[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.