Ontario Same-Sex Couple Denied Videography for Gay Wedding

[Mannixa Prime]

What do you consider PDA? You realize most couples are not making out in public correct or going to the next level.

Literally no one says anything if a straight couple kiss or hold hands but the minute a gay guy does it the purity police come out. Lol

I am probably not the best one to define PDA, in all honesty. I have a crippling fear of intimacy so what I consider PDA might be a bit overkill compared to what others might define it.

You ain’t wrong that there’s a double standard. But there being a double standard doesn’t mean there isn’t a valid point to be made that straight couples tend to be overly affectionate in public. Though that might be my being used to “discretion” talking. Easier to find publicly displaying your orientation distasteful when hiding your own orientation is the default for you.

Oh for sure I understand where your coming from. I think the basic rule for being polite when it comes to that is the terms I laid out in my previous post. Anything below that in my opinion isn’t PDA it’s just people living their lives.

But even if it were an “issue” I wouldn’t call it an issue. It’s the 21st century for the most part we are all mature and grown up about sex so even I did I see a couple making out, I would think maybe get a room but it wouldn’t be something I would obsess over either.

I just disagree with those who seek to control or limit human behaviour.

[Ors Might]

I am probably not the best one to define PDA, in all honesty. I have a crippling fear of intimacy so what I consider PDA might be a bit overkill compared to what others might define it.

You ain’t wrong that there’s a double standard. But there being a double standard doesn’t mean there isn’t a valid point to be made that straight couples tend to be overly affectionate in public. Though that might be my being used to “discretion” talking. Easier to find publicly displaying your orientation distasteful when hiding your own orientation is the default for you.

Oh for sure I understand where your coming from. I think the basic rule for being polite when it comes to that is the terms I laid out in my previous post. Anything below that in my opinion isn’t PDA it’s just people living their lives.

But even if it were an “issue” I wouldn’t call it an issue. It’s the 21st century for the most part we are all mature and grown up about sex so even I did I see a couple making out, I would think maybe get a room but it wouldn’t be something I would obsess over either.

I just disagree with those who seek to control or limit human behaviour.

Yeah, I don’t want to force people to not be affectionate with their loved ones in public, even if I wish they would tone it down at times. I usually just ignore it or focus what’s on my phone. I meant to convey that I understood the sentiment, not that I necessarily agreed with making it a rule or law, y’know?

[Crockerland]

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.

That's an impressive level of bullshit mental gymnastics, even by NSG standards.

[Jedi Council]

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.

That's an impressive level of bullshit mental gymnastics, even by NSG standards.

Clearly you've never encountered -Ra- before. They've made quite the name for themselves in their short time here.

[Nuroblav]

That's an impressive level of bullshit mental gymnastics, even by NSG standards.

I wonder what a gay man would be doing in a straight relationship anyway...

[Crockerland]

Oh get over yourself. Discrimination is discrimination and while Jim Crow may have been worse they're both rooted in the same idea that you should be able to discriminate against other people because something about them is a little different.


What's your opinion of the Jim Crow era?

Again this is not comparable. I will bring up my extreme hypothetical. A lesbian prostitute in Nevada (or some other place it is legal) refuses to have sex with a straight man. Should she be forced to? Obviously not.

Denying someone a right to an essential service is quite different than not wanting to participate in a certain ceremony.

No? And what does that have to do with anything?

If the implication is that that's somehow supposed to be comparable or equivalent to the photographers or wedding cake decorators, it clearly isn't. I'm sure you know that the reason everyone would agree with the "Obviously not" is because of human rights related to intimacy and sexual autonomy, neither of which has anything to do with the other two situations.

[State of Turelisa]

Not hide. Discretion. It's a virtue.

Straight people are not discrete with their love. Christians are not discrete when they spout nonsense that goes against science and common sense.

Why should we be discrete?(sic)

Love should never be discreet. That's why we've been openly opposing Evil in all its forms for two-thousand years.
To love thy neighbour also covers rebuking thy neighbour to turn them from sin and degradation, which leads to ruin and death, even though thy neighbour may dismiss our position as anti-scientifc, non-commensensical, nonsense.

[State of Turelisa]

Not hide. Discretion. It's a virtue.

Alright. Let me just discreetly show that I'm asexual.

*hangs huge asexual pride flag out my window*
*puts on asexual pride color clothes*
*dyes hair purple, white, and black*

"HEY GUYS I WANT TO LET YOU KNOW THAT I AM AROMANTIC AND ASEXUAL! THIS IS NOT A FACT I AM PUTTING OUT IN THE OPEN, THOUGH! I AM BEING VERY DISCREET ABOUT BEING IN THE LGBTQ COMMUNITY!"

Believe it or not, most people are content to ignore anyone who tries to draw attention to oneself by chic 'identifiers' such as t-shirts, flags and dyed hair, and dismiss them as egotistical. I do. That's why I don't wear a crucifix. The cross has become a fashion statement.

[San Lumen]

Straight people are not discrete with their love. Christians are not discrete when they spout nonsense that goes against science and common sense.

Why should we be discrete?(sic)

Love should never be discreet. That's why we've been openly opposing Evil in all its forms for two-thousand years.
To love thy neighbour also covers rebuking thy neighbour to turn them from sin and degradation, which leads to ruin and death, even though thy neighbour may dismiss our position as anti-scientifc, non-commensensical, nonsense.

Yet your saying lgbt people should be discreet

[State of Turelisa]

Love should never be discreet. That's why we've been openly opposing Evil in all its forms for two-thousand years.
To love thy neighbour also covers rebuking thy neighbour to turn them from sin and degradation, which leads to ruin and death, even though thy neighbour may dismiss our position as anti-scientifc, non-commensensical, nonsense.

Yet your saying lgbt people should be discreet

Love is respecting the feelings of others, which are based upon a different morality. Something which we never hear raised in public discourse on diversity is acknowledging the diversity of personal morality, and kindly adjusting our behaviour accordingly.

[Kowani]

Yet your saying lgbt people should be discreet

Love is respecting the feelings of others, which are based upon a different morality. Something which we never hear raised in public discourse on diversity is acknowledging the diversity of personal morality, and kindly adjusting our behaviour accordingly.

You realize, of course, that this statement is not really a defense of your position at all.

[The New California Republic]

Yet your saying lgbt people should be discreet

Love is respecting the feelings of others, which are based upon a different morality. Something which we never hear raised in public discourse on diversity is acknowledging the diversity of personal morality, and kindly adjusting our behaviour accordingly.

That's nonsensical. There will inevitably always be someone who is offended by the behaviours of someone else; so what you are proposing to happen, for people to adjust their behaviour so as to not potentially offend anyone, would result in a very fucking boring world where nobody does anything lest someone else be offended.

[San Lumen]

Yet your saying lgbt people should be discreet

Love is respecting the feelings of others, which are based upon a different morality. Something which we never hear raised in public discourse on diversity is acknowledging the diversity of personal morality, and kindly adjusting our behaviour accordingly.

And this is a defense of your position that lgbt people should keep their relationships secret how?

[The New California Republic]

Love is respecting the feelings of others, which are based upon a different morality. Something which we never hear raised in public discourse on diversity is acknowledging the diversity of personal morality, and kindly adjusting our behaviour accordingly.

You realize, of course, that this statement is not really a defense of your position at all.

Exactly. If anything it is a self-rebuke as it'd be equally applicable from him toward others as well. The only way it possibly couldn't be is if he uses the really lame get-out clause of "one standard for me, another for thee"...

[Nobel Hobos 2]

Love is respecting the feelings of others, which are based upon a different morality. Something which we never hear raised in public discourse on diversity is acknowledging the diversity of personal morality, and kindly adjusting our behaviour accordingly.

And this is a defense of your position that lgbt people should keep their relationships secret how?

I think State of Turelisa is just being discrete. I think to them, gay love sexual or romantic isn't love at all, it's sin or something, and the reason you should be discrete is to avoid the rebukes of the righteous. The righteous want to love you, because that's righteous, but if you're not discrete about being gay then you're causing them be less good than they are trying to be ... which would be your fault.

If this is even roughly correct, it's a despicable tub of hogwash. But hey, I guess there's a clean pig who's happy!

[State of Turelisa]

Love is respecting the feelings of others, which are based upon a different morality. Something which we never hear raised in public discourse on diversity is acknowledging the diversity of personal morality, and kindly adjusting our behaviour accordingly.

And this is a defense of your position that lgbt people should keep their relationships secret how?

I didn't say secret. I said discreet. Discretion would be to refer to one's 'partner', 'companion', or 'close friend.' Discretion would be to keep all exchanges of affection in privacy, and any sexual activity in a locked room with the curtains drawn. Discretion would cover clothing and physical behaviour.
People who I know who were alive during the years before homosexuality between adults in privacy was decriminalised tell me homosexuals were not on a crusade for equality which subsequent activism has sought and gained. They didn't imagine society would ever accept the love that now insists on speaking its name as equal with love in the biblical sense.
They just wanted to be themselves in privacy without the possibility of prosecution.

[San Lumen]

And this is a defense of your position that lgbt people should keep their relationships secret how?

I didn't say secret. I said discreet.

You wouldnt say the same them about a heterosexual couple. why should gay and lesbians be discreet?

[The New California Republic]

And this is a defense of your position that lgbt people should keep their relationships secret how?

I didn't say secret. I said discreet.

And by the same token some guy might be, say, offended by so-called Christian morality being shoved ham-fistedly in their general direction when the guy holds hands with their boyfriend. Strange how the moralizing doesn't need to be discreet, isn't it? Hm?

[State of Turelisa]

Love is respecting the feelings of others, which are based upon a different morality. Something which we never hear raised in public discourse on diversity is acknowledging the diversity of personal morality, and kindly adjusting our behaviour accordingly.

And this is a defense of your position that lgbt people should keep their relationships secret how?

I didn't say secret. I said discreet. Discretion would be to refer to one's 'partner', 'companion', or 'close friend.' Discretion would be to keep all exchanges of affection in privacy, and any sexual activity in a locked room with the curtains drawn. Discretion would cover clothing and physical behaviour.
People who I know who were alive during the years before homosexuality between adults in privacy was decriminalised tell me homosexuals were not on a crusade for equality which subsequent activism has sought and gained. They didn't imagine society would ever accept the love that now insists on speaking its name as equal with love in the biblical sense.
They just wanted to be themselves in privacy without the possibility of prosecution. Even traditional conservatives such as Powell and Thatcher, who later opposed strongly the attempts of homosexual activists to promote homosexuality to schoolchildren, supported decriminalization.

[The New California Republic]

And this is a defense of your position that lgbt people should keep their relationships secret how?

I didn't say secret. I said discreet. Discretion would be to refer to one's 'partner', 'companion', or 'close friend.' Discretion would be to keep all exchanges of affection in privacy, and any sexual activity in a locked room with the curtains drawn. Discretion would cover clothing and physical behaviour.

So does this apply equally to straight people?

[San Lumen]

And this is a defense of your position that lgbt people should keep their relationships secret how?

I didn't say secret. I said discreet. Discretion would be to refer to one's 'partner', 'companion', or 'close friend.' Discretion would be to keep all exchanges of affection in privacy, and any sexual activity in a locked room with the curtains drawn. Discretion would cover clothing and physical behaviour.
People who I know who were alive during the years before homosexuality between adults in privacy was decriminalised tell me homosexuals were not on a crusade for equality which subsequent activism has sought and gained. They didn't imagine society would ever accept the love that now insists on speaking its name as equal with love in the biblical sense.
They just wanted to be themselves in privacy without the possibility of prosecution. Even traditional conservatives such as Powell and Thatcher, who later opposed strongly the attempts of homosexual activists to promote homosexuality to schoolchildren, supported decriminalization.

Why should they do that when you likely don’t apply the same standards to straight people?

[The New California Republic]

I didn't say secret. I said discreet. Discretion would be to refer to one's 'partner', 'companion', or 'close friend.' Discretion would be to keep all exchanges of affection in privacy, and any sexual activity in a locked room with the curtains drawn. Discretion would cover clothing and physical behaviour.
People who I know who were alive during the years before homosexuality between adults in privacy was decriminalised tell me homosexuals were not on a crusade for equality which subsequent activism has sought and gained. They didn't imagine society would ever accept the love that now insists on speaking its name as equal with love in the biblical sense.
They just wanted to be themselves in privacy without the possibility of prosecution. Even traditional conservatives such as Powell and Thatcher, who later opposed strongly the attempts of homosexual activists to promote homosexuality to schoolchildren, supported decriminalization.

Why should they do that when you likely don’t apply the same standards to straight people?

[...] the really lame get-out clause of "one standard for me, another for thee"...

[Jedi Council]

And this is a defense of your position that lgbt people should keep their relationships secret how?

I didn't say secret. I said discreet. Discretion would be to refer to one's 'partner', 'companion', or 'close friend.' Discretion would be to keep all exchanges of affection in privacy, and any sexual activity in a locked room with the curtains drawn. Discretion would cover clothing and physical behaviour.
People who I know who were alive during the years before homosexuality between adults in privacy was decriminalised tell me homosexuals were not on a crusade for equality which subsequent activism has sought and gained. They didn't imagine society would ever accept the love that now insists on speaking its name as equal with love in the biblical sense.
They just wanted to be themselves in privacy without the possibility of prosecution. Even traditional conservatives such as Powell and Thatcher, who later opposed strongly the attempts of homosexual activists to promote homosexuality to schoolchildren, supported decriminalization.

God forbid we treat all people equally!

If I want to kiss my partner as we say goodbye on a street corner, call him my husband, or participate in the numerous other public rituals and displays of affection that straight people are entitled to, I am going to do it. And if that makes you uncomfortable, well, thats your problem, not ours.

[Kedri]

So do you support businesses being forced to bake a cake with the words: "Death to the n****rs" written on it?

No and you didn’t answer my question. Plus who would want a cake like that?

Klansmen

[San Lumen]

I didn't say secret. I said discreet. Discretion would be to refer to one's 'partner', 'companion', or 'close friend.' Discretion would be to keep all exchanges of affection in privacy, and any sexual activity in a locked room with the curtains drawn. Discretion would cover clothing and physical behaviour.
People who I know who were alive during the years before homosexuality between adults in privacy was decriminalised tell me homosexuals were not on a crusade for equality which subsequent activism has sought and gained. They didn't imagine society would ever accept the love that now insists on speaking its name as equal with love in the biblical sense.
They just wanted to be themselves in privacy without the possibility of prosecution. Even traditional conservatives such as Powell and Thatcher, who later opposed strongly the attempts of homosexual activists to promote homosexuality to schoolchildren, supported decriminalization.

God forbid we treat all people equally!

If I want to kiss my partner as we say goodbye on a street corner, call him my husband, or participate in the numerous other public rituals and displays of affection that straight people are entitled to, I am going to do it. And if that makes you uncomfortable, well, thats your problem, not ours.

I agree completely. If you have a problem with me kissing my boyfriend or holding his hand on the street that’s your problem not mine