Ontario Same-Sex Couple Denied Videography for Gay Wedding

[Kannap]

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.

[Andsed]

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

[The Rich Port]

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.

[The Rich Port]

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?

[Necroghastia]

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 Rich Port]

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.

[Greed and Death]

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 ?

[Thermodolia]

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

[Thermodolia]

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.

[The New California Republic]

“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.

[MGTOWia]

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.

[San Lumen]

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?

[Andsed]

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.

[New haven america]

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.

[Kannap]

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.

[The Rich Port]

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.

What exactly is the reasoning for denying them due to being gay?

[Andsed]

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.

[Greed and Death]

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.

[Kowani]

I don’t see that review bomb being taken well…

[Mississippi River Country]

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?

[Auze]

Not this debate again...

[Greed and Death]

Not this debate again...

May free speech win.

[San Lumen]

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

[MGTOWia]

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".

As you say, nice try.

[MGTOWia]

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.

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.

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.