Trinity Western grad 'attacked' for being Christian in job rejection


He wrote that she wasn’t qualified and “unlike Trinity Western University, we embrace diversity, and the right of people to sleep with or marry whoever they want.”

The left is such a bastion of tolerance eh?


Why would anyone be proud of being a viking? They were murderers and rapists. And for the most part cowards. Only good for attacking small villages and monasteries full of unarmed monks. They would usually get their backsides kicked when faced by a army. They are a lot like ISIS in a way. And as for Christianity destroying “European” culture. What was the culture? Living in dung huts and being invaded by anyone who took a fancy to the place?
Christianity took us from Poop huts to castles. From slaves to the freest of all places. It took from us hiding from the moon to walking on it.
This man is a clown and i hope she sues the horns right off his little viking helmet. ( Yes i know viking helmets didn’t have horns.)


This is what I thought as well: what culture?? :smiley:

Poor girl, how awful and hurtful. I hope this company gets what they deserve for being such bigots.


I hardly think all Vikings were murderers and rapists. One should be proud of being a Viking for the virtues and achievements of the Vikings. The Vikings did engage in a lot of pirate activity. And they might not have faired well against big armies, but of course the armies were big and the Viking numbers small. But they were great explorers. They discovered new lands. They settled many places. They were excellent sailers. They were fierce warriors who were chosen to be the guard of the Byzantine Emperor. They had representative assemblies and jury trials and influenced the political systems the come from England, including the American system. Viking culture lives on in many ways including in the English words for the days of the week.

A person can be proud of being a Viking in the same way an American can be proud for all the virtues our society has, though decreasing at an alarming speed, and despite the fact we have terrible vices like widespread abortion.


Right, whereas the Christian armies that conquered half of the world accomplished it with fluffy bunnies and rainbows. :stuck_out_tongue:

And as for Christianity destroying “European” culture. What was the culture? Living in dung huts and being invaded by anyone who took a fancy to the place? Christianity took us from Poop huts to castles. From slaves to the freest of all places. It took from us hiding from the moon to walking on it.

The ends justify the means. Absolutely. This is a long established Christian principle. :stuck_out_tongue:


So do you want to propose that the ends are never to justify the means, that we are all to act with absolutely no regard to what effect our actions will have? Bizarre idea, from where I stand.

What would be the point of taking any action at all if that is never to be done, specifically, to bring about certain ends?

The ends are determinably what do justify the means, otherwise the means are meaningless.

Why, exactly, do you do the things you do, if not with definite ends in mind and with a determination to bring those ends about?


Yes, teleology is a long established Christian principle. The final result counts and is the point of it all. Only a nihilist would deny that.

True, the end does not justify just any means, but whatever means are chosen are, undeniably, justified and warranted by the ends. Otherwise, what would be the point of doing anything?


Yes indeed. Let us not forget the Inquisition or the Crusades. Now there was some “friendly” well thought out stuff going on there for sure.:confused:

I have yet to discover anything but a “seize and conquer” mentality throughout the history of mankind and that includes the Church in her history. All one has to do is ask a few American Indians or other indigenous peoples around the world to figure that out. It is not like they were politely invited to become Christians anywhere. (At least as a rule.)

I have often thought Jesus would be disgusted.


Retrieving your remark from deep inside Veritas’ retreaded post required some deft recoding, but there it is.

Interesting how these passing sentiments can be registered without really contributing anything to the discussion except providing the poster with a gratifying sense of their own moral high mindedness.

So, let me get this straight, because WWII was pretty bloody and nasty, you are saying it should never have been fought merely because it was bloody and nasty?

Otherwise, your point that the Crusades were bloody and nasty is lost on me. Are you claiming they should never have occurred? You would be quite content, then, living as a Muslim in a determinately Islamic world? You do know the history of why the Crusades were necessitated, correct?

As for the Inquisition, that is another story, one which is more about political power than religious beliefs, but one that you should also delve into before launching little barbarisms.

Edit note: Apparently, I jumped on your post too quickly since you have revised it completely. However, I will let this comment stand since it addresses your revision as well as your original post, which is contained above.


I’m stunned.
And I’d say that woman dodged a bullet.
Who wants to work for a company like that? Forget the paganism, but really, the hatred is just breathtaking.
The Vikings were kings during…the dark ages, yes?


Perhaps, as they say, you are “looking for love in all the wrong places.”:smiley:

If you only have eyes for the “bad stuff,” all you will see is the “bad stuff.”



I suspect that poster does not really know the reasons behind the crusades, but has probably heard about it from pop culture and is repeating their wise words.


So, how do you reconcile Jesus’ imagined disgust with God ordering the conquest of Canaan in the Old Testament?


Actually, what is breathtaking is that two foreign individuals are depriving a native Canadian of work in Canada based upon a hypocritical notion of “justice.”

What these two individuals are hypocritically promoting are the same discriminatory practices - the ones they rail against in their emails - of depriving someone of employment because of their beliefs, this time in reverse.

The former injustice of denying employment to someone because they are gay is now simply, and as unjustly, reversed - the individual is denied employment because they are not gay. The fact that she complied with the admission requirements of Trinity Western simply means she does not choose to live a lifestyle outside of the traditional view of marriage - it says nothing about her view of what constitutes “just” treatment of gay individuals. She is being attacked simply because her graduation from Trinity Western precludes her from actually living a gay lifestyle and that is the sole reason she is being denied employment.

Blatant discrimination, from where I stand.


I am a convert to Catholicism and one of the assumptions I grew up with was how horrible the Catholic Church was during the middle ages; however I came to believe something quite different (though Christians in the past have done horrible things, much of what I believed was absolutely wrong.)

You should take some time looking at the conflict of the Arab–Byzantine wars.

You will see why the crusades began, and how Islam has been a constant aggressor of Christianity sense the beginning.


This whole thing feels like a setup, although I’m not sure which side is doing it.

  1. The man who sent her the rejection letter could have just said, Sorry, you don’t meet the job requirements. End of story. No, he had to add stuff about her education.

  2. She admits that she didn’t meet the job requirements. Why did she apply? Did she know the attitude towards her fellow alumni?

The hiring person was rude. No question about that. And no excuse for it.

However, how is it discrimination if she admits she wasn’t qualified for the job?

As Christians, when we get a response such as the initial response she got, aren’t we supposed to shake the dust off our feet and move on? Should this not be one of the sacrifices we are willing to make as a result of our belief in Chist? Should we really be whining about how people weren’t nice to us because of Christ?

I don’t remember reading where Jesus said, Believe in Me and you’ll have a job, people will be nice to you all the time, life will be honky-dorey.


I see two extremes when it comes to the aspect of culture being spoken in this thread. Culture is more than fancy paintings, art in all forms, including architecture, etc. It’s the way a people act. The way they view things. Even the ancient European pagans had art, and some of it was beautiful! Though the question has to be asked; was ancient European culture based on God? No. Was it righteous? Far from it. Even the Romans and Greeks were like Barbarians in a sense before the coming of Christianity.

In other parts of Europe, Human sacrifice was common, and that was a part of their culture. As was the Brazen Bull in ancient Greece, or the Cross that the Romans used. The same kind of cross that Jesus, our Lord and savior, was crucified on. European cultures before Christ had their own beauties, many of which still last today. Though it wasn’t righteous or true, and thanks to Christianity, European culture, over time, became much more merciful and just, and added more to the cultures of Europe.

That’s just my two cents.


I think the “shake the dust off our feet” does not mean capitulating to evil.

Fr. Barron has an interesting take on this. Turning the other cheek does not mean, either:

  1. running away from evil
  2. responding in kind

It means 3) standing up in the face of it in an unmovable manner. Remaining steadfast, in other words.

He relates the story of Mother Teresa who was asking a storekeeper for some food for a starving child. The man spit in her face. She responded with, “That was for me, now do you have something to spare for the child?”

Gandhi, using passive resistance, was not an advocate of just letting evil rule, but, rather, meeting it face to face and not backing down. Not attacking, not running away (neither fight nor flight) but resisting it.

I would suggest this is what the young lady is doing. She is not “attacking” in kind, nor running from the challenge, but standing up for her right to be gainfully employed in the face of an unjustifiable attack on her right to do so.


She’ll be handsomely compensated in the end.


Yeah. And what Christian armies would that be?
And what “means” are you talking about? Are you saying those harmless kidnapped monks converted those so called mighty viking warriors by force?


a) why is it her right to be gainfully employed? Is there something in the Canadian Constitution that says this?

b)why does the employer have to hire someone who admits to not being qualified?

I have seen so many people getting upset when a Christian employer is ‘forced’ to hire a non-Christian. Are you supporting the idea that an employer should have no control over whom they hire?

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit