Maybe Our Courts Could Learn From Them

There is a lot of concern over the Supreme Court conservative leaning that we will be stripped of our rights by religious bigots’ “religious freedom” to discriminate.

CANADA’S SUPREME COURT RULES THAT LGBT RIGHTS COME BEFORE YOUR RELIGIOUS BELIEFS
Hope For Our Times
December 12, 2018

Canada’s top court has ruled in favour of denying accreditation to a Christian law school that banned students from having gay sex.

Friday’s ruling against Trinity Western University in British Columbia (BC) was closely watched by both religious freedom and gay rights advocates.

The university made students promise not to have extra-marital or gay sex.

The Supreme Court found that protecting LGBT students from discrimination trumped religious freedom.

As I was researching for other articles about this I found out that this was a ruling from the summer…

Canadian Supreme Court Shames U.S. Supreme Court On Gay Rights In Law Schools
The only good thing about climate change is that soon Canada will be warm enough to live in.
Above The Law
By Elie Mystal
June 15, 2018

This month, the American Supreme Court decided that open bigotry towards gay people has to be allowed if even one government official appears hostile towards someone’s misinterpretation of their own religion.

In Canada, they do things a little differently. The Canadian Supreme Court decided a case that, arguably, involves a much greater impingement on religious freedom than a baker being asked to make a cake. And yet that the Canadian court found a way to reject bigotry.
[…]
The Canadian Supreme Court agreed. From CBC News:
In the court’s view, the law societies were acting within their mandate in considering TWU’s admission policies in the accreditation process, also to ensure upholding a positive public perception of the legal profession.

“In our respectful view, the [law societies] decision not to accredit Trinity Western University’s proposed law school represents a proportionate balance between the limitation on the Charter right at issue and the statutory objectives the [law societies] sought to pursue,” it reads.
[…]
It was a 7-2 decision. The majority said that the ruling was a “proportionate and reasonable” restriction on religious rights to ensure LGBT students are treated fairly. The two dissenting justices said that the accrediting body shouldn’t have this much power.

As you can imagine the religious bigots are up in arms over this ruling…

The Canadian Supreme Court Rules against a Christian Law School
In its decision, it undermines conscience rights and the nation’s legacy of liberty for dissenters.
The National Review
By Edgar Noble
July 3, 2018

A law school that does not subscribe to progressive beliefs about gender identity and marriage should not be allowed to operate. That’s the effect of last month’s 7–2 decision of the Supreme Court of Canada. The ruling is a blow to Trinity Western University, a Christian institution near Vancouver. Trinity had developed plans for a law school.
[…]
While the decision appears on the surface to be about discrimination based on sexual orientation, in fact it hinges on the meaning of marriage. TWU is even-handed about orientation. Those who identify as gay and those who identify as straight face exactly the same restriction: no sex outside marriage. The problem arose because TWU continues to affirm that marriage can properly exist only between a man and a woman — as the school has always believed, and as its associated churches have always believed.
[…]
But what about the broader objection? Might TWU produce lawyers who are hostile to the rights of self-identified gay (or alternatively gendered) citizens? The question can be redirected: Is it possible that other Canadian law schools, dominated by secular progressivism, are turning out lawyers and future judges unsympathetic to the rights of citizens with a traditional religious outlook?

The question is can one group of people use their “rights” to deny the “rights” of another group?

I think that the author of the Above the Law summed it up nicely,

I really don’t understand why this concept is so hard for American courts to grasp. Your freedom of religion should end right at the point it impinges on somebody else’s freedom from discrimination. Is that really so hard?

I hope that the court system here takes heed of what happened north of the border.