CANADA'S TOP COURT 'OBLITERATED' RELIGIOUS RIGHTS OF CHRISTIAN UNIVERSITY!

CANADA'S TOP COURT 'OBLITERATED' RELIGIOUS RIGHTS OF CHRISTIAN UNIVERSITY!

IN PURSUIT OF THE TRUTH - HTTP://WWW.CINOPSBEGONEBLOGSPSOT.COM - THURS., JULY 19/18

Ottawa, June 15, 2018 (LifeSiteNews) - The Supreme Court decision favoring LGBTQ "rights" over a Christian college's freedom to uphold Christian moral standards is an outright attack on religious freedom, said a number of critics.

    In a pair of 7-2 decisions (here and there), the top court ruled it was "proportionate and reasonable" for the law societies of British Columbia and Ontario to refuse accreditation to graduates of Trinity Western university (TWU) proposed law school because the Christian college's Community Covenant discriminates against and reportedly harms LGBTQ people.

    TWU, a Langley, British Columbia-based private Christian college associated with the Evangelical Free Church, requires students sign a commitment to refrain from, among other things, any sexual activity "that violates the sacredness of marriage between a man and a woman."

    It is unclear if TWU will go ahead with its planned law school in light of the ruling since future graduates would not be able to practice law in Ontario and B.C.

    "This decision is an obliteration of religious rights," said Jim Hughes, President of Campaign Life Coalition, Canada's national pro-life, pro-family political lobbying group.

    "Trinity Western, like any other private institution, is entitled to hold its religious views including those on the Biblical understanding of sex and marriage. Tragically this decision states that there is no room for religious diversity in the public sphere," he said in a Friday press release.

    "This is anti-Christian bigotry, there is no other way to put it," Campaign Life V.P. Jeff Gunnarson added. "The court's decision top deny Trinity Western the right to exercise its religious rights, sets dangerous precedent for other faith-based schools, organizations, charities," he said.

    That was echoed by Phil Horgan, president of the Catholic Civil Rights League (CCRL), one of over thirty interveners in the landmark case the Supreme Court heard Nov. 30 and Dec. 1 last year.

    Today's decision is a distressing example of same-sex and gender viewpoints 'trumping' enumerated Charter Rights," he wrote in CCRL's Friday press.

    The decision "will provide a launching pad for future attacks on the continued access of religious organizations to public benefits," warned Hogan. "In brief, we are seeing the continued diminished acceptance of religious viewpoints in the public square."

    Religious institutions, including the Catholic Church, "are entitled to maintain their respective religious views, including positions on marriage and gender, and should not be subject of prejudice, or exclusion of state benefits, for maintaining such views," he said.

    "The further implications of this ruling need to be opposed," Horgan stressed. "We must not be compelled to have our teachings suppressed as a requirement for participation in the public square."

    The Catholic Archbishop of Vancouver... also issued a statement warning the ruling has "potential to undermine freedom of religion, conscience, and association in Canada."....

    "Not only is freedom of conscience and religion a fundamental principle recognized in international human rights law, it is the first freedom guaranteed in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms" he said....

    "The Court is allowing government-mandated regulators to decide which beliefs and values are favoured in society, narrowing pluralism & freedom of conscience, beliefs, & thought in a serious way."

      Five justices - Rosalie Abella, Michael Moldaver, Andromache Karakatsanis, Richard Wagner and Clement Gascon - ruled the law societies' decisions not to accredit TWU's proposed law school were reasonable. Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin, who has since retired, and Justice Malcone Roe agreed but for different reasons, set out in separate opinions. ....Rowe Justices Russell Brown and Suzan Cote dissented, writing that the majority "betrays the promise of our Constitution that rights limitations must be demonstrably justified." 

George H. Kubeck