justified in criticizing that government based on my outlook as a US citizen as I believe I ought not tell Canadians that I am somehow more qualified to decide how they should govern themselves than they are. I find it annoying and presumptuous when nationals of other countries try to convince me that I ought to find their way of doing things superior to my country's ways of doing things so I think it would be wise for me to refrain from being annoying and presumptuous when discussing the ways of countries I am not a citizen of. I would speak up against another government's policies along the lines of things like mass murder or genocide or invasion of other countries but mostly I am for self determination.
     
  2. hedrick

    hedrick Senior Veteran Supporter

    +4,054
    Presbyterian
    Single
    Yes. The process for taking the law exam assumes you graduated from an accredited program. If you don't graduate from an accredited school, there is an extra process to evaluate your educational record. (This is in Ontario. I didn't check all provinces.) There's no guarantee you'll be accepted. I'd guess that the 2 schools don't want to create unaccredited programs.
    The simplest answer is that the rule only accepted heterosexual marriage, so it prohibited sex within gay marriage. This is pretty direct discrimination against gays.

    What would happen if the school prohibited extramarital sex, but allowed sex within a same-sex marriage? It would be interesting to see. You could imagine other grounds for objection, but I don't think we should criticize Canada for things it might hypothetically do.
     
    Last edited: Jun 20, 2018
  3. brinny

    brinny everlovin' shiner of light in dark places Supporter

    +102,515
    Non-Denom
    Private
    US-Constitution
  4. Zoii

    Zoii Well-Known Member

    +3,047
    Australia
    Seeker
    Single
    That's not what the article is about - your title is totally misleading. It's about the accreditation of law schools with one wanting to ban homosexuals.
    QUOTE The Supreme Court was asked to decide whether TWU’s Christian “community covenant,” in which students and staff agree to the understanding that sexual relations must be limited to heterosexual marriage — which, by definition, excludes homosexual relations
     
  5. grasping the after wind

    grasping the after wind That's grasping after the wind

    +2,957
    Lutheran
    Married
    US-Others
    Does the college ban homosexuals? I haven't seen any evidence that it does. I am assuming, despite the vagueness of the wording of the quote, that what the Court actually was deciding was if the covenant excluded married homosexual relations as well as married heterosexual relations from being refrained from. I am assuming that the Court decided that only married heterosexual relations were excluded from the covenent so , although single homosexuals and heterosexuals were being treated equally, married homosexuals were being discriminated against. That is not the same thing as banning gays. It is discriminating against same sex marriage. So, if my assumptions are correct ones, the Court decided that discriminating against same sex marriage was legitimate grounds for refusal to grant accredited status to the college.
     
  6. hedrick

    hedrick Senior Veteran Supporter

    +4,054
    Presbyterian
    Single
    I think the wording is ambiguous. They quote the covenant and say (1) that it discriminates against gays (2) it would force gays to live in a way that doesn't express their sexuality. But they don't answer your questions explicitly. I think it's safest to point at not recognizing gay marriage, because that does clearly support the court's assertions. Did the court have anything else in mind? I don't think we can tell.
     
  7. grasping the after wind

    grasping the after wind That's grasping after the wind

    +2,957
    Lutheran
    Married
    US-Others
    Many courts in many places seem to be unnecessarily vague. I can't , however, conclude that anything but discrimination against same sex marriage is the basis for the decision to allow refusal of accreditation for the college as heterosexual singles are treated in exactly the same way as all homosexuals. Only heterosexual marrieds are given a pass on having sexual congress. I also find it hard to believe that anyone at that college is in a position to enforce the policy or that no one of any sexual orientation violates it.
     
Loading...