14
votes
Supreme Court of Canada rules that limits on religious freedom 'reasonable' to protect LGBT rights
Link information
This data is scraped automatically and may be incorrect.
- Title
- Trinity Western loses fight for Christian law school | CBC News
- Published
- Jun 16 2018
- Word count
- 933 words
Can you not editorialize - or at least editorialize in a decent way?
Religious freedom's always had limits. See: "kill the infidels."
That's nothing new.
I find the OP's interpretation of the headline to be valid and not misleading.
The article's headline says pretty much the same thing: "Trinity Western loses fight for Christian law school as court rules limits on religious freedom 'reasonable'." The OP has basically re-written this to make it more understandable for non-Canadians, and provide a bit more context. But even the original headline refers to limits on religious freedom as being "reasonable". In some ways, I think the OP's headline is actually better: the original headline doesn't provide the context that this relates to the rights of gay students.
The original gives context. From the original title, one can figure out that it's over something involving schooling, which implies that it's an issue with discrimination.
The current Tildes title is stating something that the Canadian government had already given a ruling on in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Where else but discrimination does religion interact with LGBT rights?
To be fair this wasn't "kill the infidels" and this was won on appeal. I wouldn't say this was editorialized. There are lots that argue that choosing a Christian school implies following rheir rules. The limit on religious freedom vs that of sexual orientation is the point of the article.
The poster didn't explain what limits were being put in place, and didn't explain how they're protecting LGBT rights. They should have used the proper title, which explained - albeit still poorly - what the situation was.
I'm rather in agreement with you. The current Tildes headline makes it sound like this was a sweeping statement, when, from what I gather, it was instead a ruling on something specific.
It's linked to the article that you can read for more context. At the end of the day, it's a title, not an essay.