Ontario Same-Sex Couple Denied Videography for Gay Wedding

[Alcala-Cordel]

You should have to make hem a cake as long as it doesn't say something terrible or make it look like you're endorsing them. Feel free to be very passive-aggressive though, F those people.
That's hate speech, which is a good reason to discriminate. Nazi isn't a race.


That's different, you shouldn't be forced to push an agenda you don't want to push. Taking pictures of a wedding is not pushing an agenda.

So you agree sometimes it is fine to discriminate.

And if the WBC wants to hold a rally at your restaurant? You should have to do it?
Anyways better to openly say no than passively aggressively sabotage it. Would you want your wedding photographer to passive aggressively sabotage your pictures?

I disagree that it is different. Wedding photography is an art, your are creating a work of art with a message. It is a custom item of a nonessential and artistic nature that may include political and religious message. So you should be able to turn a customer down for any reason (admittedly it is probably better to just say no without telling them why exactly).

There's a difference between discriminating against hate speech and discriminating as a form of hate speech. If a minority or a gay person wants to use a standard service, you have no right to deny them that.

[The Two Jerseys]

So you agree sometimes it is fine to discriminate.

And if the WBC wants to hold a rally at your restaurant? You should have to do it?
Anyways better to openly say no than passively aggressively sabotage it. Would you want your wedding photographer to passive aggressively sabotage your pictures?

I disagree that it is different. Wedding photography is an art, your are creating a work of art with a message. It is a custom item of a nonessential and artistic nature that may include political and religious message. So you should be able to turn a customer down for any reason (admittedly it is probably better to just say no without telling them why exactly).

There's a difference between discriminating against hate speech and discriminating as a form of hate speech. If a minority or a gay person wants to use a standard service, you have no right to deny them that.

Wedding photography isn't a standard service.

[Novus America]

So you agree sometimes it is fine to discriminate.

And if the WBC wants to hold a rally at your restaurant? You should have to do it?
Anyways better to openly say no than passively aggressively sabotage it. Would you want your wedding photographer to passive aggressively sabotage your pictures?

I disagree that it is different. Wedding photography is an art, your are creating a work of art with a message. It is a custom item of a nonessential and artistic nature that may include political and religious message. So you should be able to turn a customer down for any reason (admittedly it is probably better to just say no without telling them why exactly).

There's a difference between discriminating against hate speech and discriminating as a form of hate speech. If a minority or a gay person wants to use a standard service, you have no right to deny them that.

The problem here is you open things up to too many subjective values judgements, basically “you can discriminate only if I like your message”. Sometimes you might think someone’s sincerely held religious beliefs are hateful, by we cannot say only religious beliefs we like are valid.

And you failed to address my individual points.

But I generally agree, if you are providing a standard good or service that is one thing.
A custom artwork is quite different.

[Bear Stearns]

No one acted like an adult here.

[Andsed]

No one acted like an adult here.

I fail to see how the couple acted immaturely here. They were upfront that they were a gay couple and when told they would not be served simply expressed their displeasure online and looked for another company. What exactly is wrong with that?

[San Lumen]

No one acted like an adult here.

I fail to see how the couple acted immaturely here. They were upfront that they were a gay couple and when told they would not be served simply expressed their displeasure online and looked for another company. What exactly is wrong with that?

Nothing

[Alcala-Cordel]

There's a difference between discriminating against hate speech and discriminating as a form of hate speech. If a minority or a gay person wants to use a standard service, you have no right to deny them that.

The problem here is you open things up to too many subjective values judgements, basically “you can discriminate only if I like your message”. Sometimes you might think someone’s sincerely held religious beliefs are hateful, by we cannot say only religious beliefs we like are valid.

And you failed to address my individual points.

But I generally agree, if you are providing a standard good or service that is one thing.
A custom artwork is quite different.

Gay marriage isn't a message, it's just people getting married.

[Novus America]

The problem here is you open things up to too many subjective values judgements, basically “you can discriminate only if I like your message”. Sometimes you might think someone’s sincerely held religious beliefs are hateful, by we cannot say only religious beliefs we like are valid.

And you failed to address my individual points.

But I generally agree, if you are providing a standard good or service that is one thing.
A custom artwork is quite different.

Gay marriage isn't a message, it's just people getting married.

People getting married is a message. The point of having a wedding is to send a message that you are getting married. A celebration is a message.
There are also legitimate political and religious disputes over the proper meaning and definition of marriage.

It absolutely does touch on religious and political issues.

This regards a custom work of art, that has religious and political implications. Thus the freedom of expression should mean you should not be forced to create a custom work of art depicting something contrary to your beliefs, regardless.

If you had a problem with the military and did not want to film military weddings that is fine.
If you have a problem with Catholicism and did not want to film Catholic weddings that is fine.

Again you are making subjective value judgements regarding what you think art should be forced to depict, which is a terrible idea.

Art is freedom of expression. You should not be able to force people to make a certain work of art depicting or saying a certain thing if they do not want to. For any reason. We cannot say “oh you right to freedom of expression in art does not apply to gay weddings but does apply to other things”. That is just forcing people to make art in accordance with what you believe.

[Nevertopia]

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.

Well here it is, the dumbest news Ive heard all day. Our antidiscrimination laws do NOT allow this, but theres a religious exemption for a church not hosting a gay marriage but THATS as far as it goes.

This is a clear-cut case of discrimination, they're a videography company not a religious institution and withholding services to gays for being gay is a non-obfuscated example of discrimination. Legally and morally this is indisputably wrong in our country.. They gon git lawyered. HARD. Seriously, gay discrimination in Canada?! Who the hell are these people?!

[James_xenoland]

Are they a government owned or run business in any way? Are the publicly owned? If the answer is no then I don't see the issue or need for the topic. A business, especially a privately owned and run one, should be perfectly within in their rights to decide the type of services they offer under their own conditions, if it all. This sounds like demands for authoritarian overreach in the name of whiny, petty little egos and hurt feel-feels. Some people need to GTFU!

[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.

It's so easy to blame Christians, doesn't it? How about the discriminations towards non-binary people in the Middle East, where there was even cases of stoning there? There are Gay pastors and priests in Christianity. Not every Christian is a close-minded, homophobic bigot - there are Churches that legitimize and celebrate gay marriage. But blaming Christians, instead of the clear culprit here (read: ignorant homophobic bigots that deserve bad review for their discriminating behaviour) isn't the solution.

It's funny how the Bible works. Sure you can choose to ignore it, but at the same time... It says right there that God doesn't like gays.

It is why I in good conscience could not remain a Christian. Being gay is not a sin and to think it is just as ignorant.

So, what's your excuse?

[Nobel Hobos 2]

Are they a government owned or run business in any way? Are the publicly owned? If the answer is no then I don't see the issue or need for the topic. A business, especially a privately owned and run one, should be perfectly within in their rights to decide the type of services they offer under their own conditions, if it all. This sounds like demands for authoritarian overreach in the name of whiny, petty little egos and hurt feel-feels. Some people need to GTFU!

If the reason had been "no, we don't do Asian weddings" would your feelings be the same?

[The Rich Port]

Are they a government owned or run business in any way? Are the publicly owned? If the answer is no then I don't see the issue or need for the topic. A business, especially a privately owned and run one, should be perfectly within in their rights to decide the type of services they offer under their own conditions, if it all. This sounds like demands for authoritarian overreach in the name of whiny, petty little egos and hurt feel-feels. Some people need to GTFU!

If the reason had been "no, we don't do Asian weddings" would your feelings be the same?

"Sorry we don't do anime people weddings, kek."

[Nobel Hobos 2]

If the reason had been "no, we don't do Asian weddings" would your feelings be the same?

"Sorry we don't do anime people weddings, kek."

That is different. Look, I don't think anyone who publicly advertises their service should refuse to anyone. Anime, whatever.

But "they shouldn't refuse to anyone based on inalienable characteristics" is less wide ranging, and it's what J_X is against.

[Gormwood]

If the reason had been "no, we don't do Asian weddings" would your feelings be the same?

"Sorry we don't do anime people weddings, kek."

"GTFO weeb"

[San Lumen]

Are they a government owned or run business in any way? Are the publicly owned? If the answer is no then I don't see the issue or need for the topic. A business, especially a privately owned and run one, should be perfectly within in their rights to decide the type of services they offer under their own conditions, if it all. This sounds like demands for authoritarian overreach in the name of whiny, petty little egos and hurt feel-feels. Some people need to GTFU!

All the African Americans in the south should have simply said oh well and just gone elsewhere? Oh wait the next town wouldn’t serve you either. Should they have just moved?

[The Two Jerseys]

Are they a government owned or run business in any way? Are the publicly owned? If the answer is no then I don't see the issue or need for the topic. A business, especially a privately owned and run one, should be perfectly within in their rights to decide the type of services they offer under their own conditions, if it all. This sounds like demands for authoritarian overreach in the name of whiny, petty little egos and hurt feel-feels. Some people need to GTFU!

All the African Americans in the south should have simply said oh well and just gone elsewhere? Oh wait the next town wouldn’t serve you either. Should they have just moved?

Should black people have done exactly what you tell conservatives to do whenever they complain about liberals coming in and ruining everything in that state/county/city?

Yes, they should have just moved.

[San Lumen]

All the African Americans in the south should have simply said oh well and just gone elsewhere? Oh wait the next town wouldn’t serve you either. Should they have just moved?

Should black people have done exactly what you tell conservatives to do whenever they complain about liberals coming in and ruining everything in that state/county/city?

Yes, they should have just moved.

That’s not the same thing. Your not being discriminated against

[The Two Jerseys]

Should black people have done exactly what you tell conservatives to do whenever they complain about liberals coming in and ruining everything in that state/county/city?

Yes, they should have just moved.

That’s not the same thing. Your not being discriminated against

Being told that you can't buy a gun that's legal in 49 other states and having to undergo a background check to buy bullets is discrimination.

So why shouldn't black people just leave if they don't like it there?

[San Lumen]

That’s not the same thing. Your not being discriminated against

Being told that you can't buy a gun that's legal in 49 other states and having to undergo a background check to buy bullets is discrimination.

So why shouldn't black people just leave if they don't like it there?

No it isn’t.

Color of your skin or who you love shouldn’t determine whether you get service

[Novus America]

Being told that you can't buy a gun that's legal in 49 other states and having to undergo a background check to buy bullets is discrimination.

So why shouldn't black people just leave if they don't like it there?

No it isn’t.

Color of your skin or who you love shouldn’t determine whether you get service

In terms of essential, standard non artistic services? Sure, in most cases.
But people should not be forced to make custom art they disagree with, as that violates freedom of expression to a degree much greater than providing something from a standard menu or list that has no artistic, political or religious implications.

If I simply want to order some food (from your existing choices, not demanding you make something unique or put a message on it) then discrimination should generally not be allowed.
But if you are an artist making custom art then you should be able to turn me down for any reason.
Should you be forced to to paint a painting supporting a religious or political message you disagree with? Of course not.

Freedom of expression in art is very important.

[The Two Jerseys]

Being told that you can't buy a gun that's legal in 49 other states and having to undergo a background check to buy bullets is discrimination.

So why shouldn't black people just leave if they don't like it there?

No it isn’t.

Color of your skin or who you love shouldn’t determine whether you get service

How close you live to Whole Foods and the police station shouldn't determine whether you get food and security.

[San Lumen]

No it isn’t.

Color of your skin or who you love shouldn’t determine whether you get service

How close you live to Whole Foods and the police station shouldn't determine whether you get food and security.

And where does that occur?

[The Two Jerseys]

How close you live to Whole Foods and the police station shouldn't determine whether you get food and security.

And where does that occur?

California.

[Novus America]

How close you live to Whole Foods and the police station shouldn't determine whether you get food and security.

And where does that occur?

NYC where only the rich and politically connected can carry a firearm, not the working class or the poor, but that is a different topic.