Ontario Same-Sex Couple Denied Videography for Gay Wedding

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

What does this have to do with anything? My comment wasn't a statement on whether or not this happens (I have no doubt it does), just that it isn't comparable to actual discrimination.

And your basis for dismissing the comparison was that "jerk" or "dates a jerk" aren't protected classes (although when most of the people complaining about this reach voting age the latter could become one) but the discrimination isn't against the sexual orientation but against a decision made.

As well, as others have pointed out a gay wedding constitutes expressing a point; legitimizing the gay wedding. I don't agree with people who want to "de-legitimize" it, but is it really okay to coerce them into being involved? This isn't like serving minorities food or lodging; those can become desperately needed under circumstances and the harm done by allowing a town to denying it en masse outweighs the freedom not to do so.

There is a message sent by videography for gay weddings, and that is "I am contributing to this wedding by providing my services." When it comes to relationships, freedom is something people prioritize much more. It's why "no is a complete sentence" even in contexts where there are a variety of very good reasons one could express politely. Why then, does no not also mean no when it comes to the right to refuse to document it?

If one were to say the same for an interracial wedding or anything else, I would hope society has the sense to err on the side of freedom here.

What criticism? They didn't criticize anything, they denied them a service based on their sexual orientation--which is discrimination against protected class.

My bad, force of habit.

Nonetheless, they didn't discriminate based on their sexual orientation, just on acting on it. Just as if someone is attracted to jerks, denying them a cake for marrying one doesn't make it discrimination.

If their only reason to deny was because you're disabled, yes.

What if certain actions or behaviours of mine were caused by my disability and they disliked those actions or behaviours enough to refuse service then? Would they have the right to?

In all honesty, I have bigger fish to fry due to said disability (won't identify it for obvious reasons) and if society respects the taxpayer's right not to subsidize the medical supplies I so desperately need, I would hope it respects the right of the individual business owner not to provide a service I might possibly someday slightly want.

[Ors Might]

Cherrypicking is the entire basis of differing sects and denominations. If you insist on calling anyone that doesn’t adhere to the entirety of their religious text in full (that is, literally every person with a religion) a hypocrite, then go ahead I guess. Seems kinda neckbeardy.

What the hell is this nonsense? It's now "neckbeardy" to point out that religions are full of hypocrisy? Guess Jesus was a neckbeard for calling out the Pharisees, then.

What people are doing is whinging that people don’t accurately follow the whole of their religion and thus, they shouldn’t try to follow any of their religion. And before anyone says that isn’t what’s happening, what do you call bringing up some bullshit about selling their daughter when they claim their religious beliefs don’t allow them to provide artistic services to gay weddings?

[State of Turelisa]

What has happened to freedom of conscience?
Is a Christian expected to be a hypocrite and coward and abide by civil laws passed to enforce on the whole of society a false consensus upon which a minority's demands for recognition and self-justification depends?
Such is the Christian who would be prepared to lay aside one's religious demands to profit materially from enabling, endorsing, or even just participating in an activity which involves the jubilant recognition of sin.
A true Christian would exercise one's freedom of conscience, and refuse to be bullied into submitting to the will of a sinful world, even if a man-made, humanistic law were broken and ruin followed in a civil suit, which is the likely outcome of this case.

[Outer Acharet]

What has happened to freedom of conscience?
Is a Christian expected to be a hypocrite and coward and abide by civil laws passed to enforce upon the whole of society a false consensus upon which a minority's demands for recognition and self-justification depends?
Such is the Christian who would be prepared to lay aside one's religious demands to profit materially from enabling, endorsing, or even just participating in an activity which involves the jubilant recognition of sin.
A true Christian would exercise one's freedom of conscience, and refuse to be bullied into submitting to the will of a sinful world, even if a man-made, humanistic law were broken and ruin followed in a civil suit, which is the likely outcome of this case.

All very true. But the way I interpret the Bible, we are not called to pass judgement upon others. I think that's something left to God. And by denying these people service for no reason other than their sexuality, there is a certain aspect of judgement involved. We do not eke out punishment for sin, only God does that. To do otherwise presumes above man's station.

If I am forced to choose between God and the world, where I would be forced to sin or face punishment, then we are taught to choose God. But we are not taught to punish others for not doing the same.

EDIT: Changed the overall tone to something less preachy and assuming

[Greed and Death]

Yes but the Bible doesn't tell you that being black is immoral. People who discriminate against black people do not have a religious excuse.

The Bible is quite clear that homosexuality is a sin.

President Bartlett has a few questions for you

I'm interested in selling my youngest daughter into slavery as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. She's a Georgetown sophomore, speaks fluent Italian, always cleaned the table when it was her turn. What would a good price for her be?"
"My chief of staff, Leo McGarry, insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly says he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself or is it okay to call the police?"
"Here's one that's really important cause we've got a lot of sports fans in this town: touching the skin of a dead pig makes one unclean. Leviticus 11:7 If they promise to wear gloves can the Washington Redskins still play football? Can Notre Dame? Can West Point?
"Does the whole town really have to be together to stone my brother, John, for planting different crops side by side? Can I burn my mother in a small family gathering for wearing garments made from two different threads?
"Think about those questions, would you?"

That is a bit much isn't ? Few Christians call for gay people to be put to death as required by Leviticus and most certainly not the videographer in this case. What the videographer desires is the ability to shun people for failing to uphold his beliefs and the right to deny services for artistic works he disagrees with.

[Necroghastia]

What has happened to freedom of conscience?
Is a Christian expected to be a hypocrite and coward and abide by civil laws passed to enforce on the whole of society a false consensus upon which a minority's demands for recognition and self-justification depends?

Are people who disagree with this interpretation of Christianity in the wrong to warn others that this is a discriminatory business?

Such is the Christian who would be prepared to lay aside one's religious demands to profit materially from enabling, endorsing, or even just participating in an activity which involves the jubilant recognition of sin.

It doesn't, but okay.

A true Christian would exercise one's freedom of conscience, and refuse to be bullied into submitting to the will of a sinful world

Like, say, warning others that this business is not a welcoming one.

even if a man-made, humanistic law were broken and ruin followed in a civil suit, which is the likely outcome of this case.

Likely outcome based on what? I haven't seen any indication that charges were going to be pressed.

[Greed and Death]

What has happened to freedom of conscience?
Is a Christian expected to be a hypocrite and coward and abide by civil laws passed to enforce upon the whole of society a false consensus upon which a minority's demands for recognition and self-justification depends?
Such is the Christian who would be prepared to lay aside one's religious demands to profit materially from enabling, endorsing, or even just participating in an activity which involves the jubilant recognition of sin.
A true Christian would exercise one's freedom of conscience, and refuse to be bullied into submitting to the will of a sinful world, even if a man-made, humanistic law were broken and ruin followed in a civil suit, which is the likely outcome of this case.

All very true. But, at the same time, we are not called to pass judgement upon others. Such is the province of God. And by denying these people service for no reason other than their sexuality, there is a certain aspect of judgement involved. We do not eke out punishment for sin, only God does that. To do otherwise presumes above man's station.

If I am forced to choose between God and the world, where I would be forced to sin or face punishment, then we are taught to choose God. But we are not taught to punish others for not doing the same.

You are telling this man his religion, that is mighty big of you. You might not want to start the argument telling someone what their beliefs are unless of course you are an ordained minister in his church ? Though I doubt you even know which church he attends.

He is denying them the service because he disagrees with the ending artistic result. I should no more be able to tell the painter what to paint than you should be able to tell him which wedding to record.

You just said choose god but not choose god, I think you are talking out of both ends of your mouth there.

[Outer Acharet]

All very true. But, at the same time, we are not called to pass judgement upon others. Such is the province of God. And by denying these people service for no reason other than their sexuality, there is a certain aspect of judgement involved. We do not eke out punishment for sin, only God does that. To do otherwise presumes above man's station.

If I am forced to choose between God and the world, where I would be forced to sin or face punishment, then we are taught to choose God. But we are not taught to punish others for not doing the same.

You are telling this man his religion, that is mighty big of you. You might not want to start the argument telling someone what their beliefs are unless of course you are an ordained minister in his church ? Though I doubt you even know which church he attends.

He is denying them the service because he disagrees with the ending artistic result. I should no more be able to tell the painter what to paint than you should be able to tell him which wedding to record.

You just said choose god but not choose god, I think you are talking out of both ends of your mouth there.

I can see how you got that. And I was assuming they were in the same denomination of Christianity as me. I was basically paraphrasing a sermon I heard a year or so ago.

Sorry to my man for assuming their beliefs

[Makillyria]

To all those who claim the Bible condemns homosexuality:

The word "homosexual" did not enter the ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF the Bible until the early 1900-s. Some Catholic Americans wanted it inserted instead of the actual words, which referred to pedophilia and prostitution.

sarcasm/ can't imagine why...

So unless these videographers believe that these brides' wedding would lead to sexual child abuse and whoring, I suggest that they get themselves a better translation.

Ignorance isn't bliss. Ignorance is blythe.

[Outer Acharet]

To all those who claim the Bible condemns homosexuality:

The word "homosexual" did not enter the ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF the Bible until the early 1900-s. Some Catholic Americans wanted it inserted instead of the actual words, which referred to pedophilia and prostitution.

sarcasm/ can't imagine why...

So unless these videographers believe that these brides' wedding would lead to sexual child abuse and whoring, I suggest that they get themselves a better translation.

Ignorance isn't bliss. Ignorance is blythe.

I believe it was 1912 exactly. Coincidentally, this is also when homosexual people first gained prominence in public perception.

[Salus Maior]

To all those who claim the Bible condemns homosexuality:

The word "homosexual" did not enter the ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF the Bible until the early 1900-s. Some Catholic Americans wanted it inserted instead of the actual words, which referred to pedophilia and prostitution.

sarcasm/ can't imagine why...

So unless these videographers believe that these brides' wedding would lead to sexual child abuse and whoring, I suggest that they get themselves a better translation.

Ignorance isn't bliss. Ignorance is blythe.

It doesn't refer to either of those actually.

But I'm not going to discuss that here.

[-Ra-]

To all those who claim the Bible condemns homosexuality:

The word "homosexual" did not enter the ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF the Bible until the early 1900-s. Some Catholic Americans wanted it inserted instead of the actual words, which referred to pedophilia and prostitution.

sarcasm/ can't imagine why...

So unless these videographers believe that these brides' wedding would lead to sexual child abuse and whoring, I suggest that they get themselves a better translation.

Ignorance isn't bliss. Ignorance is blythe.

"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination." (Leviticus 18:22 KJV), written in the 17th century.

[San Lumen]

To all those who claim the Bible condemns homosexuality:

The word "homosexual" did not enter the ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF the Bible until the early 1900-s. Some Catholic Americans wanted it inserted instead of the actual words, which referred to pedophilia and prostitution.

sarcasm/ can't imagine why...

So unless these videographers believe that these brides' wedding would lead to sexual child abuse and whoring, I suggest that they get themselves a better translation.

Ignorance isn't bliss. Ignorance is blythe.

"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination." (Leviticus 18:22 KJV), written in the 17th century.

I'd like an answer to this:

I'm interested in selling my youngest daughter into slavery as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. She's a Georgetown sophomore, speaks fluent Italian, always cleaned the table when it was her turn. What would a good price for her be?"
"My chief of staff, Leo McGarry, insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly says he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself or is it okay to call the police?"
"Here's one that's really important cause we've got a lot of sports fans in this town: touching the skin of a dead pig makes one unclean. Leviticus 11:7 If they promise to wear gloves can the Washington Redskins still play football? Can Notre Dame? Can West Point?
"Does the whole town really have to be together to stone my brother, John, for planting different crops side by side? Can I burn my mother in a small family gathering for wearing garments made from two different threads?
"Think about those questions, would you?"

[Novus America]

"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination." (Leviticus 18:22 KJV), written in the 17th century.

I'd like an answer to this:

I'm interested in selling my youngest daughter into slavery as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. She's a Georgetown sophomore, speaks fluent Italian, always cleaned the table when it was her turn. What would a good price for her be?"
"My chief of staff, Leo McGarry, insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly says he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself or is it okay to call the police?"
"Here's one that's really important cause we've got a lot of sports fans in this town: touching the skin of a dead pig makes one unclean. Leviticus 11:7 If they promise to wear gloves can the Washington Redskins still play football? Can Notre Dame? Can West Point?
"Does the whole town really have to be together to stone my brother, John, for planting different crops side by side? Can I burn my mother in a small family gathering for wearing garments made from two different threads?
"Think about those questions, would you?"

If you want to discuss Covenant Theology go to the CDT.

[-Ra-]

"Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination." (Leviticus 18:22 KJV), written in the 17th century.

I'd like an answer to this:

I'm interested in selling my youngest daughter into slavery as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. She's a Georgetown sophomore, speaks fluent Italian, always cleaned the table when it was her turn. What would a good price for her be?"
"My chief of staff, Leo McGarry, insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly says he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself or is it okay to call the police?"
"Here's one that's really important cause we've got a lot of sports fans in this town: touching the skin of a dead pig makes one unclean. Leviticus 11:7 If they promise to wear gloves can the Washington Redskins still play football? Can Notre Dame? Can West Point?
"Does the whole town really have to be together to stone my brother, John, for planting different crops side by side? Can I burn my mother in a small family gathering for wearing garments made from two different threads?
"Think about those questions, would you?"

You have correctly identified that the Bible says things.

This has nothing to do with people exercising their religious liberty and refusing to support a practice their religion markedly condemns.

[San Lumen]

I'd like an answer to this:

I'm interested in selling my youngest daughter into slavery as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. She's a Georgetown sophomore, speaks fluent Italian, always cleaned the table when it was her turn. What would a good price for her be?"
"My chief of staff, Leo McGarry, insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly says he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself or is it okay to call the police?"
"Here's one that's really important cause we've got a lot of sports fans in this town: touching the skin of a dead pig makes one unclean. Leviticus 11:7 If they promise to wear gloves can the Washington Redskins still play football? Can Notre Dame? Can West Point?
"Does the whole town really have to be together to stone my brother, John, for planting different crops side by side? Can I burn my mother in a small family gathering for wearing garments made from two different threads?
"Think about those questions, would you?"

You have correctly identified that the Bible says things.

This has nothing to do with people exercising their religious liberty and refusing to support a practice their religion markedly condemns.

It also says those things as well. Why should you get to pick and choose which parts of your religion your abide by?

[-Ra-]

You have correctly identified that the Bible says things.

This has nothing to do with people exercising their religious liberty and refusing to support a practice their religion markedly condemns.

It also says those things as well. Why should you get to pick and choose which parts of your religion your abide by?

If you kill someone for wearing two different types of thread, then you would be committing murder.

If you refuse to be a gay couple's videographer, then you aren't hurting anyone. You're only hurting feelings, and who gives a fuck? The law cannot legislate feelings. You're refusing to do anything.

Your rights stop where others' start. No one has the right to demand that you be their videographer.

[Ors Might]

You have correctly identified that the Bible says things.

This has nothing to do with people exercising their religious liberty and refusing to support a practice their religion markedly condemns.

It also says those things as well. Why should you get to pick and choose which parts of your religion your abide by?

..Because interpreting religious text is a major part of any religious belief? If they shouldn’t pick and choose what part of their religion they abide by, doesn’t that mean that they should be doing those awful things? Your argument isn’t as good as you think it is.

[San Lumen]

It also says those things as well. Why should you get to pick and choose which parts of your religion your abide by?

If you kill someone for wearing two different types of thread, then you would be committing murder.

If you refuse to be a gay couple's videographer, then you aren't hurting anyone. You're only hurting feelings, and who gives a fuck? The law cannot legislate feelings. You're refusing to do anything.

Your rights stop where others' start. No one has the right to demand that you be their videographer.

But the Bible says its ok.

[-Ra-]

If you kill someone for wearing two different types of thread, then you would be committing murder.

If you refuse to be a gay couple's videographer, then you aren't hurting anyone. You're only hurting feelings, and who gives a fuck? The law cannot legislate feelings. You're refusing to do anything.

Your rights stop where others' start. No one has the right to demand that you be their videographer.

But the Bible says its ok.

Doesn't matter. Our law isn't build around Biblical law. Nevertheless, we hold that religious freedom is one of the pillars of our society, and we allow people to exercise their religion or lack thereof inasmuch as they are not harming anyone.

[Novus America]

You have correctly identified that the Bible says things.

This has nothing to do with people exercising their religious liberty and refusing to support a practice their religion markedly condemns.

It also says those things as well. Why should you get to pick and choose which parts of your religion your abide by?

viewtopic.php?f=20&t=479083

It is legal irrelevant. If you have a right to religious freedom that gives you the right to religious freedom.
You absolutely can decide how you interpret your religion when exercising your religious freedom.

Say a Muslim drinks alcohol. But he does not want to serve pork.
The government cannot say “ah Gotcha, we think Islam bans alcohol to ergo you have no ability to assert religious freedoms”.

That is just silly.

[San Lumen]

But the Bible says its ok.

Doesn't matter. Our law isn't build around Biblical law. Nevertheless, we hold that religious freedom is one of the pillars of our society, and we allow people to exercise their religion or lack thereof inasmuch as they are not harming anyone.

The same argument was used to refuse interracial marriage.

[Novus America]

If you kill someone for wearing two different types of thread, then you would be committing murder.

If you refuse to be a gay couple's videographer, then you aren't hurting anyone. You're only hurting feelings, and who gives a fuck? The law cannot legislate feelings. You're refusing to do anything.

Your rights stop where others' start. No one has the right to demand that you be their videographer.

But the Bible says its ok.

In your opinion. Courts and laws should not determine what is the correct interpretation of a religion and force people to abide by it, that is a huge violation of religious freedom.

[Novus America]

Doesn't matter. Our law isn't build around Biblical law. Nevertheless, we hold that religious freedom is one of the pillars of our society, and we allow people to exercise their religion or lack thereof inasmuch as they are not harming anyone.

The same argument was used to refuse interracial marriage.

Okay? If you think your religion says interracial marriage is wrong, you should not be forced make a video of an interracial marriage if freedom of religion applies to artistic statements like that.

The question in law is only “does religious freedom protect you here?”
If it does, it does, the “correctness” of the beliefs is irrelevant.

[Ors Might]

Doesn't matter. Our law isn't build around Biblical law. Nevertheless, we hold that religious freedom is one of the pillars of our society, and we allow people to exercise their religion or lack thereof inasmuch as they are not harming anyone.

The same argument was used to refuse interracial marriage.

This argument isn’t being applied to whether or not people can marry, it’s being used to defend those that don’t want to participate in someone’s religious ceremony.