Rob_Zepp Posted June 19, 2018 Share Posted June 19, 2018 56 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said: a covenant based on religious beliefs... but who cares? it was against the CofR&F so TWU lost. But yes, if they keep out the discriminatory stuff they can believe whatever they want as long as they meet the requirements of the accreditation body. It is core to their belief. The only way it becomes discriminatory is if lawyers from that school practice discrimination - my point is many religiously based universities all over the world graduate professionals who don’t seem to practice discrimation - what makes this different? Why can openly LBGT people go to TWU apparently and not feel a problem? Moreover, I understand the covenant is not mandatory. anyway, all I see is relentless dismantling of anything Christian based in North America and it just seems to be the opposite for other faiths. I have zilch invested in this either way - just curious how many seem happy about this but are not concerned with other faiths having zero similar. Interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JM_ Posted June 19, 2018 Share Posted June 19, 2018 1 hour ago, Rob_Zepp said: It is core to their belief. The only way it becomes discriminatory is if lawyers from that school practice discrimination - my point is many religiously based universities all over the world graduate professionals who don’t seem to practice discrimation - what makes this different? Why can openly LBGT people go to TWU apparently and not feel a problem? Moreover, I understand the covenant is not mandatory. anyway, all I see is relentless dismantling of anything Christian based in North America and it just seems to be the opposite for other faiths. I have zilch invested in this either way - just curious how many seem happy about this but are not concerned with other faiths having zero similar. Interesting. We have our Charter, maybe thats the difference? I don't see how this is part of a relentless dismantling of anything, TWU wanted to do something that conflicted with the Charter, its that simple. There have been lots of cases since 1982 where people tried to use their beliefs to discriminate and lost in court, there's nothing new here. You'd have to show some proof about some kind of imbalance going on between Christians and other groups, I haven't heard of any charter cases like that but maybe I missed it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingofsurrey Posted June 19, 2018 Author Share Posted June 19, 2018 7 hours ago, Neversummer said: We can debate whether receiving tax benefits = receiving government funding. When you do your taxes and claim donations or RRSP contributions, do you receive tax benefits? Yes. Does that mean you receive government funding? I don't look at it that way. If you do ... OK, whatever. revieiving millions of dollars in tax benefits is definately gov funding.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingofsurrey Posted June 19, 2018 Author Share Posted June 19, 2018 7 hours ago, ForsbergTheGreat said: Maybe if you weren’t a uni drop out you would know how to research. What did any of what you just posted have to do with Chik fil a being a racist company? Oh that’s right it didn’t.. posting irrelevant links doesn’t equate to research. Haha you are too funny. Sorry. Maybe its me but you make next to no sense.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lockout Casualty Posted June 19, 2018 Share Posted June 19, 2018 11 hours ago, ForsbergTheGreat said: Of course you struggle with reading comprehension. Unfortunately I did expect that. No, the discussion is about discrimination in general, as was your post. 7 hours ago, ForsbergTheGreat said: Thanks for clarifying. So they aren’t a racist company that refused service to people of colour. But it’s worth noting that stating their opinion on same sex marriage received backlash and hurt then financially. No, no it didn't. Unless you consider the restaurant on pace to become third largest in the US, with nearly double the gross per restaurant as McDonald's, as getting hurt financially. How would you even know, when just a couple of hours earlier you couldn't figure out how my example of their discrimination was relevant to your post? The take away to my post being, your theory is easily shown to be false with a major national chain of restaurants owned and operated by a open bigot, who uses its proceeds to fund bigoted organisations. Maybe you should focus less on theory that overlooks the human factor entirely, and more into how vast majority of businesses operate in the real world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ForsbergTheGreat Posted June 19, 2018 Share Posted June 19, 2018 7 hours ago, Lockout Casualty said: No, the discussion is about discrimination in general, as was your post. I clearly called out rasict companies as ones going out of business and you responded with Chik fil a.......something doesn’t add up. 7 hours ago, Lockout Casualty said: No, no it didn't. Unless you consider the restaurant on pace to become third largest in the US, with nearly double the gross per restaurant as McDonald's, as getting hurt financially. How would you even know, when just a couple of hours earlier you couldn't figure out how my example of their discrimination was relevant to your post? How would I know? Because I’m not blind and can read. The link clearly stated that backlashed caused areas to remove Chik fil a from their campus. Now I know business isn’t your strong suit but losing stores isn’t a benefit financially. 7 hours ago, Lockout Casualty said: The take away to my post being, your theory is easily shown to be false with a major national chain of restaurants owned and operated by a open bigot, who uses its proceeds to fund bigoted organisations. Maybe you should focus less on theory that overlooks the human factor entirely, and more into how vast majority of businesses operate in the real world. The reason Chik fil a is growing is because they provide a supply better than competition for demand. If people thought they were a bad company they would stop going there, nothing is forcing people to eat there. Obviously people don’t think the charity going towards other Christian organizations is something so stop eating there over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alflives Posted June 19, 2018 Share Posted June 19, 2018 Lawyers ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingofsurrey Posted June 19, 2018 Author Share Posted June 19, 2018 1 hour ago, Alflives said: Lawyers ... Intolerance.... Discrimination.. Don't want to see it in Canada... .. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JM_ Posted June 19, 2018 Share Posted June 19, 2018 29 minutes ago, kingofsurrey said: Intolerance.... Discrimination.. Don't want to see it in Canada... .. TWU supporters are playing the victim card pretty hard, but you don't get to do unconstitutional things. Seems pretty simple to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingofsurrey Posted June 19, 2018 Author Share Posted June 19, 2018 6 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said: TWU supporters are playing the victim card pretty hard, but you don't get to do unconstitutional things. Seems pretty simple to me. Yup, must really suck when you are told as a business / organization that you can NOT discriminate against segments of the population that don't share your opinions. Treating all CANADIANS equally should not be a hard / difficult thing for people to manage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Down by the River Posted June 19, 2018 Share Posted June 19, 2018 17 hours ago, Rob_Zepp said: Or put another way, many professionals are asked to work with people with faith background's different than their own - however, the vast majority simply get on and act professionally and do their jobs. Does someone think that a lawyer who has Christian ethical training would then refuse to work on cases for people that were not Christian? That seems crazy but even if that was the case, so what? So what if some lawyers only work for Christians? I am sure there are accountants that only work for (fill in blank). Doctors that work for (fill in blank) etc. etc. This seems more about some excessive liberalization of society once again. It seems that traditional beliefs and approaches are all the rage to strip but everything else can occur under the veil of "diversity". Interesting times. It doesn't sound like you've read the case decision. The SCC gave MORE rights to businesses by saying that the group responsible for accreditation is not obligated to accredit universities that have policies inconsistent with the principles of a particular sector of business. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alflives Posted June 19, 2018 Share Posted June 19, 2018 34 minutes ago, kingofsurrey said: Intolerance.... Discrimination.. Don't want to see it in Canada... .. I don't get this whole issue. The school sets it's guidelines, and kids choose to go, or not go there. Gay kids can go to TWU can't they? Is there a restriction on which kids can attend, based on sexuality? I thought the covenant in question was about not having premarital sex? I doubt the kids (gay or straight) follow this rule anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Down by the River Posted June 19, 2018 Share Posted June 19, 2018 14 hours ago, Rob_Zepp said: It is core to their belief. The only way it becomes discriminatory is if lawyers from that school practice discrimination - my point is many religiously based universities all over the world graduate professionals who don’t seem to practice discrimation - what makes this different? Why can openly LBGT people go to TWU apparently and not feel a problem? Moreover, I understand the covenant is not mandatory. anyway, all I see is relentless dismantling of anything Christian based in North America and it just seems to be the opposite for other faiths. I have zilch invested in this either way - just curious how many seem happy about this but are not concerned with other faiths having zero similar. Interesting. Lol. The humanity. A society, comprised almost entirely by individuals that are completely separate from government, want to accredit other businesses that have commensurate values. What an attack on Christianity. These societies are meant to represent the interests of a group of highly educated professionals. Disagreeing with the SCC decision is saying that you are more interested in religious rights than the rights of businesses to self-govern. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lockout Casualty Posted June 19, 2018 Share Posted June 19, 2018 2 hours ago, ForsbergTheGreat said: I clearly called out rasict companies as ones going out of business and you responded with Chik fil a.......something doesn’t add up. How would I know? Because I’m not blind and can read. The link clearly stated that backlashed caused areas to remove Chik fil a from their campus. Now I know business isn’t your strong suit but losing stores isn’t a benefit financially. The reason Chik fil a is growing is because they provide a supply better than competition for demand. If people thought they were a bad company they would stop going there, nothing is forcing people to eat there. Obviously people don’t think the charity going towards other Christian organizations is something so stop eating there over. And that's the whole point that you clearly can't grasp - many people are okay with companies supporting vile stuff, because many people believe in vile stuff. Being openly discriminatory can be a beacon to scum to support one of their own. Therefore, it's absurd to categorically state that "companies will go out of business because people will stop shopping there". I know math isn't your strong suit, but losing two stores in an area, but opening 10 in another is good for business. Anyway, chewing a point this thoroughly for you is a waste of both our times. You're clearly not moved by evidence. Keep on keepin' on you soldier of unbridled capitalism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monty Posted June 19, 2018 Share Posted June 19, 2018 19 minutes ago, Alflives said: I don't get this whole issue. The school sets it's guidelines, and kids choose to go, or not go there. Gay kids can go to TWU can't they? Is there a restriction on which kids can attend, based on sexuality? I thought the covenant in question was about not having premarital sex? I doubt the kids (gay or straight) follow this rule anyway. I went to TWU from 2000-2004. I can 100% confirm that many, many students did not follow all of what was in the covenant. At the time, not drinking alcohol was in the covenant. Most did not follow that, either. We just didn’t bring it on campus. And yes, gay students also attended. In my Interpersonal & Helping Skills Pysch class, one of the students came out to me and my other study partner. We reacted like most I knew at the school would. Like he was our friend. Didn’t treat him any different. Didn’t expect him to be anything else, other than who he was. Graduated 14 years ago, my wife 13 years ago. She teaches and has zero problem separating her religion from what she teaches. As does my sister in-law who graduated from the nursing program there. However, I do understand where people are coming from on both sides. It doesn’t bother me either way. My faith and religion isn’t other people’s, and I’m not one to force my belief on others, either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alflives Posted June 19, 2018 Share Posted June 19, 2018 2 minutes ago, Monty said: I went to TWU from 2000-2004. I can 100% confirm that many, many students did not follow all of what was in the covenant. At the time, not drinking alcohol was in the covenant. Most did not follow that, either. We just didn’t bring it on campus. And yes, gay students also attended. In my Interpersonal & Helping Skills Pysch class, one of the students came out to me and my other study partner. We reacted like most I knew at the school would. Like he was our friend. Didn’t treat him any different. Didn’t expect him to be anything else, other than who he was. Graduated 14 years ago, my wife 13 years ago. She teaches and has zero problem separating her religion from what she teaches. As does my sister in-law who graduated from the nursing program there. However, I do understand where people are coming from on both sides. It doesn’t bother me either way. My faith and religion isn’t other people’s, and I’m not one to force my belief on others, either. Seems like the kids are the ones getting the short end of the stick here, which is the truly sad part. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monty Posted June 19, 2018 Share Posted June 19, 2018 Just now, Alflives said: Seems like the kids are the ones getting the short end of the stick here, which is the truly sad part. Everyone is going to have their individual take on this, and they are absolutely welcome to. Like everything in life, nobody will agree all around. In my experience in the time I was at TWU, it was a very accepting and positive experience. My Human Sexuality class was one of the most interesting times, as each group of 4 was tasked with teaching our 3 hour class. One group brought in a woman who had finished transitioning to a man, and he spoke to us for 2 hours, followed by a 1 hour Q&A session. Incredibly, incredibly fascinating. But again, I know the public perception. For every 9 completely reasonable people in the world, there’s 1 nutter that paints the rest in a bad light. Should TWU change the covenant? I don’t know. They have several times throughout the years, so perhaps they’ll have to do it again. Is what it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob_Zepp Posted June 19, 2018 Share Posted June 19, 2018 46 minutes ago, Down by the River said: It doesn't sound like you've read the case decision. The SCC gave MORE rights to businesses by saying that the group responsible for accreditation is not obligated to accredit universities that have policies inconsistent with the principles of a particular sector of business. I have not, I have been replying to the nature of the posts made herein. I have nothing vested in this either way so was not interested in reading something by lawyers, for lawyers and that probably could be taken as a slippery way out by not really addressing the core of the issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob_Zepp Posted June 19, 2018 Share Posted June 19, 2018 40 minutes ago, Down by the River said: Lol. The humanity. A society, comprised almost entirely by individuals that are completely separate from government, want to accredit other businesses that have commensurate values. What an attack on Christianity. These societies are meant to represent the interests of a group of highly educated professionals. Disagreeing with the SCC decision is saying that you are more interested in religious rights than the rights of businesses to self-govern. When self-governance becomes blind to values, yup I can see calling them out. Again, the question not answered is what was their concern? Did they really think lawyers educated at TWU would not practice law in a fair manner? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Emmetts Posted June 19, 2018 Share Posted June 19, 2018 On 6/15/2018 at 3:57 PM, 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 Governments in debt = Capitalism OKAY.jpg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.