TWU Lawschool decision

[ForsbergTheGreat]

1 hour ago, Warhippy said:

Capitalism has taken its course

 

We see endless governments deeply in debt

We see people unable to afford to own homes or even eat while being gainfully employed

We see corporations wielding more power than governments

We see monopolys and oligarchs or corptocracys

 

Capitalism has had its chance and essentially failed because only the supremely naive or essentially the stupid believe in a system predicated on "infinite growth" and a trickle down system

 

All you're suggesting is the rise of once again segregation and open bigotry based on bias, prejudice hatred and racism which in all honesty is frigging dumb.  Because only corporations would essentially serve everyone while small and private business would only serve those who their bias allowed.  The advent of social media would essentially give people a nice heads up on who frequent vs not.  The inevitable death of the mom and pop shop would be complete in due time

 

Todays decision by the supreme court is essentially nothing more than telling Trinity they cannot exclude based on bigotry and instead must accept everyone equally based on simple human rights and equality.  The sad thing is how angry everyone is, especially the religious right.  Which in itself isn't surprising as them good god fearing folk seem to be the most hateful bunch of yokels this side of hardcore radical islam

A typical left response,  capitalism has failed. haha yeah capitalism has done nothing good and only brought evil into what was once a pure bliss.

 

YOU want more gov't control as long as the gov't does the things YOU want, but you completely ignore the fact that you are 1 of 33 million people and YOUR view doesn't and will not ever align with all 33 million other people.  The fact that you say capitalism will bring the rise of bigotry haha don't make me laugh, capitalism is the opposite, it doesn't care about what gender you are or the colour of your skin, all that matters is supply/demand and providing the best product in the most efficient manner, if a women helps me achieve that great, if a person of colour does awesome, capitalism doesn't care what you look, just make it a profit.  And if you run a business that is truly racist guess what happens, there demand dies off and they go out of business.  

 

  But it's also something I don't expect the (center/right haha) left to understand.  Good day hip.

[kingofsurrey]

7 minutes ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

A typical left response,  capitalism has failed. haha yeah capitalism has done nothing good and only brought evil into what was once a pure bliss.

 

YOU want more gov't control as long as the gov't does the things YOU want, but you completely ignore the fact that you are 1 of 33 million people and YOUR view doesn't and will not ever align with all 33 million other people.  The fact that you say capitalism will bring the rise of bigotry haha don't make me laugh, capitalism is the opposite, it doesn't care about what gender you are or the colour of your skin, all that matters is supply/demand and providing the best product in the most efficient manner, if a women helps me achieve that great, if a person of colour does awesome, capitalism doesn't care what you look, just make it a profit.  And if you run a business that is truly racist guess what happens, there demand dies off and they go out of business.  

 

  But it's also something I don't expect the (center/right haha) left to understand.  Good day hip.

There is no place for intolerence / racism in any economic system.   

[Vinny in Vancouver]

1 hour ago, Jimmy McGill said:

Great, and the other 4199 world religions have another pov. See the problem? 

I'm completely aware of the problem with differences in world views (yes, not just religions; as you know, communism hates religions and look at their human rights' records). I have a lot of first-hand experience of those differences. Because of that, I am sympathetic about the toughness of this Supreme decision. But that wasn't the point of my response. I was addressing your mischaracterization of the views of a lot of the evangelicals. As I said, their Bible has stated commands promoting loving their enemies and in fact, they claim that the founder of their religion willingly died for people who hated him. You probably have had some negative experience with some of them, and that's too bad, but don't be generalizing.

[kingofsurrey]

7 minutes ago, vinny_in_vancouver said:

I'm completely aware of the problem with differences in world views (yes, not just religions; as you know, communism hates religions and look at their human rights' records). I have a lot of first-hand experience of those differences. Because of that, I am sympathetic about the toughness of this Supreme decision. But that wasn't the point of my response. I was addressing your mischaracterization of the views of a lot of the evangelicals. As I said, their Bible has stated commands promoting loving their enemies and in fact, they claim that the founder of their religion willingly died for people who hated him. You probably have had some negative experience with some of them, and that's too bad, but don't be generalizing.

Any supreme court decision that denies exclusion and intolerance has zero toughness in it  imo 

 

That is just a well functionning supreme court / country 

[DonLever]

2 hours ago, Warhippy said:

Todays decision by the supreme court is essentially nothing more than telling Trinity they cannot exclude based on bigotry and instead must accept everyone equally based on simple human rights and equality.  The sad thing is how angry everyone is, especially the religious right.  Which in itself isn't surprising as them good god fearing folk seem to be the most hateful bunch of yokels this side of hardcore radical islam

No true at all, Trinity Western does not bar students who are gay.   Anyone can enroll at the school whether they are Christian or not, gay, straight, Muslim, etc. .  What is at question is the covenant that say students must agree to abstain from sexual relations outside heterosexual marriage.   Since TW does not condone gay marriage, that was the problem.

 

As for religious right being hateful bunch of yokels, the same can be said of the liberal left.  It is atrocious how they cut down people they do not agree with.

[48MPHSlapShot]

This sets a dangerous precedent moving forward.

 

Also, did I really just say someone say "capitalism has taken it's course"? Like, really?

 

REALLY?

 

Free market capitalism has and continues to do more to eradicate poverty than literally any other socioeconomic system in human history, and it's not even close. It's truly amazing when you actually look at the numbers. Since the onset of industrialization and globalization of a free market system (which, incidentally, this "great decision" spits in the face of), the global rate of extreme poverty has taken a massive hit, and that's mainly due to the spread of free market capitalism.

 

But yeah, let's remove the number one eradicator of poverty that has ever graced the planet and replace it with a system completely controlled and regulated by the government. That's not a totalitarian idea or anything fp.

 

The normalization of the authoritarian left is truly frightening, and the closer we get to a system controlled entirely by the government, the further away we get from true freedom.

[JM_]

1 hour ago, vinny_in_vancouver said:

I'm completely aware of the problem with differences in world views (yes, not just religions; as you know, communism hates religions and look at their human rights' records). I have a lot of first-hand experience of those differences. Because of that, I am sympathetic about the toughness of this Supreme decision. But that wasn't the point of my response. I was addressing your mischaracterization of the views of a lot of the evangelicals. As I said, their Bible has stated commands promoting loving their enemies and in fact, they claim that the founder of their religion willingly died for people who hated him. You probably have had some negative experience with some of them, and that's too bad, but don't be generalizing.

TWU is an evangelical-based school, I'm not generalizing. 

[JM_]

7 minutes ago, 48MPHSlapShot said:

This sets a dangerous precedent moving forward.

 

But yeah, let's remove the number one eradicator of poverty that has ever graced the planet and replace it with a system completely controlled and regulated by the government. That's not a totalitarian idea or anything fp.

 

The normalization of the authoritarian left is truly frightening, and the closer we get to a system controlled entirely by the government, the further away we get from true freedom.

No, its upholding the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Its not about capitalism, or current far-left thinking, or totalitarian anything. 

 

You simply can't discriminate against others, no matter what your religion says. Surely you can abstract that idea to other situations you wouldn't like. 

[kingofsurrey]

Will twu teaching and nursing programs now be at risk ????

[48MPHSlapShot]

2 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

No, its upholding the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Its not about capitalism, or current far-left thinking, or totalitarian anything. 

 

You simply can't discriminate against others, no matter what your religion says. Surely you can abstract that idea to other situations you wouldn't like. 

Whether I like it or not is irrelevant. This scares me because it implies that the government can intervene in the affairs of any private institution. Believe me, I'm not fan of this type of discrimination either, but without private institutions, the government would basically hold complete monopoly over industry, including education, and that scares the crap out of me considering the indoctrination facilities that a lot of colleges have become. At it's base level this may be an issue of discrimination, but the broader picture is that the government is deciding how private institutions can be run, and if the government can control private institutions in such a way, doesn't it sort of negate the point of a private institution?

[Crabcakes]

7 hours ago, kingofsurrey said:

TWU Lawschool decision

 

Some great news today.  Once again CDN Supreme Court has to protect CDN rights and freedoms. 

 

Canada is a great country. 

 

Societies governing the legal profession have the right to deny accreditation to a proposed law school at a Christian university in B.C., the Supreme Court of Canada has ruled.

In a pair of keenly anticipated decisions Friday, the high court said law societies in Ontario and British Columbia were entitled to ensure equal access to the bar, support diversity and prevent harm to lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer students.

 

http://vancouversun.com/news/local-news/supreme-court-of-canada-loss-for-trinity-western-university?video_autoplay=true

Thank you King.  This is great news.

[Crabcakes]

6 hours ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

And who cares. Let capitalism take its corse. All those companies would be doing is turning away business. Which in itself is a terrible business plan. I personally say let private business have the right to serve who ever they want.

Capitalism may be the best system but it is not perfect.  No system is.  That is why we need laws and regulations and a fair and unbiased judicial system to uphold them.  

 

 

[Crabcakes]

28 minutes ago, Crabcakes said:

Capitalism may be the best system but it is not perfect.  No system is.  That is why we need laws and regulations and a fair and unbiased judicial system to uphold them.  

 

 

FWIW the judiciary is populated by lawyers.  Lawyers become judges.  If people are missing the connection and the reason why we need judges to be unbiased.

 

Add:  The TWU covenant is discriminatory.  Agreeing to the covenant is agreeing with discrimination.  People who are potentially being appointed to the bench must show that they are unbiased.  

[Down by the River]

29 minutes ago, 48MPHSlapShot said:

Whether I like it or not is irrelevant. This scares me because it implies that the government can intervene in the affairs of any private institution. Believe me, I'm not fan of this type of discrimination either, but without private institutions, the government would basically hold complete monopoly over industry, including education, and that scares the crap out of me considering the indoctrination facilities that a lot of colleges have become. At it's base level this may be an issue of discrimination, but the broader picture is that the government is deciding how private institutions can be run, and if the government can control private institutions in such a way, doesn't it sort of negate the point of a private institution?

In my view, you are misunderstanding the decision made by the SCC. The decision is not that a private institution "cannot" do a certain thing. TWU is free to continue to hold the principle in question. What the SCC has ruled is that legal societies are not obligated to accredit TWU because the principles that TWU chooses to abide by are fundamentally at odds with BC and Ontario legal societies. 

 

 So, the SCC is actually giving rights to an institution to make decisions about who they will/will not accept. The decision is saying that law societies that want to fight against discrimination are free to do so. 

 

I'm simplifying, but this decision is somewhat similar to the decision in the US about the bakery having the right to choose who they make a cake for. The Canadian SCC is basically saying that law societies are not forced to bake cakes for institutions that have backwards policies.  

[Vinny in Vancouver]

1 hour ago, Jimmy McGill said:

TWU is an evangelical-based school, I'm not generalizing. 

I'm glad you edited your original comment to remove your mischaracterizations. That's a good start.

[Vinny in Vancouver]

2 hours ago, kingofsurrey said:

Any supreme court decision that denies exclusion and intolerance has zero toughness in it  imo 

 

That is just a well functionning supreme court / country 

Like you, I'm actually a very tolerant person - well, except to those that I consider intolerant.

[Warhippy]

3 hours ago, ForsbergTheGreat said:

A typical left response,  capitalism has failed. haha yeah capitalism has done nothing good and only brought evil into what was once a pure bliss.

 

YOU want more gov't control as long as the gov't does the things YOU want, but you completely ignore the fact that you are 1 of 33 million people and YOUR view doesn't and will not ever align with all 33 million other people.  The fact that you say capitalism will bring the rise of bigotry haha don't make me laugh, capitalism is the opposite, it doesn't care about what gender you are or the colour of your skin, all that matters is supply/demand and providing the best product in the most efficient manner, if a women helps me achieve that great, if a person of colour does awesome, capitalism doesn't care what you look, just make it a profit.  And if you run a business that is truly racist guess what happens, there demand dies off and they go out of business.  

 

  But it's also something I don't expect the (center/right haha) left to understand.  Good day hip.

Ya man.  Coming from a guy who thinks businesses should have the right to not serve people based on gender, religion, ethnicity or race.

 

Good stuff.  At least we know that about you know

 

But then I wouldn't expect the (right) bigot in you to understand.  Go stuff a ham in your glory ho..... days champ and pretend there isn't some sort of banjo twanging bend to your arguments while ya do it

[JM_]

3 hours ago, 48MPHSlapShot said:

Whether I like it or not is irrelevant. This scares me because it implies that the government can intervene in the affairs of any private institution. Believe me, I'm not fan of this type of discrimination either, but without private institutions, the government would basically hold complete monopoly over industry, including education, and that scares the crap out of me considering the indoctrination facilities that a lot of colleges have become. At it's base level this may be an issue of discrimination, but the broader picture is that the government is deciding how private institutions can be run, and if the government can control private institutions in such a way, doesn't it sort of negate the point of a private institution?

there's no slippery slope here 48. The Charter has been around since 1982, this was a very open and shut case of discrimination. 

 

It doesn't negate anything, private institutions still have to follow the constitution. 

[JM_]

2 hours ago, vinny_in_vancouver said:

I'm glad you edited your original comment to remove your mischaracterizations. That's a good start.

? I stand by everything I've said above. 

[kingofsurrey]

Great news. 

Court ruling puts pressure on Trinity Western University to change its community covenant

 

http://vancouversun.com/news/local-news/court-ruling-puts-pressure-trinity-western-university-to-change-its-community-covenant?video_autoplay=true