Ontario Same-Sex Couple Denied Videography for Gay Wedding

[Ors Might]

1. And I’ve explained that you’re not entirely correct.
2. Yeah.

1. Are you really proving me incorrect when you provide sources that prove me right?
2. Good, so then why are spending your time talking about commissions when the government controls what you can and cannot see?

1. Dunno how artists refusing certain commissions on principle proves you right.
2. Because both are wrong and I’m fully capable of declaring both wrong.

[Cordel One]

The racist-owned restaurant isn't the only one around, I'm sure they could find another place to eat.

Answer the question about the Lesbian!

You need food to live. You do not need a wedding photographer to live.
Also serving someone food is not participating in a particular ceremony of theirs.

If the photographer sold cameras, and they wanted to buy one, that is quite different.
In this case it is demanding they endorse a particular ceremony you choose to have.

The lesbian question is irrelevant because it's about morals, not sexuality.

Now, in my situation there are many other restaurants, he'll live if he's denied service. Answer my question.

[-Ra-]

No it isn't. There are different gradiants to discrimination.

If a neo-nazi walked into your store and demanded your service, you have every right to refuse him. Likewise, if you are a Christian videographer with strict views on gay marriage and a gay couples expects you to do their videography, then you have every right to refuse.

Freedom is freedom.

Neo-Nazis choose to be neo-Nazis. Gay people don't choose to be gay. There's also that bit about Nazis advocating for genocide whereas being gay is not harmful.

It's also kinda funny that you call all Christians homophobic.

Gay couples choose to be gay couples. The wedding videographer didn't deny them service because they were gay. They were denied service because they were a gay couple. That's a key difference. If it were a gay man in a straight relationship, I doubt the videographer would refuse.

[Novus America]

No it isn't. There are different gradiants to discrimination.

If a neo-nazi walked into your store and demanded your service, you have every right to refuse him. Likewise, if you are a Christian videographer with strict views on gay marriage and a gay couples expects you to do their videography, then you have every right to refuse.

Freedom is freedom.

Neo-Nazis choose to be neo-Nazis. Gay people don't choose to be gay. There's also that bit about Nazis advocating for genocide whereas being gay is not harmful.

It's also kinda funny that you call all Christians homophobic.

Right, but you choose to get married. Getting married is something you choose, and marriage is a controversial political and religious matter.
Again forcing someone to participate in your voluntary ceremony is different than them not serving you food.

[Cordel One]

Neo-Nazis choose to be neo-Nazis. Gay people don't choose to be gay. There's also that bit about Nazis advocating for genocide whereas being gay is not harmful.

It's also kinda funny that you call all Christians homophobic.

Right, but you choose to get married. Getting married is something you choose, and marriage is a controversial political and religious matter.
Again forcing someone to participate in your voluntary ceremony is different than them not serving you food.

Gay couples choose to be gay couples. The wedding videographer didn't deny them service because they were gay. They were denied service because they were a gay couple. That's a key difference. If it were a gay man in a straight relationship, I doubt the videographer would refuse.

Straight couples chose to be straight couples, and there's no difference between the two besides who they choose to marry. The videographer is hired to take videos of weddings, if they don't like that they should find a new line of work.

[Novus America]

Answer the question about the Lesbian!

You need food to live. You do not need a wedding photographer to live.
Also serving someone food is not participating in a particular ceremony of theirs.

If the photographer sold cameras, and they wanted to buy one, that is quite different.
In this case it is demanding they endorse a particular ceremony you choose to have.

The lesbian question is irrelevant because it's about morals, not sexuality.

Now, in my situation there are many other restaurants, he'll live if he's denied service. Answer my question.

Marriage is also about morals....

I answered it. No he should not be denied service, if he simply wants something off the menu.
But if he wants to have you participate in a religious or political ceremony he is having, you should be able to refuse,

Again serving someone a sandwich is not the same as participating in a politically and religiously controversial ceremony.

If a Muslim refuses to take part in a Wiccan ceremony because he disagrees with Wicca that is fine too.

[New haven america]

1. Are you really proving me incorrect when you provide sources that prove me right?
2. Good, so then why are spending your time talking about commissions when the government controls what you can and cannot see?

1. Dunno how artists refusing certain commissions on principle proves you right.
2. Because both are wrong and I’m fully capable of declaring both wrong.

1. Because the vast majority don't have enough of an income to bee principled.
2. Well then why aren't you arguing about how the videographer's in the wrong? Gay censorship is still super prevalent, especially in more conservative areas, so why is he in the right for partaking in censorship?

[-Ra-]

Gay couples choose to be gay couples. The wedding videographer didn't deny them service because they were gay. They were denied service because they were a gay couple. That's a key difference. If it were a gay man in a straight relationship, I doubt the videographer would refuse.

Straight couples chose to be straight couples, and there's no difference between the two besides who they choose to marry. The videographer is hired to take videos of weddings, if they don't like that they should find a new line of work.

The videographer is hired only if she consents. You cannot force the videographer to do work for you. If a videographer only wants to do straight weddings, that's her choice and her right. If a videographer only wanted to do videography for gay couples, that would be her right too.

[Ors Might]

1. Dunno how artists refusing certain commissions on principle proves you right.
2. Because both are wrong and I’m fully capable of declaring both wrong.

1. Because the vast majority don't have enough of an income to bee principled.
2. Well then why aren't you arguing about how the videographer's in the wrong? Gay censorship is still super prevalent, especially in more conservative areas, so why is he in the right for partaking in censorship?

1. Most artists, I assume, have rules about what they will or won’t do because most people aren’t whores for money.
2. Because he isn’t censoring them.

[Novus America]

Gay couples choose to be gay couples. The wedding videographer didn't deny them service because they were gay. They were denied service because they were a gay couple. That's a key difference. If it were a gay man in a straight relationship, I doubt the videographer would refuse.

Straight couples chose to be straight couples, and there's no difference between the two besides who they choose to marry. The videographer is hired to take videos of weddings, if they don't like that they should find a new line of work.

If they finds straight marriage is not way at they support, they should be able to refuse that too.
You are completely denying their artistic and political freedom to force them to participate in and endorse a ceremony they have a religious conflict with.

You do not loose all rights just because you photograph weddings.

[San Lumen]

Straight couples chose to be straight couples, and there's no difference between the two besides who they choose to marry. The videographer is hired to take videos of weddings, if they don't like that they should find a new line of work.

The videographer is hired only if she consents. You cannot force the videographer to do work for you. If a videographer only wants to do straight weddings, that's her choice and her right. If a videographer only wanted to do videography for gay couples, that would be her right too.

By that logic should be repeal all anti discrimination laws and allow business to pick and chose who they serve?

[Ors Might]

The videographer is hired only if she consents. You cannot force the videographer to do work for you. If a videographer only wants to do straight weddings, that's her choice and her right. If a videographer only wanted to do videography for gay couples, that would be her right too.

By that logic should be repeal all anti discrimination laws and allow business to pick and chose who they serve?

As far as I’m aware, don’t anti-discrimination laws not apply to commissions and the like? Though I don’t know much about Canadian law so there’s not a small chance that I’m wrong.

[-Ra-]

The videographer is hired only if she consents. You cannot force the videographer to do work for you. If a videographer only wants to do straight weddings, that's her choice and her right. If a videographer only wanted to do videography for gay couples, that would be her right too.

By that logic should be repeal all anti discrimination laws and allow business to pick and chose who they serve?

Personally I believe that non-essential businesses (so those that aren't groceries, health services, etc.) should have the absolute right to choose whom they wish to serve.

However, I support making race and sex protected distinctions because no one can choose to not present as black and no one can choose not to present as a woman. You do not have to present as gay or as a gay couple. Doing so is your choice.

[San Lumen]

By that logic should be repeal all anti discrimination laws and allow business to pick and chose who they serve?

Personally I believe that non-essential businesses (so those that aren't groceries, health services, etc.) should have the absolute right to choose whom they wish to serve.

However, I support making race and sex protected distinctions because no one can choose to not present as black and no one can choose not to present as a woman. You do not have to present as gay or as a gay couple. Doing so is your choice.

Why should they have that right?

Why should gay and lesbian couples have to hide the fact they are gay?

[New haven america]

1. Because the vast majority don't have enough of an income to bee principled.
2. Well then why aren't you arguing about how the videographer's in the wrong? Gay censorship is still super prevalent, especially in more conservative areas, so why is he in the right for partaking in censorship?

1. Most artists, I assume, have rules about what they will or won’t do because most people aren’t whores for money.
2. Because he isn’t censoring them.

1. Well you're assumption's wrong because that only applies to the successful ones. Again: Unsuccessful artists don't have the income to be principled
2. Yes he is. He's deny showing them in any light, that is conservative censorship and is probably due to coming from a household that participated in a similar form of censorship, and by being allowed to continue with this behavior he's continuing that culture of gay censorship. It's ok to admit that you're fine with censorship towards things you might not like, but please stop trying to beat around the bush and say your arguing for civil rights when that's the exact opposite of what you're doing.

[Cordel One]

Straight couples chose to be straight couples, and there's no difference between the two besides who they choose to marry. The videographer is hired to take videos of weddings, if they don't like that they should find a new line of work.

If they finds straight marriage is not way at they support, they should be able to refuse that too.
You are completely denying their artistic and political freedom to force them to participate in and endorse a ceremony they have a religious conflict with.

You do not loose all rights just because you photograph weddings.

Straight couples chose to be straight couples, and there's no difference between the two besides who they choose to marry. The videographer is hired to take videos of weddings, if they don't like that they should find a new line of work.

The videographer is hired only if she consents. You cannot force the videographer to do work for you. If a videographer only wants to do straight weddings, that's her choice and her right. If a videographer only wanted to do videography for gay couples, that would be her right too.

You two would have fit in great in the South in the 60s, these are segregationist arguments. Separate but equal amirite?

[-Ra-]

Personally I believe that non-essential businesses (so those that aren't groceries, health services, etc.) should have the absolute right to choose whom they wish to serve.

However, I support making race and sex protected distinctions because no one can choose to not present as black and no one can choose not to present as a woman. You do not have to present as gay or as a gay couple. Doing so is your choice.

Why should they have that right?

Why should gay and lesbian couples have to hide the fact they are gay?

Gay and lesbians don't have to hide that they're gay. Nevertheless, they shouldn't expect people to serve them if they are demanding people to go against their religious beliefs. Gay people have the freedom to be gay. Religious people have the freedom to refuse service if it violates their deeply-held religious beliefs.

[Telconi]

Personally I believe that non-essential businesses (so those that aren't groceries, health services, etc.) should have the absolute right to choose whom they wish to serve.

However, I support making race and sex protected distinctions because no one can choose to not present as black and no one can choose not to present as a woman. You do not have to present as gay or as a gay couple. Doing so is your choice.

Why should they have that right?

Why should gay and lesbian couples have to hide the fact they are gay?

Rights are good m'dude.

[Ors Might]

1. Most artists, I assume, have rules about what they will or won’t do because most people aren’t whores for money.
2. Because he isn’t censoring them.

1. Well you're assumption's wrong because that only applies to the successful ones. Again: Unsuccessful artists don't have the income to be principled
2. Yes he is. He's deny showing them in any light, that is conservative censorship and is probably due to coming from a household that participated in a similar form of censorship, and by being allowed to continue with this behavior he's continuing that censoring behavior. It's ok to admit that you're fine with censorship towards things you might not like, but please stop trying to beat around the bush and say your arguing for civil rights when that's the exact opposite of what you're doing.

1. False. Every artist I know is broke as shit and none of them have made degenerate artwork of two bipedal wolves in Nazi uniforms.
2. Censorship isn’t refusing to provide people with a service. Censorship would be if the guy tried to prevent anyone, even the couple themselves, from recording the wedding.

[-Ra-]

You two would have fit in great in the South in the 60s, these are segregationist arguments. Separate but equal amirite?

No, and you are lying or deliberately misinformed. Segregation was state-backed and -enforced. This is an issue of personal freedom, not state function. If no one wishes to serve them, the gay couple can go to the government office and get married there. The government cannot deny them service. Individuals can.

[San Lumen]

Why should they have that right?

Why should gay and lesbian couples have to hide the fact they are gay?

Gay and lesbians don't have to hide that they're gay. Nevertheless, they shouldn't expect people to serve them if they are demanding people to go against their religious beliefs. Gay people have the freedom to be gay. Religious people have the freedom to refuse service if it violates their deeply-held religious beliefs.

In other words you want them to hide it.

[-Ra-]

Gay and lesbians don't have to hide that they're gay. Nevertheless, they shouldn't expect people to serve them if they are demanding people to go against their religious beliefs. Gay people have the freedom to be gay. Religious people have the freedom to refuse service if it violates their deeply-held religious beliefs.

In other words you want them to hide it.

Or they could just find another videographer who accepts them.

[San Lumen]

In other words you want them to hide it.

Or they could just find another videographer who accepts them.

They can just find another hotel or restaurant too?

[Cordel One]

You two would have fit in great in the South in the 60s, these are segregationist arguments. Separate but equal amirite?

No, and you are lying or deliberately misinformed. Segregation was state-backed and -enforced. This is an issue of personal freedom, not state function. If no one wishes to serve them, the gay couple can go to the government office and get married there. The government cannot deny them service. Individuals can.

Discrimination is discrimination with or without state support.

[Novus America]

If they finds straight marriage is not way at they support, they should be able to refuse that too.
You are completely denying their artistic and political freedom to force them to participate in and endorse a ceremony they have a religious conflict with.

You do not loose all rights just because you photograph weddings.

The videographer is hired only if she consents. You cannot force the videographer to do work for you. If a videographer only wants to do straight weddings, that's her choice and her right. If a videographer only wanted to do videography for gay couples, that would be her right too.

You two would have fit in great in the South in the 60s, these are segregationist arguments. Separate but equal amirite?

That is just insulting, borderline flaming and a total strawmam.
That is like saying “you would fit just fine in Nazi Germany because Nazi Germany hated political freedom too!”

We quite clearly laid out why it is different. Making art for a commission to endorse a particular ceremony is quite different than the issue there. I do not remember any black person in the 60s south demanding someone make a particular artwork advocating a particular viewpoint for them.