No Trinity graduates in this Norway wilderness company................

[blankall]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

TWU is independent as well. It's really no different. No one has a "right" to join either.

I don't see how not recognizing a type of marriage is discrimination. It might be backwards, archaic and just plain rude, but it isn't discrimination from a Charter point of view.

We aren't disputing TWU's right to teach classes or have a university. We are disputing whether they should be allowed to train members for the bar of British Columbia, which is in no way "independent". And yes, anyone should have a right to join the bar regardless of sexual orientation.

It's also clearly discrimination. A heterosexual person in a relationship has the option to get married to bring themselves in compliance with TWU's oath. A homosexual person does not.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by blankall

We aren't disputing TWU's right to teach classes or have a university. We are disputing whether they should be allowed to train members for the bar of British Columbia, which is in no way "independent". And yes, anyone should have a right to join the bar regardless of sexual orientation.

It's also clearly discrimination. A heterosexual person in a relationship has the option to get married to bring themselves in compliance with TWU's oath. A homosexual person does not.

I just don't see how an institution can practice something that the Charter explicitly protects (if a religious school is allowed to exist, then it is implied that they can run the school according to their religious doctrine), but then have them excluded from a public association that is an extension of the government.

If the problem is the Charter, then people should be demanding that their MPs pursue this and ask for changes. Or vote for a party that might actually have the balls to make the changes.

I suspect that just like the last time this happened to TWU, it will go to the Supreme Court and they will again win. It's contradictory to have the government protect the rights of the school, but then punish them for exercising those rights (rights affirmed not just in the Charter, but by the Supreme Court of Canada).

[Fighting Banana Slug]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

I just don't see how an institution can practice something that the Charter explicitly protects (if a religious school is allowed to exist, then it is implied that they can run the school according to their religious doctrine), but then have them excluded from a public association that is an extension of the government.

If the problem is the Charter, then people should be demanding that their MPs pursue this and ask for changes. Or vote for a party that might actually have the balls to make the changes.

I suspect that just like the last time this happened to TWU, it will go to the Supreme Court and they will again win. It's contradictory to have the government protect the rights of the school, but then punish them for exercising those rights (rights affirmed not just in the Charter, but by the Supreme Court of Canada).

They can practice whatever they like as a private institution, but I don't see why those degrees must be recognised. Their actions are discriminatory, plain and simple. As Blankall indicated, their philosophy is not in-line with the law society guidlines and as such, increase the probability of poor lawyers. The law society has the obligation to govern the legal profession and to self regulate, and I think they are making the appropriate decision.

[Teh_Bandwagoner]

Originally Posted by phiten

I am a Trinity Western Grad...and I am for one "ethnically" Jewish---and extremely non-religious. People who think TWU is solely a bible banging school are wrong. I was welcomed with open arms, and in fact got A's all throughout my time there when I challenged "controversial" Christian worldviews. I have attended other universities, and none have even come close to meeting the level of education I got at TWU.

People who see TWU on a resume, and automatically discount them is unfair IMO.

And all Chill Cosby hears is "blah blah blah went to TWU, you signed the thingy, your education is invalid in my books".

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Fighting Banana Slug

They can practice whatever they like as a private institution, but I don't see why those degrees must be recognised. Their actions are discriminatory, plain and simple. As Blankall indicated, their philosophy is not in-line with the law society guidlines and as such, increase the probability of poor lawyers. The law society has the obligation to govern the legal profession and to self regulate, and I think they are making the appropriate decision.

How can the BCLS, which is a public association and has a board appointed by the BC government, have guidelines that exclude religious schools operating within their constitutionally protected (and Supreme Court affirmed) rights? It would be like saying that people have the freedom of assembly but then penalizing anyone who practices it.

As I mentioned, the BC teachers already tried to do the same thing and the Supreme Court of Canada ruled against them and in favour of TWU.

You might agree with the BCLS decision from a personal moral point of view, as do I; but it shouldn't be the up to the government to dictate morals. Private institutions however can at least for their members.

[Chill Cosby]

Originally Posted by Teh_Bandwagoner

And all Chill Cosby hears is "blah blah blah went to TWU, you signed the thingy, your education is invalid in my books".

Incorrect.

I would hear "Blah blah blah I went to TWU"
I would say "You signed the thingy, your education is invalid in my books"

Obviously!

[FlamesAddiction]

The human rights tribunal made a decision in favour of the former Trinity student.

http://www.vancouversun.com/news/met...864/story.html

She'll receive $8,500. I read somewhere else that the company still might get fines on top of that.

[Hack&Lube]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

The human rights tribunal made a decision in favour of the former Trinity student.

http://www.vancouversun.com/news/met...864/story.html

She'll receive $8,500. I read somewhere else that the company still might get fines on top of that.

in favor as in she was religiously discriminated against but she wasn't awarded any lost wages as they ruled she wasn't qualified for the job anyway.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

I just don't see how an institution can practice something that the Charter explicitly protects (if a religious school is allowed to exist, then it is implied that they can run the school according to their religious doctrine), but then have them excluded from a public association that is an extension of the government.

If the problem is the Charter, then people should be demanding that their MPs pursue this and ask for changes. Or vote for a party that might actually have the balls to make the changes.

I suspect that just like the last time this happened to TWU, it will go to the Supreme Court and they will again win. It's contradictory to have the government protect the rights of the school, but then punish them for exercising those rights (rights affirmed not just in the Charter, but by the Supreme Court of Canada).

Ooohhh....Zombie thread.


To comment on this, what we're dealing with here is a conflict between charter rights. Conflicts between Charter rights are very common and don't necessitate removing one from the Charter.

So at the end of the day, it comes down to what's more important, the ability of a person to discriminate based on religious values, or the rights of the person being discriminated against. I honestly, can't see how in any situation someone's right to discriminate, based on belief, is going to rule over the rights of those being discriminated against.

So yes, people are punished for exercising rights all the time. For example, I have a freedom to express myself. I cannot use that freedom to threaten someone else. If my religion involved torturing people, that right wouldn't be protected. My point is that all rights are limited, and they generally only extended to the point where you start infringing someone else's rights.

Edit:

Also, if, as you say, the Law Society of BC, is a government organization, do they not then have the duty to support the more paramount freedom and defend the more vulnerable group? And yes, I consider the homosexual students to be more vulnerable than the Christian students who merely have to be in the presence of a group they consider immoral due to sexual orientation.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Hack&Lube

in favor as in she was religiously discriminated against but she wasn't awarded any lost wages as they ruled she wasn't qualified for the job anyway.

It's too bad for the company that they didn't care about her qualifications at the time. They could have saved themselves a lot of trouble.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by blankall

Also, if, as you say, the Law Society of BC, is a government organization, do they not then have the duty to support the more paramount freedom and defend the more vulnerable group? And yes, I consider the homosexual students to be more vulnerable than the Christian students who merely have to be in the presence of a group they consider immoral due to sexual orientation.

But how were they even doing that? Discriminating against one group doesn't help anyone. It's not their duty to teach a lesson to TWU.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

But how were they even doing that? Discriminating against one group doesn't help anyone. It's not their duty to teach a lesson to TWU.

I don't see how the potential presence of homosexual students at TWU Law School discriminates against the Christian students there. No one is forcing Christians to believe something else, only to be tolerant of the right to believe whatever you want.

Human rights do not protect the right to attack others. The homosexual students aren't stating that the Christian students can't practice their religion, it's the other way around. TWU is attempting to tell students not only what they are allowed to do at the school, but also at home.

If the intolerant students want to be intolerant in their homes or a private club, that's their business. However, the Law Society works for the public and should not promote or facilitate that intolerance.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by blankall

I don't see how the potential presence of homosexual students at TWU Law School discriminates against the Christian students there. No one is forcing Christians to believe something else, only to be tolerant of the right to believe whatever you want.

Human rights do not protect the right to attack others. The homosexual students aren't stating that the Christian students can't practice their religion, it's the other way around. TWU is attempting to tell students not only what they are allowed to do at the school, but also at home.

If the intolerant students want to be intolerant in their homes or a private club, that's their business. However, the Law Society works for the public and should not promote or facilitate that intolerance.

Homosexuals aren't barred from attending TWU though. They claim to have accepted homosexual students in the past.

They just make students agree to a covenant which states that while they are there, they will abide by the Protestant Evangelical principles they were founded on, which includes not engaging in sex acts outside of a married man/woman union. Homosexuals are still free to attend the school though, as are single heterosexuals. They are just supposed to agree to practice abstinence while they are there. Agreeing to the covenant to go to school there does not mean that the person is intolerant of others. It just means that they agreed to live a particular lifestyle for themselves while they were there. It's also no one's business what they believe in their minds as long as they can separate it and conduct themselves in a professional manner out in the real world.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

Homosexuals aren't barred from attending TWU though. They claim to have accepted homosexual students in the past.

They just make students agree to a covenant which states that while they are there, they will abide by the Protestant Evangelical principles they were founded on, which includes not engaging in sex acts outside of a married man/woman union. Homosexuals are still free to attend the school though, as are single heterosexuals. They are just supposed to agree to practice abstinence while they are there. Agreeing to the covenant to go to school there does not mean that the person is intolerant of others. It just means that they agreed to live a particular lifestyle for themselves while they were there. It's also no one's business what they believe in their minds as long as they can separate it and conduct themselves in a professional manner out in the real world.

It's still discriminatory. You're giving heterosexual the option to marry and denying that to homosexuals.

We're also talking about a law degree, which is largely a post secondary degree. That means most students are in their late 20s by the time they graduate. To expect people to remain abstinent into their late 20s is not realistic.

That raises another issue entirely, which is the oath. Oath taking is very important to lawyers and the integrity of the justice system. To expect lawyers to take an oath of abstinence that most people know will get broken is to purposely select dishonest lawyers.

Another major issue is the divide between public and private. If people want to practice discrimination against homosexuals in a private club or in the privacy of their own homes, there's really nothing we can do about that. If they want to extend that discrimination into the public, that's another matter. As I stated before the law society works for the public and should not be in any way encouraging or facilitating discrimination.

Let's also be clear about which group is being discriminated against. Homosexuals aren't going into Christian students' homes and slapping bibles out of their hands. It's the Christian University attempting to control the behaviour of the homosexual students. Having to be in the presence of students with different beliefs than you is not discrimination. Once again, if people want to discriminate in the privacy of their homes, there's nothing we can do about that. However, that behaviour should not be allowed into the public sphere, not even tangentially.

Let's also be clear that certain Christians are not being tolerant of homosexuals in any way. Their belief is that homosexuals deserve to go to hell, which is the worst thing, in their belief system, that can possibly happen to a human being.

I'm not trying to single out Christians here either. We just happen to be talking about TWU, which is a Christian school. There are conservative beliefs in most religions that discriminate against homosexuals.

[Winsor_Pilates]

A 2 year bump and the same 2 people arguing about it. I don't think you guys are gonna find a resolution here.

[peter12]

Good, these Nordic dimwits were delusional. Hilarious. Glad they have to pay out for such a dumb mistake.

[MrMastodonFarm]

Originally Posted by Winsor_Pilates

A 2 year bump and the same 2 people arguing about it. I don't think you guys are gonna find a resolution here.

And that thread title..........................................

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Winsor_Pilates

A 2 year bump and the same 2 people arguing about it. I don't think you guys are gonna find a resolution here.

Yeah, point taken. I honestly just thought people would be interested to hear how everything turned out. I don't have a wish to rehash any of it. I personally wouldn't step foot on TWU property, but I still don't think it's fair top paint every former student as intolerant before getting to know them. Individuals are more complicated than that.

Originally Posted by peter12

Good, these Nordic dimwits were delusional. Hilarious. Glad they have to pay out for such a dumb mistake.

The funny thing is, the guy is actually from France. He just changed his name to sound more like a Viking. The story from the hearing was funny. He apparently entered the room, shut off the lights, closed the blinds and said people were trying to kill him. Then he ranted and left. He was bound to lose based on his behavior.

http://news.nationalpost.com/full-co...t-by-b-c-woman

Fragassi showed up with a scowling male associate, who introduced himself simply as “Sanderson.” They did not seem happy to be there.

They walked into the assigned hearing room and, inexplicably, proceeded to shut tight every window blind. Fragassi and “Sanderson” sat down at the hearing table; a lawyer joined them. Across the table were Paquette and her lawyer.

Veteran tribunal member Norman Trerise presided. The hearing began with Fragassi airing myriad grievances.

He demanded the proceedings be conducted in French. “I resent speaking English at this tribunal,” he said, his voice rising. He insisted the tribunal had no business sticking its nose in the matter, claiming that Amaruk — with whom he said he is no longer connected — is a Norwegian company, and therefore outside of the tribunal’s jurisdiction.

Soon he was yelling and interrupting Trerise. Threats on his life had been made after Paquette had claimed discrimination, Fragassi shouted. “What’s to prevent right now some Christian extremist from entering the building and shooting us?” he shouted.

Next, Fragassi demanded a security detail. Trerise would have none of it.

Also:

The tribunal awarded her $8,500 for “injury to dignity and self respect” (102 of judgement) and (103) $661.08 for various expenses.

Ms Paquette meanwhile is in now in northern Canada running dog sled tours, similar to the kind of work that Amaruk had said she was not qualified for.

http://www.rcinet.ca/en/2016/03/03/c...nation-update/

[peter12]

Oh, so he is just a crazy person.

[Bandwagon In Flames]

First I've heard of this matter, sounds like quite a mess.

I can't help but see this as a christian getting a taste of their own medicine though. Not to say that the rejection was warranted. But I feel if more people knew what it felt like to be discriminated against, they wouldn't be discriminating against so many people themselves.

Just goes to show that intolerance is a 2-way street.