willhud9 wrote:So they get to pick and choose based on arbitrary standards....sounds bollocks to me.

Having a belief of discrimination should not be a crime, nor punishable by law.

Having a discriminatory belief should not be a crime, no. Actually practicing discrimination is illegal, however and that's what this school does. It has a special exemption from this law because of its religious nature. However, it does not follow from this that a Law Society is required to extend to the school the special privilege of accreditation. IMHO, the Law Society is free to say that it will not accept any school that practices discrimination, regardless of whether the reason for that discrmination is religious.

Why should grads be punished for holding an unpopular belief?

As I said, grads are not being punished, because no grads exist. The Law Societies are quite rightly letting the school know what the standards are for accreditation before the school starts running. Someone who plans to practice law in Ontario or New Brunswick will know not to attend this school.

Unless of course their parents are the ones pushing for them to go to that school for religious reasons and will not pay their child to go to any other school.

^^ Happens all the time here in the states.

willhud9 wrote:So they get to pick and choose based on arbitrary standards....sounds bollocks to me.

Except the standards aren't arbitrary.

willhud9 wrote:Having a belief of discrimination should not be a crime, nor punishable by law.

Except that's not at all what's happening here, is it Will.
Please stop trying to get so extreme in discussions like these.
The laws societies have no legal power whatsoever. They cannot declare anything a crime, nor can they punish people by law.

willhud9 wrote:Why should grads be punished for holding an unpopular belief?

Again, not what's happening here. The school in question is forcing that belief unto any prospective students.

In my opinion, the issue is a bit more complicated. We all agree, I presume, that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is not acceptable. But in this case such discrimination is carried out by an institution of higher education, not by its students. Denying graduates the right to practice their profession assumes that each of them is a homophobic. It might well be the case, of course, but it is by no means certain: some students might enroll there because of family pressure, financial reasons or what have you.

Shrunk wrote:

willhud9 wrote:So they get to pick and choose based on arbitrary standards....sounds bollocks to me.

Having a belief of discrimination should not be a crime, nor punishable by law.

Having a discriminatory belief should not be a crime, no. Actually practicing discrimination is illegal, however and that's what this school does.

Really?

Shrunk wrote:It has a special exemption from this law because of its religious nature.

Oh, so not really?

Shrunk wrote:However, it does not follow from this that a Law Society is required to extend to the school the special privilege of accreditation.

This is correct. Merely not breaking any anti-discrimination laws is not enough to get a law school recognised. The Law Societies are required to make sure that the school has a curriculum and faculty adequate to train prospective lawyers. TWU's curriculum and faculty has passed this test.

Shrunk wrote:IMHO, the Law Society is free to say that it will not accept any school that practices discrimination, regardless of whether the reason for that discrmination is religious.

It's not merely free not to accept a school that practices illegal discrimination, it would be required not to. The problem is - as you are fully aware - the discrimination TWU practices is not illegal. Refusing to accredit a school on the grounds that the majority of Society members don't like it almost certainly is.

Again, as long as TWU's bizarre policy does not break any laws, disagreement with it amounts to a private political belief.

The correct course of action is to adequately regulate Canadian Universities so that TWU's policies do constitute illegal discrimination.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

willhud9 wrote:So they get to pick and choose based on arbitrary standards....sounds bollocks to me.

Except the standards aren't arbitrary.

willhud9 wrote:Having a belief of discrimination should not be a crime, nor punishable by law.

Except that's not at all what's happening here, is it Will.
Please stop trying to get so extreme in discussions like these.
The laws societies have no legal power whatsoever. They cannot declare anything a crime, nor can they punish people by law.

willhud9 wrote:Why should grads be punished for holding an unpopular belief?

Again, not what's happening here. The school in question is forcing that belief unto any prospective students.

Schools cannot force a "belief" unto students anymore than a government can.

Beliefs are abstract and students lie all of the time. Making statements of faith for a school is hardly forcing a belief onto someone.

willhud9 wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

willhud9 wrote:So they get to pick and choose based on arbitrary standards....sounds bollocks to me.

Except the standards aren't arbitrary.

willhud9 wrote:Having a belief of discrimination should not be a crime, nor punishable by law.

Except that's not at all what's happening here, is it Will.
Please stop trying to get so extreme in discussions like these.
The laws societies have no legal power whatsoever. They cannot declare anything a crime, nor can they punish people by law.

willhud9 wrote:Why should grads be punished for holding an unpopular belief?

Again, not what's happening here. The school in question is forcing that belief unto any prospective students.

Schools cannot force a "belief" unto students anymore than a government can.

You know what I mean Will.
You cannot enroll in this school unless you sign a covenant subscribing to this position.
If you violate this position you can and will be punished.

willhud9 wrote:Beliefs are abstract and students lie all of the time. Making statements of faith for a school is hardly forcing a belief onto someone.

Ahem:

The university has a “community covenant” requiring students and staff to abstain from “sexual intimacy that violates the sacredness of marriage between a man and a woman,” or face discipline.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

willhud9 wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

willhud9 wrote:So they get to pick and choose based on arbitrary standards....sounds bollocks to me.

Except the standards aren't arbitrary.

willhud9 wrote:Having a belief of discrimination should not be a crime, nor punishable by law.

Except that's not at all what's happening here, is it Will.
Please stop trying to get so extreme in discussions like these.
The laws societies have no legal power whatsoever. They cannot declare anything a crime, nor can they punish people by law.

willhud9 wrote:Why should grads be punished for holding an unpopular belief?

Again, not what's happening here. The school in question is forcing that belief unto any prospective students.

Schools cannot force a "belief" unto students anymore than a government can.

You know what I mean Will.
You cannot enroll in this school unless you sign a covenant subscribing to this position.
If you violate this position you can and will be punished.

willhud9 wrote:Beliefs are abstract and students lie all of the time. Making statements of faith for a school is hardly forcing a belief onto someone.

Ahem:

The university has a “community covenant” requiring students and staff to abstain from “sexual intimacy that violates the sacredness of marriage between a man and a woman,” or face discipline.

Yeah...and thus having a law society pass this kind of judgement screw over the young adults who are forced to go to those kind of schools due to parents not funding them to go elsewhere. So it is either go to those schools or assume a crap load of debt to pay off student loans after graduation. Sorry that seems like a shitty choice and punishes the prospective law student more than the university itself.

Liberty University required all of us to make a covenant that we'd abstain from sex. Suspension from the school or even expulsion was a potential discipline. Doesn't mean I didn't do it. The belief was not forced on me as I still believed sex before marriage was nothing bad.

The same is true with this case. Is the University violating the law? No. It is a private university. But by a law society refusing graduates from an anti-gay school because of where they went is also discrimination when those very graduates may not have had a choice in the school that they attended.

It is nothing more than political discrimination and is no better than what the school does. Sorry.

Also what Nicko said.

If the goal of this is to get TWU's policy changed than simply referendum the government to regulate universities from making such oaths mandatory.

By rejecting students who pass all examination from TWU from practicing law despite the fact that they are EQUAL in legal understanding as any other law school all due to the fact that TWU has a dumb policy is punitive towards those students when they did nothing inherently wrong.

Shrunk says no students currently exist, but that is not true.....unless there are no law students there as of now.

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

willhud9 wrote:So they get to pick and choose based on arbitrary standards....sounds bollocks to me.

Except the standards aren't arbitrary.

Well, what are they then?

TWU showed itself willing to respond to any valid criticism of their proposed curriculum in the original review process. The school is not breaking any laws.

What standard is being applied other than, "A majority of the members of this Law Society don't like this school."?

Nicko wrote:

Thomas Eshuis wrote:

willhud9 wrote:So they get to pick and choose based on arbitrary standards....sounds bollocks to me.

Except the standards aren't arbitrary.

Well, what are they then?

No discrimination.

Nicko wrote:TWU showed itself willing to respond to any valid criticism of their proposed curriculum in the original review process. The school is not breaking any laws.

This is indeed about law societies and schools, but I fail to see why the TWU would have to break laws to be invalidated by the law societies.

Nicko wrote:What standard is being applied other than, "A majority of the members of this Law Society don't like this school."?

That law schools don't practice (negative) discrimination.

willhud9 wrote:Also what Nicko said.

If the goal of this is to get TWU's policy changed than simply referendum the government to regulate universities from making such oaths mandatory.

By rejecting students who pass all examination from TWU from practicing law despite the fact that they are EQUAL in legal understanding as any other law school all due to the fact that TWU has a dumb policy is punitive towards those students when they did nothing inherently wrong.

Shrunk says no students currently exist, but that is not true.....unless there are no law students there as of now.

The law school doesn't exist. At this point, it's only a proposed school. So, no, there are no students there now.

willhud9 wrote:Schools cannot force a "belief" unto students anymore than a government can.

Beliefs are abstract and students lie all of the time. Making statements of faith for a school is hardly forcing a belief onto someone.

I agree. That's why the previous Supreme Court challenge to TWU's teacher's college failed. It argued that an education at TWU would produce teachers who would discriminate against gay students. That argument deserved to be rejected. But at that time TWU's policy did not actively discriminate against homosexuals. Now it does, so it's a different situation. The argument now would be that a Law Society is allowed to withhold accreditation to a school that practices discrimination, and that this is the case even if that discrimination is motivated by the school being a religious institution.

Shrunk wrote: But at that time TWU's policy did not actively discriminate against homosexuals. Now it does, so it's a different situation. The argument now would be that a Law Society is allowed to withhold accreditation to a school that practices discrimination, and that this is the case even if that discrimination is motivated by the school being a religious institution.

Just to get this straight (no pun intended), your basis for saying the "Community Covenant" fits the legal definition of discrimination now when it wasn't then is that same-sex marriage is now legal in Canada? That is, unmarried people employed or enrolled at TWU can't fuck (equal treatment; retarded and intrusive, but not actually discriminatory), but that heterosexual married couples can fuck while homosexual married couples can't?

Nicko wrote:

Shrunk wrote: But at that time TWU's policy did not actively discriminate against homosexuals. Now it does, so it's a different situation. The argument now would be that a Law Society is allowed to withhold accreditation to a school that practices discrimination, and that this is the case even if that discrimination is motivated by the school being a religious institution.

Just to get this straight (no pun intended), your basis for saying the "Community Covenant" fits the legal definition of discrimination now when it wasn't then is that same-sex marriage is now legal in Canada? That is, unmarried people employed or enrolled at TWU can't fuck (equal treatment; retarded and intrusive, but not actually discriminatory), but that heterosexual married couples can fuck while homosexual married couples can't?

Exactly.

"No one in this school can fuck anyone else other than the person to whom he or she is married. Except the Jews. The Jews are not allowed to fuck anyone, including their spouse." Discrimination.

"No one in this school can fuck anyone else other than the person to whom he or she is married. Except the gays. The gays are not allowed to fuck anyone, including their spouse." Also discrimination.

Which actually raises another point. One defence often offered for TWU's policy is that it exists on paper only. That, sure, students agree not to drink, watch porn, or have sex. But who's kidding who? They're all doing that stuff, anyway, right? But I wonder if the same applies to someone who is married to a person of the same gender. I think it would be much more difficult for the school to turn a blind eye to that and pretend it doesn't exist.

Shrunk wrote:Exactly.

"No one in this school can fuck anyone else other than the person to whom he or she is married. Except the Jews. The Jews are not allowed to fuck anyone, including their spouse." Discrimination.

"No one in this school can fuck anyone else other than the person to whom he or she is married. Except the gays. The gays are not allowed to fuck anyone, including their spouse." Also discrimination.

Well, the problem with that is that we are talking about Christian Evangelicals. And for them, marriage is between a man and a woman. For them two men or two women cannot be married. It's just what their sect of Christianity believes, a belief they share with the RCC.

The central problem remains that these people can legally operate a university that requires students and staff to profess this belief and retains the right to punish deviation from it. Even if their Supreme Court challenge fails, they will still continue to require this.

What the current opposition to TWU's law school says to me is, "Well, it's perfectly fine to make someone studying or teaching literature, history or biology sign this Community Covenant thing, but you can't do that to people studying or teaching law."

Either running a university that requires agreements of this kind is okay, or it's not. But it is not the function of a professional organisation established by law to push the agenda either way.

Shrunk wrote:Which actually raises another point. One defence often offered for TWU's policy is that it exists on paper only. That, sure, students agree not to drink, watch porn, or have sex. But who's kidding who? They're all doing that stuff, anyway, right? But I wonder if the same applies to someone who is married to a person of the same gender. I think it would be much more difficult for the school to turn a blind eye to that and pretend it doesn't exist.

I think that it would be even more difficult for you to find someone married to a person of the same gender who wants to study or teach at an explicitly Christian Evangelical institution.

Nicko wrote:What the current opposition to TWU's law school says to me is, "Well, it's perfectly fine to make someone studying or teaching literature, history or biology sign this Community Covenant thing, but you can't do that to people studying or teaching law."

Either running a university that requires agreements of this kind is okay, or it's not. But it is not the function of a professional organisation established by law to push the agenda either way.

Of course, I see it a bit differently. To my thinking, it's fine for them to have their own rules for the own private little religious club. The law is that the freedom of association and of religious practice allows them to do that. But organizations outside of the religious college must still be allowed to set it's own standards for which institutions it will recognize and accredit. And requiring that those institutions not practice discrimination seems an eminently reasonable standard to set. Sure, that's "pushing an agenda". But it's an agenda that the law society is empowered to push. Ensuring the legal profession respects diversity and is free from discrimination is part of the mandate of every Canadian Law Society, AFAIK.

But, of course, the law societies have no say over literature, history or biology. But if graduate schools refused to recognize degrees from TWU, I think that would also be within their mandate. The issue just doesn't seem to have arisen.

Shrunk wrote:Which actually raises another point. One defence often offered for TWU's policy is that it exists on paper only. That, sure, students agree not to drink, watch porn, or have sex. But who's kidding who? They're all doing that stuff, anyway, right? But I wonder if the same applies to someone who is married to a person of the same gender. I think it would be much more difficult for the school to turn a blind eye to that and pretend it doesn't exist.

I think that it would be even more difficult for you to find someone married to a person of the same gender who wants to study or teach at an explicitly Christian Evangelical institution.

And yet TWU keeps bragging about all the gays they have on staff and among the students. So there must be some.

Shrunk wrote:Of course, I see it a bit differently. To my thinking, it's fine for them to have their own rules for the own private little religious club. The law is that the freedom of association and of religious practice allows them to do that.

Fair enough.

Where I have the problem with TWU is in an organisation whose stated purpose is to promote and propagate Evangelical Christianity being allowed to issue degrees.

Shrunk wrote:But organizations outside of the religious college must still be allowed to set it's own standards for which institutions it will recognize and accredit. And requiring that those institutions not practice discrimination seems an eminently reasonable standard to set.

I agree. They should not, however, be allowed to just make up their own standards for what is or is not discrimination. Particularly in the case of Law Societies established by Acts of Parliament. Refusing accreditation to a school on the basis of an entirely legal policy amounts to the Law Societies taking a position on a political issue.

Shrunk wrote:Sure, that's "pushing an agenda". But it's an agenda that the law society is empowered to push.

I don't think so. The mandate of the Law Societies is to ensure that people practicing law are qualified to advocate in the interests of their clients. What the Law Societies who are rejecting TWU's accreditation by the national body are doing is just as unacceptable as if they decided to support a particular political party.

It's absolutely fine for a lawyer - or anyone else - to hold the opinion that some practice that is currently legal is discriminatory and to argue, organise and campaign for the law to be altered to reflect this assessment.

It is utterly unacceptable to use provincial Law Societies - the entire point of which is that they are politically neutral - as a tool to achieve this goal.

Shrunk wrote:Ensuring the legal profession respects diversity and is free from discrimination is part of the mandate of every Canadian Law Society, AFAIK.

That's my impression as well, but the Societies already have - and will retain - the ability to exclude individuals from the profession whose bigotry render them unable to operate in the legal profession of a civilised society. Assuming, on the other hand, that every graduate of TWU is a raging homophobe is exactly the sort of discrimination they are supposed to reject.

Shrunk wrote:But, of course, the law societies have no say over literature, history or biology. But if graduate schools refused to recognize degrees from TWU, I think that would also be within their mandate. The issue just doesn't seem to have arisen.

This is missing my point.

If TWU is using a legal loophole in order to run a university with a discriminatory policy, close the loophole. Prevent TWU from discriminating rather than just rendering one particular degree course valueless.

Shrunk wrote:

Nicko wrote:

Shrunk wrote:Which actually raises another point. One defence often offered for TWU's policy is that it exists on paper only. That, sure, students agree not to drink, watch porn, or have sex. But who's kidding who? They're all doing that stuff, anyway, right? But I wonder if the same applies to someone who is married to a person of the same gender. I think it would be much more difficult for the school to turn a blind eye to that and pretend it doesn't exist.

I think that it would be even more difficult for you to find someone married to a person of the same gender who wants to study or teach at an explicitly Christian Evangelical institution.

And yet TWU keeps bragging about all the gays they have on staff and among the students. So there must be some.

There must? I don't see why.

Also, if married same-sex couples are studying or teaching at TWU, it would seem TWU is not practicing the alleged* discrimination you claim it is.





* "Alleged" in the sense that you and I think that it's discriminatory, but that's just our opinion man. The law apparently disagrees.

Nicko wrote:

Shrunk wrote:Of course, I see it a bit differently. To my thinking, it's fine for them to have their own rules for the own private little religious club. The law is that the freedom of association and of religious practice allows them to do that.

Fair enough.

Where I have the problem with TWU is in an organisation whose stated purpose is to promote and propagate Evangelical Christianity being allowed to issue degrees.

Shrunk wrote:But organizations outside of the religious college must still be allowed to set it's own standards for which institutions it will recognize and accredit. And requiring that those institutions not practice discrimination seems an eminently reasonable standard to set.

I agree. They should not, however, be allowed to just make up their own standards for what is or is not discrimination. Particularly in the case of Law Societies established by Acts of Parliament. Refusing accreditation to a school on the basis of an entirely legal policy amounts to the Law Societies taking a position on a political issue.

There is no question that TWU's policy is discriminatory. There is also no question that refusing to allow them to hold such a policy violates its freedom of religious practice. That is acknowledged in the Supreme Court decision in the BC College of Teachers case. So two fundamental rights and freedoms are in conflict here, and the way that has been resolved is to view TWU as a private religious institution analogous to a church. The balancing of those two rights in that narrow situation does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that TWU's policy must also take precedence over the policies of professional regulatory bodies like the Law Societies.

Shrunk wrote:Sure, that's "pushing an agenda". But it's an agenda that the law society is empowered to push.

I don't think so. The mandate of the Law Societies is to ensure that people practicing law are qualified to advocate in the interests of their clients. What the Law Societies who are rejecting TWU's accreditation by the national body are doing is just as unacceptable as if they decided to support a particular political party.

It's absolutely fine for a lawyer - or anyone else - to hold the opinion that some practice that is currently legal is discriminatory and to argue, organise and campaign for the law to be altered to reflect this assessment.

It is utterly unacceptable to use provincial Law Societies - the entire point of which is that they are politically neutral - as a tool to achieve this goal.

Except that the Law Societies are not taking a position on that political issue. As far as they are concerned, religious schools can continue to grant degrees. They just can't dictate the policies of the Law Societies.

Let's suppose the Law Society of Upper Canada has a policy that all law schools must include 20 hours of instruction in constitutional law as part of its curriculum. However, TWU refuses to teach con law and cites religious reasons for this. There is no law that requires a law school to teach con law. Refusing to do so is entirely legal. So does it follow that the Law Society is now bound to disregard its rule regarding the curriculum? I don't see how that follows.

Shrunk wrote:Ensuring the legal profession respects diversity and is free from discrimination is part of the mandate of every Canadian Law Society, AFAIK.

That's my impression as well, but the Societies already have - and will retain - the ability to exclude individuals from the profession whose bigotry render them unable to operate in the legal profession of a civilised society. Assuming, on the other hand, that every graduate of TWU is a raging homophobe is exactly the sort of discrimination they are supposed to reject.

Shrunk wrote:But, of course, the law societies have no say over literature, history or biology. But if graduate schools refused to recognize degrees from TWU, I think that would also be within their mandate. The issue just doesn't seem to have arisen.

This is missing my point.

If TWU is using a legal loophole in order to run a university with a discriminatory policy, close the loophole. Prevent TWU from discriminating rather than just rendering one particular degree course valueless.

Again, it comes down to the question of the extent to which a religious institution's freedom of practice must intrude on the policies of independent secular organizations. I don't think it is necessary to go as far as you suggest. You actually suggest balancing the two competing rights farther against religious rights than I do.

Shrunk wrote:

Nicko wrote:

Shrunk wrote:Which actually raises another point. One defence often offered for TWU's policy is that it exists on paper only. That, sure, students agree not to drink, watch porn, or have sex. But who's kidding who? They're all doing that stuff, anyway, right? But I wonder if the same applies to someone who is married to a person of the same gender. I think it would be much more difficult for the school to turn a blind eye to that and pretend it doesn't exist.

I think that it would be even more difficult for you to find someone married to a person of the same gender who wants to study or teach at an explicitly Christian Evangelical institution.

And yet TWU keeps bragging about all the gays they have on staff and among the students. So there must be some.

There must? I don't see why.

Also, if married same-sex couples are studying or teaching at TWU, it would seem TWU is not practicing the alleged* discrimination you claim it is.

I don't say any married homosexuals are studying there. They keep saying homosexual students are enrolled there, and these students have just signed the pledge agreeing not to have sex while they are students. With which, I'm sure, they comply to exactly the same degree as the heterosexual students. However, it remains unknown to me whether they would agree to admit a student married to a same-sex spouse. As I read the policy, I believe they would not.

* "Alleged" in the sense that you and I think that it's discriminatory, but that's just our opinion man. The law apparently disagrees.

Again, there is no claim that the policy is not discriminatory. Just that they are allowed to hold discriminatory policies because of the guarantee of freedom of religion.

Shrunk wrote:There is no question that TWU's policy is discriminatory.

Correct. The question is whether the discrimination is something that is relevant to this case. That is, whether it is illegal discrimination. And as long as it is legal to run a university with TWU's bizarre "Community Covenant", any disagreement with that Covenant is a private political opinion that should have no bearing on the decisions of a Law Society.

Shrunk wrote:There is also no question that refusing to allow them to hold such a policy violates its freedom of religious practice.

Well I have a few problems.

If someone wants to promote a religion, they are free to start a church.

If someone wants to start a university, they should be prohibited from requiring their students to commit to an ideological statement. That is, the law should be changed to prevent TWU from doing what it is doing now to any of their students or staff.

I'm reminded of a comment by my alma mater's Vice Chancellor in a speech he gave to first year students. It was pretty much a stock speech that didn't change much in the decade and a half between the two times I attended. The comment was:

"You will not be the same person you are now by the time you leave here."

This sums up to me what tertiary education is supposed to be about. A time to expand your horizons. A time to question yourself and what you believe. To figure out what you stand for and what you won't stand for.

TWU effectively says to their students, "Your horizons are going nowhere. You will not question your beliefs. You will not change. You will be the same person you were when you walked in the door."

This is utterly antithetical to what I understand a university education to be about. The fact that an institution like TWU is allowed to style itself a university is a searing indictment on the failure of Canada to properly regulate tertiary education.

Shrunk wrote:That is acknowledged in the Supreme Court decision in the BC College of Teachers case. So two fundamental rights and freedoms are in conflict here, and the way that has been resolved is to view TWU as a private religious institution analogous to a church.

So, the Supreme Court has ruled that, in cases like this, the religious freedom trumps the discrimination?

As I have hinted, I think this decision was silly, but it sounds like a decision that the Law Societies need to abide by. At least until well-meaning Canadians stop letting themselves get distracted by the sideshow an focus on the real issue.

Shrunk wrote:The balancing of those two rights in that narrow situation does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that TWU's policy must also take precedence over the policies of professional regulatory bodies like the Law Societies.

I don't see why not. Particularly since the "narrow situation" described in the legal precedent is virtually identical to this case.

Shrunk wrote:

Nicko wrote:

Shrunk wrote:Sure, that's "pushing an agenda". But it's an agenda that the law society is empowered to push.

I don't think so. The mandate of the Law Societies is to ensure that people practicing law are qualified to advocate in the interests of their clients. What the Law Societies who are rejecting TWU's accreditation by the national body are doing is just as unacceptable as if they decided to support a particular political party.

It's absolutely fine for a lawyer - or anyone else - to hold the opinion that some practice that is currently legal is discriminatory and to argue, organise and campaign for the law to be altered to reflect this assessment.

It is utterly unacceptable to use provincial Law Societies - the entire point of which is that they are politically neutral - as a tool to achieve this goal.

Except that the Law Societies are not taking a position on that political issue. As far as they are concerned, religious schools can continue to grant degrees. They just can't dictate the policies of the Law Societies.

When someone says that a practice not legally defined as unfairly discriminatory should be regarded as unfair discrimination, they are expressing a political opinion.

Shrunk wrote:Let's suppose the Law Society of Upper Canada has a policy that all law schools must include 20 hours of instruction in constitutional law as part of its curriculum. However, TWU refuses to teach con law and cites religious reasons for this. There is no law that requires a law school to teach con law. Refusing to do so is entirely legal. So does it follow that the Law Society is now bound to disregard its rule regarding the curriculum? I don't see how that follows.

Actually, since ConLaw is a normal part of what someone with an Ll.B should be expected to have a grounding in, the Law Societies would be entirely justified in making rulings on this basis. In fact, during the original approval process by the national body, problems with the curriculum were identified and TWU corrected them.

Not a good hypothetical. There may be no law requiring that law schools teach ConLaw, but there is a law requiring Law Societies make sure that people practicing law know what the fuck they are doing.

Shrunk wrote:Again, it comes down to the question of the extent to which a religious institution's freedom of practice must intrude on the policies of independent secular organizations. I don't think it is necessary to go as far as you suggest. You actually suggest balancing the two competing rights farther against religious rights than I do.

In a way. I just don't see how running a university can be defined as a "religious right".

Shrunk wrote:I don't say any married homosexuals are studying there. They keep saying homosexual students are enrolled there, and these students have just signed the pledge agreeing not to have sex while they are students. With which, I'm sure, they comply to exactly the same degree as the heterosexual students. However, it remains unknown to me whether they would agree to admit a student married to a same-sex spouse. As I read the policy, I believe they would not.

Quite probably. Perhaps someone married to someone of the same sex should attempt to enroll, then sue the fuckers. I'd be all for that.