I cannot, simply cannot believe that in the year 2014, in Canada, that marriage equality is still an issue among so many people.

Damn. BRB, gonna slit my wrists and let the faith in humanity drain out.

as long as the church is around it will always be an issue

Fyi, they voted to vote again on the accreditation issue, this time the decision to be binding, option 2 from my previous post.

As much as I want TWU to not be accredited, this referendum decision was the right choice.

If the outcome of the SGM last June is a true reflection of how lawyers will vote, then the result will be the correct one too.

Kind of a waste of time to vote again. The vote was pretty clear last time. It's not like it was even close. I'll be sure to vote again, and this time it'll count. Fuck these discriminatory pricks.

So much hate in this thread... the irony is staggering.

Please explain.

yo dawg i heard you like to vote so we can vote on if we can vote to vote on an issue that needs to be voted on again.

Wrong. The vote was only a part of the total membership (less than 1/3rd). And considering there was a campaign by another lawyer (forget who, but it's in this thread) who contacted other lawyers and encouraged them to vote against TWU then there's no way anyone could believe that the people who voted were an accurate representation of all lawyers.

Don't know who actually said this, but it was quoted below:

I'd like to know who thinks that 4,178 out of 13,000 is a majority?

Strong reading comprehension.... majority of the 4178 that voted, 77% of those voted to deny acredditation.
Unless you can think of a better way to get all 13,000 members to come out and cast a vote, whereby most of them are probably indifferent, I'd say in terms of those who have an opinion 77% voting one way is a majority.

http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/n...4-f77ea55f5e1f

The next vote will be via mailed ballots so there is no excuse to not vote.

Everyone is expecting the result to be the same.

Yeah, except that the percentage of the electorate that showed up was in line with the same number that showed up for other elections in the past. Unless they plan on compelling a vote from every single member, the result is exactly what should be expected. And yes, there was a lawyer that started a campaign, but it spread by other lawyers. It's not like he called every lawyer he could find personally.

There's a difference. Nobody is stopping them from having their shitty opinions. I welcome shitty opinions. However, I'll vote all day against their shitty opinions infringing on equality rights of other individuals.

I don't get how they're infringing on anything?

Don't like their rules, don't go there. Seems simple to me.

It's not like they don't make their rules known up front, and it's not like it's the ONLY place in Canada that you can study Law.

its all about civil rights and everyone being equal

This keeps coming up again and again.

The idea is that everyone has a right to their opinions even if they are discriminatory. However, when people start acting on their discriminatory opinions then that is no longer protected under the Charter.

TWU is turning its opinions into actions and actively discriminating against LGBT persons. The Law Society of BC has a duty to govern the legal profession in the public interest. Many lawyers feel that it is not in the public interest to accredit a school that discriminates against LGBT.

When you defend TWU with a remark like "don't like their rules, don't go there", know that that can perpetuate discrimination. For example, a restaurant has a rule saying that only white people can eat there, is it a defense for them to say "don't like our rules, don't eat here"?

That vote is not binding so the ratio of those in favor or against is irrelevant.

When they do the second vote with all members, which will be binding, then we'll find out if the ratio for/against is the same as the initial vote. So one of us will be proven right and the other wrong.

U can't say its irrelevant, I mean without that vote this process would have been over. So the ratio is very relevant but may not be indicative of the results of the binding vote.

See, this is where the argument falls down: they're not saying students can't be LGBT. The covenant that students are expected to agree to merely states that, while students, they will abstain from sex outside of heterosexual marriage. It doesn't discriminate against LGBTs any more than it discriminates against straight playas. It doesn't stop anyone from BEING LGBT. It doesn't stop them from fucking whatever or whomever they want once they graduate. Technically, it doesn't stop them from doing it WHILE they're students.

So what if you are a married LGBT couple? How come the straight couple can have sex and the LGBT couple cannot?

The covenant tries to skirt the issue but what it is saying is that TWU believes that first, you can only have sex when you are married and second, marriage can only be between a man and a woman.

You edited your post so I will respond to the bolded part.

What happens when the students graduate is not at issue here, it is what happens when they are students.

Students who are not married or are LGBT are free to have sex of course but then TWU can place sanctions on those students that go up to expulsion.

So students can have sex but are liable for punishment by TWU. Having that clause that gives TWU this discretion is discriminatory.

At this point, I am unsure of how you cannot see this. ~3,700 very intelligent and capable lawyers voted against accreditation for this reason.

^ 3700 intelligent and capable lawyers voting solely because of their beliefs or partially influenced by not wanting more competition?

That is not the issue here and that is not what this is about. Neither side has brought that up.

If there was no discrimination there would be no problem and we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Yeah but discriminations gonna happen either way.

That is just a more black and white example.

For example, let's say some Purple skinned individual killed a family member of mine when I was younger, and I was put on trial or put up to prosecute a purple skinned individual , don't you think that clouds my judgement?

Everybody whether we like it or not passes judgement and discrimination is prominent everywhere we walk. Some hide it better than others.

I'm not sure I understand you.

Sure a purple skinned individual harmed your family in the past. You are free to have whatever opinion you want of them. You can wish death on all purple skinned individuals. You can pass judgment on them as much as you want.

What you cannot do is act on your biases and clouded judgment. You cannot open up a university and actively discriminate against purple skinned people. This is even more important when it is an institution that perpetrates discriminatory acts.