NATION

PASSWORD

Ontario Same-Sex Couple Denied Videography for Gay Wedding

For discussion and debate about anything. (Not a roleplay related forum; out-of-character commentary only.)
User avatar
Kannap
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 60635
Founded: May 07, 2012
Democratic Socialists

Ontario Same-Sex Couple Denied Videography for Gay Wedding

Postby Kannap » Tue Jul 21, 2020 2:48 pm

Gay marriage was legalized in Canada on July 20, 2005. Yet exactly 15 years later, an Ontario couple in the process of planning their own wedding got a reminder that discrimination can still sour the event.

Kelly Roberts, 26, and Mallory Arthur, 26, who live in Woodstock, Ont., got engaged in January, just a few months before the COVID-19 pandemic response got underway in the province.

Their plan was always to get married next year, but with the pandemic postponing so many nuptials, they have been planning full force since rebookings have made 2021 a busier wedding year.

Roberts came across a videography company based in Brantford, Ont. called Caramount Pictures run by Ian Hamstra and Cara Hamstra and sent an inquiry over this past weekend. On Monday, Roberts got this reply from Cara:

“I say this with much care, because I know that your union is incredibly important to you, but we do not film homosexual weddings,” the email read.

Caramount Pictures did not respond to the Star’s requests for comment.

“The fact that she didn’t even try to mask her homophobia … in writing — I think that was the shocking part,” Roberts said in an interview with the Star.

“The fact that she didn’t even try to mask it just shows that it’s such a normal thought for her to have,” Arthur continued.

The Ontario Human Rights Code states that “every person has a right to equal treatment with respect to services, goods and facilities, without discrimination because of” several identities, including sexual orientation.

Roberts, who is on the Pride committee for Oxford county, shared a screenshot of the email response on her Facebook page and Instagram stories and received several messages of support.

Since then, the company’s Facebook and Google profile have also been flooded with hundreds of negative reviews related to the email, dropping its rating to 1.0 stars on Facebook.

This wasn’t Arthur and Roberts’ first experience with discrimination while wedding planning. They said they reached out to an officiant based in London, Ont. that they found via the app Wedding Wire.

“Once Mallory sat down beside me for the meeting, he realized that we’re a gay couple,” Roberts said. She says he then told them he wouldn’t be able to support their wedding due to his religious beliefs.

There is an exception in the OHRC that allows a religious official to refuse to perform a marriage ceremony if it would be against the person’s religious beliefs or principles.

“Since we had that experience, especially, when I reach out to someone I try to make it clear that it’s two brides marrying each other just because it was such a bad taste in my mouth before,” Roberts said. “The fact that I need to out myself in a way to every single vendor that I reach out to, just because I don’t want to face this problem, it’s sad.”

The two are still focused on planning a day for each other and having fun anticipating their wedding day set for October 2021.

“If I could do it tomorrow I would,” Arthur said.

Source


So there's the article NSG, what say ye? Do you think this is a case of homophobia? Do you think this is acceptable for the company to do; legally or morally? Do you think the company did the right thing?

Personally, I certainly think this is a plain case of homophobia. If you're providing a service - in this case wedding videography - and you refuse to provide the service solely on the basis of the couple-to-be being homosexual, that's homophobia. The act of videoing a wedding is the same regardless of sexuality.

As for whether I think this is acceptable legally or morally, I am not versed on Canadian or Ontarian law, so I don't know about the legal aspect. However, morally, I think this is not acceptable behavior. That being said, I've always been torn on the "are businesses allowed to deny service to gays" debate - because I don't know the legal aspect but I like to believe that good companies would treat people and couples equally on the basis of sexuality, among other immutable aspects of their being. That being said, I hope this couple receive a lot of offers to video their wedding from actual good companies and I hope that they have a wonderful wedding day. I believe the company did the wrong thing by denying the couple on the basis of their sexuality, but I do find a silver lining in the fact that their homophobia was up front rather than them accepting the job and botching it. You can find another wedding videographer ahead of time, you can't refilm your wedding after the fact.
Last edited by Kannap on Tue Jul 21, 2020 2:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.
23 years old, gay male, Presbyterian North Carolinian. Pumpkin Spice everything.
TET's resident ostrich
Political Party: Not affiliated/Independent
Hawkins/Walker 2020
Luna Amore wrote:Please remember to attend the ritualistic burning of Kannap for heresy
Luna Amore wrote:note to self, insert clever reference to Kannap
T H E M O U N T A I N S A R E C A L L I N G A N D I M U S T G O
G A Y S I N C E 1 9 9 7
RYM || Political test results

User avatar
Andsed
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 10056
Founded: Aug 24, 2017
New York Times Democracy

Postby Andsed » Tue Jul 21, 2020 2:53 pm

Legally they might be able to do this(I am no expert on law so I cannot claim either or.) Morally? Just fucked up.
LOVEWHOYOUARE~

User avatar
The Rich Port
Post Czar
 
Posts: 37234
Founded: Jul 29, 2008
Left-Leaning College State

Postby The Rich Port » Tue Jul 21, 2020 2:56 pm

Leave them a million negative reviews, see how they like their upstanding position.

On the other hand, sad to say you can't force people to do something.

Of course, nothing wrong with making it look like it's a dirty disgusting move, which it is.

To all you lovely alt-right types: imagine being shunned and denied for being who you are and your beliefs, except it actually didn't hurt anyone physically or emotionally.

Thankfully, it's nobody's actual religious belief to shun you for being white unless it's some kind of religious cult. But unfortunately for minorities, intolerant, ignorant Christians are a dime a dozen.
Last edited by The Rich Port on Tue Jul 21, 2020 2:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Pronouns: If you want me to feel pretty and extraordinary, call me she. If you want me to feel handsome and masculine, call me he.
NOW WITH SUPER SECRET VIP CONSTRUCTIVE DISCUSSION DISCORD. INQUIRE VIA TELEGRAM.

Coronavirus is real, and a real problem. Do not panic, but please educate yourself and take steps to protect yourself and your loved ones. Donald Trump lied. Pray for the sick.
LAUGH, AND GROW FAT
THOSE THAT SOW THORNS SHOULD NOT EXPECT FLOWERS
YOU NEVER KNOW JUST HOW YOU LOOK THROUGH OTHER PEOPLE'S EYES

Tracking | History | Factbook | Dharma
Economic Report | Regional Forum | Political Compass
CAPINTERN | OMSA | OZZY | PACT | APAC
Summary | Vanguard | The Book Of Sue
THE BILLION BIT BRONY
AHAHAHAHA PONY PONY PONY PONYYY


LOVEWHOYOUARE~


User avatar
The Rich Port
Post Czar
 
Posts: 37234
Founded: Jul 29, 2008
Left-Leaning College State

Postby The Rich Port » Tue Jul 21, 2020 2:57 pm

Andsed wrote:Legally they might be able to do this(I am no expert on law so I cannot claim either or.) Morally? Just fucked up.


Cases like this have happened several times. They'd needed to have signed a contract and they'd need to show distress and damages from the contractor cancelling their contract because "muh beliefs".

The only thing they can really do in this case is file a report for discriminatory practices with the government maybe?
Pronouns: If you want me to feel pretty and extraordinary, call me she. If you want me to feel handsome and masculine, call me he.
NOW WITH SUPER SECRET VIP CONSTRUCTIVE DISCUSSION DISCORD. INQUIRE VIA TELEGRAM.

Coronavirus is real, and a real problem. Do not panic, but please educate yourself and take steps to protect yourself and your loved ones. Donald Trump lied. Pray for the sick.
LAUGH, AND GROW FAT
THOSE THAT SOW THORNS SHOULD NOT EXPECT FLOWERS
YOU NEVER KNOW JUST HOW YOU LOOK THROUGH OTHER PEOPLE'S EYES

Tracking | History | Factbook | Dharma
Economic Report | Regional Forum | Political Compass
CAPINTERN | OMSA | OZZY | PACT | APAC
Summary | Vanguard | The Book Of Sue
THE BILLION BIT BRONY
AHAHAHAHA PONY PONY PONY PONYYY


LOVEWHOYOUARE~


User avatar
Necroghastia
Minister
 
Posts: 3267
Founded: May 11, 2019
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Necroghastia » Tue Jul 21, 2020 2:59 pm

I mean if they don't want to be in business anymore there's a lot more straightforward ways of doing it but go off I guess, enjoy that review bomb.
The Land of Spooky Scary Skeletons!

Pronouns: she/her

User avatar
The Rich Port
Post Czar
 
Posts: 37234
Founded: Jul 29, 2008
Left-Leaning College State

Postby The Rich Port » Tue Jul 21, 2020 3:00 pm

Necroghastia wrote:I mean if they don't want to be in business anymore there's a lot more straightforward ways of doing it but go off I guess, enjoy that review bomb.


Everyone is proud and happy until the store is empty and someone keeps throwing rotten tomatoes at the door.
Pronouns: If you want me to feel pretty and extraordinary, call me she. If you want me to feel handsome and masculine, call me he.
NOW WITH SUPER SECRET VIP CONSTRUCTIVE DISCUSSION DISCORD. INQUIRE VIA TELEGRAM.

Coronavirus is real, and a real problem. Do not panic, but please educate yourself and take steps to protect yourself and your loved ones. Donald Trump lied. Pray for the sick.
LAUGH, AND GROW FAT
THOSE THAT SOW THORNS SHOULD NOT EXPECT FLOWERS
YOU NEVER KNOW JUST HOW YOU LOOK THROUGH OTHER PEOPLE'S EYES

Tracking | History | Factbook | Dharma
Economic Report | Regional Forum | Political Compass
CAPINTERN | OMSA | OZZY | PACT | APAC
Summary | Vanguard | The Book Of Sue
THE BILLION BIT BRONY
AHAHAHAHA PONY PONY PONY PONYYY


LOVEWHOYOUARE~


User avatar
Greed and Death
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 52414
Founded: Mar 20, 2008
Compulsory Consumerist State

Postby Greed and Death » Tue Jul 21, 2020 3:02 pm

Kannap wrote:
Gay marriage was legalized in Canada on July 20, 2005. Yet exactly 15 years later, an Ontario couple in the process of planning their own wedding got a reminder that discrimination can still sour the event.

Kelly Roberts, 26, and Mallory Arthur, 26, who live in Woodstock, Ont., got engaged in January, just a few months before the COVID-19 pandemic response got underway in the province.

Their plan was always to get married next year, but with the pandemic postponing so many nuptials, they have been planning full force since rebookings have made 2021 a busier wedding year.

Roberts came across a videography company based in Brantford, Ont. called Caramount Pictures run by Ian Hamstra and Cara Hamstra and sent an inquiry over this past weekend. On Monday, Roberts got this reply from Cara:

“I say this with much care, because I know that your union is incredibly important to you, but we do not film homosexual weddings,” the email read.

Caramount Pictures did not respond to the Star’s requests for comment.

“The fact that she didn’t even try to mask her homophobia … in writing — I think that was the shocking part,” Roberts said in an interview with the Star.

“The fact that she didn’t even try to mask it just shows that it’s such a normal thought for her to have,” Arthur continued.

The Ontario Human Rights Code states that “every person has a right to equal treatment with respect to services, goods and facilities, without discrimination because of” several identities, including sexual orientation.

Roberts, who is on the Pride committee for Oxford county, shared a screenshot of the email response on her Facebook page and Instagram stories and received several messages of support.

Since then, the company’s Facebook and Google profile have also been flooded with hundreds of negative reviews related to the email, dropping its rating to 1.0 stars on Facebook.

This wasn’t Arthur and Roberts’ first experience with discrimination while wedding planning. They said they reached out to an officiant based in London, Ont. that they found via the app Wedding Wire.

“Once Mallory sat down beside me for the meeting, he realized that we’re a gay couple,” Roberts said. She says he then told them he wouldn’t be able to support their wedding due to his religious beliefs.

There is an exception in the OHRC that allows a religious official to refuse to perform a marriage ceremony if it would be against the person’s religious beliefs or principles.

“Since we had that experience, especially, when I reach out to someone I try to make it clear that it’s two brides marrying each other just because it was such a bad taste in my mouth before,” Roberts said. “The fact that I need to out myself in a way to every single vendor that I reach out to, just because I don’t want to face this problem, it’s sad.”

The two are still focused on planning a day for each other and having fun anticipating their wedding day set for October 2021.

“If I could do it tomorrow I would,” Arthur said.

Source


So there's the article NSG, what say ye? Do you think this is a case of homophobia? Do you think this is acceptable for the company to do; legally or morally? Do you think the company did the right thing?

Personally, I certainly think this is a plain case of homophobia. If you're providing a service - in this case wedding videography - and you refuse to provide the service solely on the basis of the couple-to-be being homosexual, that's homophobia. The act of videoing a wedding is the same regardless of sexuality.

As for whether I think this is acceptable legally or morally, I am not versed on Canadian or Ontarian law, so I don't know about the legal aspect. However, morally, I think this is not acceptable behavior. That being said, I've always been torn on the "are businesses allowed to deny service to gays" debate - because I don't know the legal aspect but I like to believe that good companies would treat people and couples equally on the basis of sexuality, among other immutable aspects of their being. That being said, I hope this couple receive a lot of offers to video their wedding from actual good companies and I hope that they have a wonderful wedding day. I believe the company did the wrong thing by denying the couple on the basis of their sexuality, but I do find a silver lining in the fact that their homophobia was up front rather than them accepting the job and botching it. You can find another wedding videographer ahead of time, you can't refilm your wedding after the fact.


It seems to me they are using their speech rights to not create a piece of art work.

Yes there is a duty to not discriminate but that duty must yield when it becomes about speech.

Also on a practical matter why do you want to force someone who is likely to accidentally mess up the video recording of your once in a life time event ?
"Trying to solve the healthcare problem by mandating people buy insurance is like trying to solve the homeless problem by mandating people buy a house."(paraphrase from debate with Hilary Clinton)
Barack Obama

User avatar
Thermodolia
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 61100
Founded: Oct 07, 2011
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Thermodolia » Tue Jul 21, 2020 3:03 pm

The Rich Port wrote:Leave them a million negative reviews, see how they like their upstanding position.

On the other hand, sad to say you can't force people to do something.

Of course, nothing wrong with making it look like it's a dirty disgusting move, which it is.

To all you lovely alt-right types: imagine being shunned and denied for being who you are and your beliefs, except it actually didn't hurt anyone physically or emotionally.

Thankfully, it's nobody's actual religious belief to shun you for being white unless it's some kind of religious cult. But unfortunately for minorities, intolerant, ignorant Christians are a dime a dozen.

Ya put the lady on blast.

Besides I’m sure there’s someone who will gladly do the wedding photos for half off
Male, Titoist cultural nationalist, lives somewhere in the Deep South, give me any good Irish, Canadian, or Scottish whiskey and I will be your friend for life. I'm GAY!
I'm agent #69 in the Gaystapo!
>The Sons of Adam: I'd crown myself monarch... cuz why not?
>>Dumb Ideologies: Why not turn yourself into a penguin and build an igloo at the centre of the Earth?
>Xovland: I keep getting ads for printer ink. Sometimes, when you get that feeling down there, you have to look at some steamy printer pictures.
Click for Da Funies
Click Here for RP Info Embassy Program
Ambassadors to the WA:
Ambassador to the GA Jon Æthr
Ambassador to the SC Eve Šanœ

RIP Dya

User avatar
Thermodolia
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 61100
Founded: Oct 07, 2011
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby Thermodolia » Tue Jul 21, 2020 3:04 pm

Greed and Death wrote:
Kannap wrote:
Gay marriage was legalized in Canada on July 20, 2005. Yet exactly 15 years later, an Ontario couple in the process of planning their own wedding got a reminder that discrimination can still sour the event.

Kelly Roberts, 26, and Mallory Arthur, 26, who live in Woodstock, Ont., got engaged in January, just a few months before the COVID-19 pandemic response got underway in the province.

Their plan was always to get married next year, but with the pandemic postponing so many nuptials, they have been planning full force since rebookings have made 2021 a busier wedding year.

Roberts came across a videography company based in Brantford, Ont. called Caramount Pictures run by Ian Hamstra and Cara Hamstra and sent an inquiry over this past weekend. On Monday, Roberts got this reply from Cara:

“I say this with much care, because I know that your union is incredibly important to you, but we do not film homosexual weddings,” the email read.

Caramount Pictures did not respond to the Star’s requests for comment.

“The fact that she didn’t even try to mask her homophobia … in writing — I think that was the shocking part,” Roberts said in an interview with the Star.

“The fact that she didn’t even try to mask it just shows that it’s such a normal thought for her to have,” Arthur continued.

The Ontario Human Rights Code states that “every person has a right to equal treatment with respect to services, goods and facilities, without discrimination because of” several identities, including sexual orientation.

Roberts, who is on the Pride committee for Oxford county, shared a screenshot of the email response on her Facebook page and Instagram stories and received several messages of support.

Since then, the company’s Facebook and Google profile have also been flooded with hundreds of negative reviews related to the email, dropping its rating to 1.0 stars on Facebook.

This wasn’t Arthur and Roberts’ first experience with discrimination while wedding planning. They said they reached out to an officiant based in London, Ont. that they found via the app Wedding Wire.

“Once Mallory sat down beside me for the meeting, he realized that we’re a gay couple,” Roberts said. She says he then told them he wouldn’t be able to support their wedding due to his religious beliefs.

There is an exception in the OHRC that allows a religious official to refuse to perform a marriage ceremony if it would be against the person’s religious beliefs or principles.

“Since we had that experience, especially, when I reach out to someone I try to make it clear that it’s two brides marrying each other just because it was such a bad taste in my mouth before,” Roberts said. “The fact that I need to out myself in a way to every single vendor that I reach out to, just because I don’t want to face this problem, it’s sad.”

The two are still focused on planning a day for each other and having fun anticipating their wedding day set for October 2021.

“If I could do it tomorrow I would,” Arthur said.

Source


So there's the article NSG, what say ye? Do you think this is a case of homophobia? Do you think this is acceptable for the company to do; legally or morally? Do you think the company did the right thing?

Personally, I certainly think this is a plain case of homophobia. If you're providing a service - in this case wedding videography - and you refuse to provide the service solely on the basis of the couple-to-be being homosexual, that's homophobia. The act of videoing a wedding is the same regardless of sexuality.

As for whether I think this is acceptable legally or morally, I am not versed on Canadian or Ontarian law, so I don't know about the legal aspect. However, morally, I think this is not acceptable behavior. That being said, I've always been torn on the "are businesses allowed to deny service to gays" debate - because I don't know the legal aspect but I like to believe that good companies would treat people and couples equally on the basis of sexuality, among other immutable aspects of their being. That being said, I hope this couple receive a lot of offers to video their wedding from actual good companies and I hope that they have a wonderful wedding day. I believe the company did the wrong thing by denying the couple on the basis of their sexuality, but I do find a silver lining in the fact that their homophobia was up front rather than them accepting the job and botching it. You can find another wedding videographer ahead of time, you can't refilm your wedding after the fact.


It seems to me they are using their speech rights to not create a piece of art work.

Yes there is a duty to not discriminate but that duty must yield when it becomes about speech.

Also on a practical matter why do you want to force someone who is likely to accidentally mess up the video recording of your once in a life time event ?

Ya I’ve never understood the idea of wanting to force someone to doing something they definitely don’t want.
Male, Titoist cultural nationalist, lives somewhere in the Deep South, give me any good Irish, Canadian, or Scottish whiskey and I will be your friend for life. I'm GAY!
I'm agent #69 in the Gaystapo!
>The Sons of Adam: I'd crown myself monarch... cuz why not?
>>Dumb Ideologies: Why not turn yourself into a penguin and build an igloo at the centre of the Earth?
>Xovland: I keep getting ads for printer ink. Sometimes, when you get that feeling down there, you have to look at some steamy printer pictures.
Click for Da Funies
Click Here for RP Info Embassy Program
Ambassadors to the WA:
Ambassador to the GA Jon Æthr
Ambassador to the SC Eve Šanœ

RIP Dya

User avatar
The New California Republic
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 28837
Founded: Jun 06, 2011
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby The New California Republic » Tue Jul 21, 2020 3:53 pm

Kannap wrote:
“I say this with much care, because I know that your union is incredibly important to you, but we do not film homosexual weddings,” the email read.

Since then, the company’s Facebook and Google profile have also been flooded with hundreds of negative reviews related to the email, dropping its rating to 1.0 stars on Facebook.

Lel. Rekt. :)
Last edited by Sigmund Freud on Sat Sep 23, 1939 2:23 am, edited 999 times in total.

The Irradiated Wasteland of The New California Republic: depicting the expanded NCR, several years after the total victory over Caesar's Legion, and the annexation of New Vegas and its surrounding areas.

White-collared conservatives flashing down the street
Pointing their plastic finger at me
They're hoping soon, my kind will drop and die
But I'm going to wave my freak flag high
Wave on, wave on
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

User avatar
MGTOWia
Envoy
 
Posts: 228
Founded: Nov 22, 2017
Capitalist Paradise

Postby MGTOWia » Tue Jul 21, 2020 3:57 pm

Thermodolia wrote:Ya I’ve never understood the idea of wanting to force someone to doing something they definitely don’t want.


That's because you're assuming honest motivations on the part of those doing the forcing. Which is a false assumption. They try to force the issue because it's not about "non-discrimination" or "shunning me for . . . who I AM!" or any other rubbish excuse that's trotted out. It's about power. It's about getting in the face of people who refuse to drink the SJW Kool-Aid, shoving a funnel in their mouths, pouring it down their throats, and laughing as they choke on it.

Good on the videographers.
"The more money you make, the more women you should avoid." -- YouTube user Anubis_X64

"Wokeness is a disease. MGTOW is the cure."

"Love: (n) the mechanism the human species has evolved to keep males and females from killing each other long enough to produce and raise offspring."

User avatar
San Lumen
Post Czar
 
Posts: 46808
Founded: Jul 02, 2009
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby San Lumen » Tue Jul 21, 2020 4:01 pm

MGTOWia wrote:
Thermodolia wrote:Ya I’ve never understood the idea of wanting to force someone to doing something they definitely don’t want.


That's because you're assuming honest motivations on the part of those doing the forcing. Which is a false assumption. They try to force the issue because it's not about "non-discrimination" or "shunning me for . . . who I AM!" or any other rubbish excuse that's trotted out. It's about power. It's about getting in the face of people who refuse to drink the SJW Kool-Aid, shoving a funnel in their mouths, pouring it down their throats, and laughing as they choke on it.

Good on the videographers.

People of color in the south should have just gone elsewhere too right?

User avatar
Andsed
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 10056
Founded: Aug 24, 2017
New York Times Democracy

Postby Andsed » Tue Jul 21, 2020 4:01 pm

MGTOWia wrote:
Thermodolia wrote:Ya I’ve never understood the idea of wanting to force someone to doing something they definitely don’t want.


That's because you're assuming honest motivations on the part of those doing the forcing. Which is a false assumption. They try to force the issue because it's not about "non-discrimination" or "shunning me for . . . who I AM!" or any other rubbish excuse that's trotted out. It's about power. It's about getting in the face of people who refuse to drink the SJW Kool-Aid, shoving a funnel in their mouths, pouring it down their throats, and laughing as they choke on it.

Good on the videographers.

Good on them for being petty and denying service to two innocent people for homophobic reasons? Very odd flex on their part but okay.
LOVEWHOYOUARE~

User avatar
New haven america
Post Czar
 
Posts: 37480
Founded: Oct 08, 2012
Left-Leaning College State

Postby New haven america » Tue Jul 21, 2020 4:04 pm

Remember guys, businesses are allowed to serve and discriminate against whoever they want. Unless of course you're supposed to do things like wear a mask in public and aren't allowed in a place of business otherwise, in which case that's counted as infringing on your civil rights.

Is this something that applies more to America than Canada? Yeah. Are there people on both sides of the border who would argue for the former and the latter? Yes as well.
Human of the male variety
Will accept TGs
Char/Axis 2020

That's all folks~

User avatar
Kannap
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 60635
Founded: May 07, 2012
Democratic Socialists

Postby Kannap » Tue Jul 21, 2020 4:05 pm

MGTOWia wrote:
Thermodolia wrote:Ya I’ve never understood the idea of wanting to force someone to doing something they definitely don’t want.


That's because you're assuming honest motivations on the part of those doing the forcing. Which is a false assumption. They try to force the issue because it's not about "non-discrimination" or "shunning me for . . . who I AM!" or any other rubbish excuse that's trotted out. It's about power. It's about getting in the face of people who refuse to drink the SJW Kool-Aid, shoving a funnel in their mouths, pouring it down their throats, and laughing as they choke on it.

Good on the videographers.


Nice try, but nobody's forcing anybody to do something they don't like. The couple was up front about the fact that they're a same-sex couple and while they're expressing displeasure at homophobia, they're simply making it known to the public so the public can decide whether or not to support this business - some people will, some won't, based on this policy.

They're not trying to force the videographer to perform the service for them, they've accepted they've been denied and are continuing their wedding plans without this videographer - obviously finding another videographer.
23 years old, gay male, Presbyterian North Carolinian. Pumpkin Spice everything.
TET's resident ostrich
Political Party: Not affiliated/Independent
Hawkins/Walker 2020
Luna Amore wrote:Please remember to attend the ritualistic burning of Kannap for heresy
Luna Amore wrote:note to self, insert clever reference to Kannap
T H E M O U N T A I N S A R E C A L L I N G A N D I M U S T G O
G A Y S I N C E 1 9 9 7
RYM || Political test results

User avatar
The Rich Port
Post Czar
 
Posts: 37234
Founded: Jul 29, 2008
Left-Leaning College State

Postby The Rich Port » Tue Jul 21, 2020 4:05 pm

MGTOWia wrote:
Thermodolia wrote:Ya I’ve never understood the idea of wanting to force someone to doing something they definitely don’t want.


That's because you're assuming honest motivations on the part of those doing the forcing. Which is a false assumption. They try to force the issue because it's not about "non-discrimination" or "shunning me for . . . who I AM!" or any other rubbish excuse that's trotted out. It's about power. It's about getting in the face of people who refuse to drink the SJW Kool-Aid, shoving a funnel in their mouths, pouring it down their throats, and laughing as they choke on it.

Good on the videographers.


The irony that this same logic applies more to incels and MGTOWs. :roll:

What exactly is the reasoning for denying them due to being gay?
Last edited by The Rich Port on Tue Jul 21, 2020 4:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Pronouns: If you want me to feel pretty and extraordinary, call me she. If you want me to feel handsome and masculine, call me he.
NOW WITH SUPER SECRET VIP CONSTRUCTIVE DISCUSSION DISCORD. INQUIRE VIA TELEGRAM.

Coronavirus is real, and a real problem. Do not panic, but please educate yourself and take steps to protect yourself and your loved ones. Donald Trump lied. Pray for the sick.
LAUGH, AND GROW FAT
THOSE THAT SOW THORNS SHOULD NOT EXPECT FLOWERS
YOU NEVER KNOW JUST HOW YOU LOOK THROUGH OTHER PEOPLE'S EYES

Tracking | History | Factbook | Dharma
Economic Report | Regional Forum | Political Compass
CAPINTERN | OMSA | OZZY | PACT | APAC
Summary | Vanguard | The Book Of Sue
THE BILLION BIT BRONY
AHAHAHAHA PONY PONY PONY PONYYY


LOVEWHOYOUARE~


User avatar
Andsed
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 10056
Founded: Aug 24, 2017
New York Times Democracy

Postby Andsed » Tue Jul 21, 2020 4:12 pm

Kannap wrote:
MGTOWia wrote:
That's because you're assuming honest motivations on the part of those doing the forcing. Which is a false assumption. They try to force the issue because it's not about "non-discrimination" or "shunning me for . . . who I AM!" or any other rubbish excuse that's trotted out. It's about power. It's about getting in the face of people who refuse to drink the SJW Kool-Aid, shoving a funnel in their mouths, pouring it down their throats, and laughing as they choke on it.

Good on the videographers.


Nice try, but nobody's forcing anybody to do something they don't like. The couple was up front about the fact that they're a same-sex couple and while they're expressing displeasure at homophobia, they're simply making it known to the public so the public can decide whether or not to support this business - some people will, some won't, based on this policy.

They're not trying to force the videographer to perform the service for them, they've accepted they've been denied and are continuing their wedding plans without this videographer - obviously finding another videographer.

Honestly the only thing that could even be seen as the company being forced to serve them is the review bombing and that is hardly forcing the company to do anything.
LOVEWHOYOUARE~

User avatar
Greed and Death
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 52414
Founded: Mar 20, 2008
Compulsory Consumerist State

Postby Greed and Death » Tue Jul 21, 2020 4:19 pm

San Lumen wrote:
MGTOWia wrote:
That's because you're assuming honest motivations on the part of those doing the forcing. Which is a false assumption. They try to force the issue because it's not about "non-discrimination" or "shunning me for . . . who I AM!" or any other rubbish excuse that's trotted out. It's about power. It's about getting in the face of people who refuse to drink the SJW Kool-Aid, shoving a funnel in their mouths, pouring it down their throats, and laughing as they choke on it.

Good on the videographers.

People of color in the south should have just gone elsewhere too right?


I am not familiar with a single instance of a person of color in the South demanding that the KKK take pictures at their wedding. If you are aware of such an incident I would love to read about.
"Trying to solve the healthcare problem by mandating people buy insurance is like trying to solve the homeless problem by mandating people buy a house."(paraphrase from debate with Hilary Clinton)
Barack Obama

User avatar
Kowani
Postmaster of the Fleet
 
Posts: 24402
Founded: Apr 01, 2018
Democratic Socialists

Postby Kowani » Tue Jul 21, 2020 5:03 pm

I don’t see that review bomb being taken well…
Spanish-American Atheist.
“The time has come to call evil out as evil, and we shall not apologize for naming brutality.”
NSG's resident data enthusiast.
Ni dios, ni rey, ni patria, ni amo


Telconi wrote:Every once in a while Kowani does have a decent point.

User avatar
Mississippi River Country
Lobbyist
 
Posts: 11
Founded: Jul 13, 2019
Ex-Nation

Postby Mississippi River Country » Tue Jul 21, 2020 5:11 pm

San Lumen wrote:
MGTOWia wrote:That's because you're assuming honest motivations on the part of those doing the forcing. Which is a false assumption. They try to force the issue because it's not about "non-discrimination" or "shunning me for . . . who I AM!" or any other rubbish excuse that's trotted out. It's about power. It's about getting in the face of people who refuse to drink the SJW Kool-Aid, shoving a funnel in their mouths, pouring it down their throats, and laughing as they choke on it. Good on the videographers.

People of color in the south should have just gone elsewhere too right?


What equivalency are you even trying to make here? What too? (I never saw MGTOWia saying anyone should leave.) People of color when and why?
Last edited by Mississippi River Country on Tue Jul 21, 2020 5:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Auze
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1967
Founded: Oct 31, 2015
Democratic Socialists

Postby Auze » Tue Jul 21, 2020 5:19 pm

Not this debate again...
Hello, I'm an LDS kid from South Carolina!
In case you're wondering, it's pronounced ['ɑ.ziː].

Anyway, how about a game?
RIP LWDT & RWDT. Y'all did not go gentle into that good night.

User avatar
Greed and Death
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 52414
Founded: Mar 20, 2008
Compulsory Consumerist State

Postby Greed and Death » Tue Jul 21, 2020 5:27 pm

Auze wrote:Not this debate again...

May free speech win.
"Trying to solve the healthcare problem by mandating people buy insurance is like trying to solve the homeless problem by mandating people buy a house."(paraphrase from debate with Hilary Clinton)
Barack Obama

User avatar
San Lumen
Post Czar
 
Posts: 46808
Founded: Jul 02, 2009
Civil Rights Lovefest

Postby San Lumen » Tue Jul 21, 2020 5:43 pm

Mississippi River Country wrote:
San Lumen wrote:People of color in the south should have just gone elsewhere too right?


What equivalency are you even trying to make here? What too? (I never saw MGTOWia saying anyone should leave.) People of color when and why?

Before the civil rights act was passed

User avatar
MGTOWia
Envoy
 
Posts: 228
Founded: Nov 22, 2017
Capitalist Paradise

Postby MGTOWia » Tue Jul 21, 2020 11:51 pm

Kannap wrote:
MGTOWia wrote:
That's because you're assuming honest motivations on the part of those doing the forcing. Which is a false assumption. They try to force the issue because it's not about "non-discrimination" or "shunning me for . . . who I AM!" or any other rubbish excuse that's trotted out. It's about power. It's about getting in the face of people who refuse to drink the SJW Kool-Aid, shoving a funnel in their mouths, pouring it down their throats, and laughing as they choke on it.

Good on the videographers.


Nice try, but nobody's forcing anybody to do something they don't like. The couple was up front about the fact that they're a same-sex couple and while they're expressing displeasure at homophobia, they're simply making it known to the public so the public can decide whether or not to support this business - some people will, some won't, based on this policy.

They're not trying to force the videographer to perform the service for them, they've accepted they've been denied and are continuing their wedding plans without this videographer - obviously finding another videographer.


Granted that this particular duo does not appear to have tried to bring governmental force to bear to coerce the videographers into participating in an activity they find objectionable. Unlike others in similar circumstances. My comment was directed to the general concept of certain groups with agendas demanding services from people they damn well know ahead of time are going to refuse to do so.

Of course, nobody engages in "making it known to the public" with the intention of creating pressure to force someone to do something they don't like, at the peril of being forced out of business, blacklisted by social media, denied access to crowd funding, or anything like that. They're just "expressing their displeasure". :roll:

As you say, nice try.
"The more money you make, the more women you should avoid." -- YouTube user Anubis_X64

"Wokeness is a disease. MGTOW is the cure."

"Love: (n) the mechanism the human species has evolved to keep males and females from killing each other long enough to produce and raise offspring."

User avatar
MGTOWia
Envoy
 
Posts: 228
Founded: Nov 22, 2017
Capitalist Paradise

Postby MGTOWia » Tue Jul 21, 2020 11:57 pm

The Rich Port wrote:
MGTOWia wrote:
That's because you're assuming honest motivations on the part of those doing the forcing. Which is a false assumption. They try to force the issue because it's not about "non-discrimination" or "shunning me for . . . who I AM!" or any other rubbish excuse that's trotted out. It's about power. It's about getting in the face of people who refuse to drink the SJW Kool-Aid, shoving a funnel in their mouths, pouring it down their throats, and laughing as they choke on it.

Good on the videographers.

The irony that this same logic applies more to incels and MGTOWs. :roll:


Something tells me you have no idea what "irony" actually means. Btw: grouping "incels" with men going their own way is as big a fail today as when it was first articulated. And there are no actual "involuntary celibates". Sex is a mouse click away for anyone who actually wants it.

The Rich Port wrote:What exactly is the reasoning for denying them due to being gay?


Assuming that's an honestly motivated question (which I doubt), the reasoning is that they find participation in such an activity morally objectionable. Whether you or anyone else agrees with their reasoning, likes it, or approves of it is unimportant.
"The more money you make, the more women you should avoid." -- YouTube user Anubis_X64

"Wokeness is a disease. MGTOW is the cure."

"Love: (n) the mechanism the human species has evolved to keep males and females from killing each other long enough to produce and raise offspring."

Next

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to General

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Drop Your Pants, Freiheit Reich, Infected Mushroom, Kandorith, Mint Jelly, Nobel Hobos 2, Ostroeuropa, SD_Film Artists, The Blaatschapen, Vassenor

Advertisement

Remove ads