Trinity Western is a Christian institution in Langley, B.C. It is not a racist institution. But it does require its students to sign a “Community Covenant,” promising not to get drunk, watch porn, or engage in “sexual intimacy that violates the sacredness of marriage between a man and a woman.”
In other words: no gays allowed. (Before you ask: No, you can’t ban gay sex without effectively banning gays.)
If you can't ban gay sex without effectively banning gays, then you can't ban opposition to homosexuality without effectively banning Christians.
TWU’s opponents are right that it isn’t in the public interest to approve a law school that discriminates against LGBT people, just as it wouldn’t be in the public interest to approve a law school that discriminated against black people, or Jews — or Christian evangelicals, for that matter.
Isn't it convenient to conflate a behaviour with a person.
Liberals can't win this argument, so they have to use this logical fallacy.
Can you ban ALL sex and effectively ban straights from a university?
No. If a university wanted to ban all sex, it could do that, and straights would still attend.
So why isn't it any difference for gays?
Oh, right, because gays want their sexual behaviour to be treated like heterosexual behaviour , and the only way they can have it accepted is to conflate their behaviour with their person, so that rejection of their behaviour is interpreted as rejection of their person. That way they achieve instant victimhood and claim discrimination.
And no matter how much conservatives insist they love the sinner and hate the sin, their intentions must always be interpreted in the most self-serving way possible, so that their ulterior motive is designated as hate, no matter what their actual motive is. See, if conservatives don't even have sincerity and desire for good to stand on, then nothing they can say or do can be used to defend their opposition to homosexuality, and liberals win.
Conservatives don't have to say anything in their defense, liberals have the argument all sown up.
The only problem is that once you allow that behaviour=person then that opens up a whole host of dilemmas. What about pedophiles? They can claim to be born that way. They can claim not to choose their orientation. They can claim to love. They can claim all kinds of things and demand that their claims be accepted on their word. Suddenly their behaviour does not equal their person?
I can hear the objection: pedophilia is wrong!
Oh so now morality matters. When Christians want to put homosexual morality into play, well they can't and that's hate, but when liberals want to morally condemn pedophilia, well that's not hate at all. Because obviously pedophilia is wrong, in spite of some claims of pedophilia not being a choice.
I can just hear the objections: Their behaviour is a choice.
Well so is homosexual behaviour.
The only argument liberals have is that homosexual behaviour is morally right and opposition to it is morally wrong.
But liberals can't argue that line, because, as they've been saying for the last 100 years, morality is subjective.
The gay agenda amounts to this: we think we're right, most people agree with us, so STFU or else.