A local Christian University (which has a fine reputation as an educational establishment) is proposing to start a law degree program. Part of this university's operating practice is to require that students sign a covenant each year, part of which is that they will not engage in sexual sexual activity which 'violates the sacredness of marriage between a man and a woman'. The covenant goes on to explain that sexual activity, in the context of the organizations' theological standpoint, should only take place between a man and a woman within the bounds of marriage.
Some legal profession/educational folks locally have raised concerns (as in "THIS IS TERRIBLE!" kind of concerns) because they have jumped to the conclusion that the new law program will not allow non-heterosexual students to enroll. This would, of course, amount to unlawful discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation. It sounded like a knee-jerk reaction, if an understandable concern.
The Chancellor of the university was just on the radio to explain that this is nonsense. The university welcomes students of all orientations and faiths, and currently has many non-heterosexual students. There is no reason why a law program would be subject to any different enrollment policy. The covenant which students and staff are expected to sign and adhere to applies exclusively to behaviour on campus, and as the Chancellor said 'We are not interested in going into people's bedrooms!'. His response was calm, measured and absolutely emphatic. I thought it was excellent - there was basically no room for misinterpretation, and it made clear that fears of institutional discrimination were based upon a misunderstanding of the covenant.
A man then called in to respond to what had been broadcast. he immediately bemoaned the 'fact' that only Christian establishments were attacked in this way, and went on to complain about how Christianity is unfairly targeted.
It's a shame that the initiators of this complaint didn't read the covenant of this institution more closely, or make appropriate enquiries before going public. As things stand, I think that they look a little foolish right now.
The gentleman who called in to complain about Christianity being under attack is using an old argument to justify not wanting to hear different opinions about the world.
The person who comes out of this little spat covered in glory (pardon the religious reference) is the University Chancellor who clearly explained the actual position, which, in all fairness, I have no problem with - if they wish to run their institution according to their beliefs and people enroll in the university fully aware of the behaviour rules, I have no problem with that...
Calm down, everybody!