A Respectful Distance: Appellate Courts Consider Religious Motivation of Public Figures in Homosexual Equality Discourse - The Cases of Chamberlain and Trinity Western University [Case Comment]
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the decisions of the B.C. Court of Appeal in Chamberlain v. Surrey School District No. 36 (2000) and the Supreme Court of Canada in Trinity Western University v. College of Teachers (2001), the courts allowed religiously-based "moral positions" held by would-be teachers and public officials to trump the interests of equal rights protection, in particular that of gays and lesbians. The author examines the ways in which the religious arguments were made (and accepted) in order to achieve this result. The author asserts that the decisions raise troubling questions about the extent to which courts are really willing to go to protect equality in the gay and lesbian context.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.013 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.041 | 0.042 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.021 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.038 | 0.025 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".