Brickbat: The Rule of Law


David Izquierdo /

The Canadian Supreme Court has ruled that the law societies of British Columbia and Ontario have a constitutional right to withhold accreditation from a Christian university's law school if the school requires students and faculty abide by traditional Christian beliefs. The two law societies denied Trinity Western University law school accreditation because of its community covenant which, among other things, requires abstinence from sex outside marriage between a man and a woman. The court says that requirement discriminates against LGBT people.

NEXT: Upset About Facebook Invading Your Privacy? Be Glad You Don't Live in China

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. The court says that requirement discriminates against LGBT people.

    There’s good discrimination and there’s bad discrimination, eh.

    1. similarly as William reacted I’m flabbergasted that a housewife ready to benefit $4424 in a month on the web .
      unique site…

    2. Eh to you too, “William”.

      1. William’s best product – “Let’s kill the lawyers”

    3. Why would any LBGQetc person be going to that college in the first place? It’s like a black insisting on his right to join the KKK.

  2. striving to uphold a positive public perception of the legal profession
    Like the Cleveland Browns, someday you may succeed,

  3. “requires abstinence from sex outside marriage between a man and a woman. The court says that requirement discriminates against LGBT people.”

    Sounds like exclusively discrimination against heterosexual sex.

    1. Read more closely. Under current fashionable interpretation, the law really means abstinence a person who thinks they are a man and a person who thinks they are a woman. Now you are into familiar LGBTQXYZ!@#$% territory.

  4. They can have the best academic program in the country, and they will not be accredited because of their morals.

    That’s fucked up.

    1. What if they required extramarital sex? Would it be okay to exclude then? How about if they taught how to cheat on the bar exam? Morals.

      1. What if they required extramarital sex? … How about if they taught how to cheat on the bar exam?

        If they did that then they’d be a police academy.

        1. Man, I just wanna say that reading your barbs often puts a smile on my face. Thanks, man. 🙂

      2. How many females are going to sign on to a school that requires them to put out?

        That would be an interesting experiment, but I think that would be a self-correcting issue.

        1. Buy stock in a company that makes paper bags – – – – – –

    2. Morals should not be the issue. Teaching nonsense and suppressing science and history to flatter supernatural beliefs, however, should be a disqualifier.

  5. Canada,isnt that a country on ,Game of Thrones? You know,where all the eunuchs live?

      1. Their beer sucks too.

        1. It has improved now that they check the bottles for mice.

  6. I was hoping this would be a snit over whether or not the doctrine that YHWH is one but three coeternal consubstantial persons is pagan bullshit. Now all this popcorn will go to waste.

    1. They couldn’t even give us a good transubstantiation trepidation.

  7. So the law schools in question were saying heterosexual sex is verboten, but LGBT sex is okay? Isn’t that the same as what the extreme left has been saying?

    1. Nope. They’re saying hets can have sex if they’re married, gays can never have sex (because the school doesn’t acknowledge their marriages as valid per their religious doctrine).

  8. The question isn’t whether or not you should be accredited if you discriminate, it’s whether or not a private trade association like the bar should be regulating accreditation. Recently here, we’ve had battles over whether or not only licensed dentists can do teeth-whitening with, in at least one case, the court ruling that the state dental licensing board was an unconstitutional delegation of powers for just that reason. It’s the same with the AMA for doctors or similar professional organizations for accountants and engineers and the like, why does and how can the law require you be a member of a private organization or meet the standards of a private organization to practice your profession?

    1. Isn’t that the exact question SCOTUS is going to rule on in the Janus v American Federation, Council 31 case?

  9. Jesus Christ!

    1. You just lost your accreditation, you damn believer.

  10. Tony will lubricant over this.

  11. There is a big difference between countries in the former British commonwealth and the United States, and one of the biggest is our First Amendment.

    Not only does the First Amendment protect some of our most important rights, in other words, it’s also a big part what makes us American.

    1. May it remain so. So many stories coming out of GB should serve as cautionary tales.

  12. I imagine it be would equally unlawful for a secular school to discriminate against Christian students by requiring them to viloate some deeply held belief.

    1. And you would be quite wrong.
      See if any universities will actually let the public see what they teach in their mandatory sex indoctrination classes.

  13. It strikes me that somebody should explain to the LGBT community an old fashiond cncept called ‘getting along with the neighbors’. Because there are a hell of a lot more Christians than there are LGBT people, and in a representative political system that means that if you spend enough time bullying them sooner or later you are going to regret it. See, representative societies don’t always do what it ‘right’. They do what the majority is worked up about.

    Seriously, why would an LGBT student GO to such a University? Unless it was deliberately to pester the Christians.

    1. You sound like a Jim Crow apologist.

    2. Seriously, why would an LGBT student GO to such a University? Unless it was deliberately to pester the Christians.

      Same reason lots of folks go to schools they don’t align with on every issue.

      Cost. Proximity. Family are alumni. School reputation.

      And that’s before you even get to LGBT-specific issues, which include shame, repression, being told that if you just let Jesus into your heart he can “heal” you, etc. and so-on.

      To put it simply, I’ve heard of a number of gay folk who went to Christian schools either because they didn’t know they were gay when they chose their school, or because they thought it was a way to remove themselves from temptation and would help them “pray the gay away”. They aren’t villains, they’re just a product of their raising.

      1. So they chose a school in the hopes that it would stop them from sinful fucking, and they’re upset because it’s rules ban sinful fucking?

  14. Oh, Canada — While you’re at it: The rule also discriminates against Francophones.

  15. It wouldn’t be morning without some faux-libertarian knuckledraggers on Reason kvetching about their right to bigotry being infringed somewhere.

  16. Why should adults be required to accredit a school that teaches

    that the moon is made of green cheese;

    that Earth is a few thousand years old;

    that one plus one equals fourteen (whether or not this answer derives from a beloved work of fiction);

    that storks deliver babies;

    that evolution is a Satanic plot launched from the pits of hell;

    that black cats are bad luck;

    that a man lived in a fish;

    that Earth is flat;

    that fairy tales are true; or

    that heliocentrism has been been superseded by geocentrism?

    Any one of those should be enough to make an institution ineligible for accreditation from a legitimate academic organization.

    People are entitled to believe as they wish. Competent, decent people neither advance nor accept superstition-based assertions or arguments in reasoned debate among adults — or in legitimate, accreditation-worthy schools.

    1. So let’s go flat out balls to the walls secular humanism;is that your “religion” Reverend?

      1. In science classrooms, the reality-based world prevails at a legitimate school.

        Have you a persuasive argument to the contrary?

        1. I have no problem with fact based instruction, aka “evolution,” STEM, etc. I also have no problem with philosophy, religion, ethics….no one is mandating than anyone attend said institution of higher learning, and that is a personal choice based on the preferences and beliefs of the students; however, the Canadian Government is into the business of mandating what they can and cannot teach, or put on their mission statement. This has nothing to do with whether or not they are adequately covering torts and contracts. That I have a problem with.

        2. How about those who teach a woman can have a penis, and a man can have a vagina?

          1. I can help a woman with that…

    2. To a Leftist, “separation of church and state” only works one way. The church is not to run the state, while the state is free to run the church.

      Canada is increasingly an unfree society, valuing false equality over liberty.

      1. The state should not run churches. People should get to believe as they wish.

        Schools that teach nonsense and suppress science to flatter superstition should not be accredited (or funded, directly or indirectly, by the public).

        1. I’m sure you are all set to “define nonsense” for the rest of us? And “flattering superstition?” Of course you are.

    3. I am not aware of any Christian school (that seems to be your target) teaching any of the ten things you listed.
      Nor am I aware of any biblical canon indication any of those.
      Perhaps your Google is better than mine. A source citation, perhaps?

      1. A sign of a good troll is that they successfully incite you to argue with them. It’s lake a parasite host relationship. II fall victim to that temptation more often than I care to admit.

      2. Aim your Google-compatible device at “Liberty University Creation Studies.”

        You are genuinely not aware of any Christian school that teaches that fairy tales — such as Young Earth Creationism — are true?

        You are not aware of any conservative school that teaches that the Bible constitutes literal, unerring truth?

  17. …requires abstinence from sex outside marriage between a man and a woman. The court says that requirement discriminates against LGBT people.
    Fine – they can’t fuck, either. Everybody happy?

  18. Having standards discriminates against people who do not wish to abide by those standards. If non-discrimination is an absolute value then no authority may enforce any standards, including standards of non-discrimination. And this ruling disappears in a puff of logic.

    1. They are NOT going to get their heads around that.

  19. “”The court says that requirement discriminates against LGBT people.””

    Because of course gay people are unable to keep their sexual desires in check. They are physically incapable of abstinence. We’re lucky they can hold off long enough to get a room, instead of just going at it like dogs in the park. Asking them to wait until marriage is completely unreasonably.

    Next thing you know Canada will ban Catholics simply because priests are celibate.

    1. Asking them to wait until marriage is completely unreasonably.

      You skipped “between a man and a woman” qualifier on “marriage”. The school doesn’t permit gay fucking at all, regardless of marriage.

  20. “…requires abstinence from sex outside marriage between a man and a woman.”

    What about sex outside marriage between two men or two women?

    Oh. Ohhhh… Got it.

  21. Do Canadian courts admit DNA evidence?
    Do they admit DNA evidence that says a suspect is male if the suspect says they are female this week?
    Does it matter to the US?

  22. The real question is about these “law societies”: are they private organizations? Or are they government accreditation groups? Does one *have* to get their accreditation in order for their students to become Canadian lawyers?
    If they’re completely private, and their accreditation isn’t necessary for students to become lawyers, then they can darned well accredit or not accredit any school they choose. If there’s some degree of government control or restriction, then that’s the real problem.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.