Ontario Same-Sex Couple Denied Videography for Gay Wedding

[Nilokeras]

I’ve always had a conflicted attitude regarding this. The whole “discrimination regarding religious principles and personal moralities” point. In my opinion, this should and should not apply to certain businesses. For example; restaurants, grocers, hardware stores, home furnishing stores, clothing boutiques and etcetera should not be allowed to discriminate against costumers for any reason.

However, wedding planners, photographers, direct catering services, therapists and etcetera should be allowed their rights to refuse certain clientele. For example, the infamous case of the christian bakery that refused to cater to a homosexual wedding. Or maybe a therapist who’s a devout practitioner of Islam who doesn’t wish to handle homosexual clients. It’s called find another therapist or find another bakery.

I see no need to legislatively split hairs and create a culture war over what constitutes an essential service, while simultaneously throwing vulnerable classes of people under the bus in their own communities as we dither about whether or not the only cake shop in a small town fits in Column A or Column B.

A truly equal nation protects they rights of all. Including those who’s own lifestyle and morals differ from your own.

A country that is truly interested in the business of establishing real justice and equality would realize that genuine equality does not actually exist yet, and that some classes of people really do need more protection than others.

[Novus America]

I’ve always had a conflicted attitude regarding this. The whole “discrimination regarding religious principles and personal moralities” point. In my opinion, this should and should not apply to certain businesses. For example; restaurants, grocers, hardware stores, home furnishing stores, clothing boutiques and etcetera should not be allowed to discriminate against costumers for any reason.

However, wedding planners, photographers, direct catering services, therapists and etcetera should be allowed their rights to refuse certain clientele. For example, the infamous case of the christian bakery that refused to cater to a homosexual wedding. Or maybe a therapist who’s a devout practitioner of Islam who doesn’t wish to handle homosexual clients. It’s called find another therapist or find another bakery.

I see no need to legislatively split hairs and create a culture war over what constitutes an essential service, while simultaneously throwing vulnerable classes of people under the bus in their own communities as we dither about whether or not the only cake shop in a small town fits in Column A or Column B.

A truly equal nation protects they rights of all. Including those who’s own lifestyle and morals differ from your own.

A country that is truly interested in the business of establishing real justice and equality would realize that genuine equality does not actually exist yet, and that some classes of people really do need more protection than others.

Because people selling things still have rights. By protecting the rights of the buyer, you take away rights from the seller.
In cases of essential services this might be justified, because limiting the ability of who you sell a standard product or service too does not really infringe on much. While not being able to get an essential service puts the buyers life and health at risk. There the right to not starve/freeze/die from lack of healthcare etc is the more important right.

But forcing you to participate in and endorse a religious and political ceremony you object to, and force you to make art saying a certain message you object to is a major restriction on your rights. And in that case the need would have to be so compelling as to overcome that. There is no such need here.

One size fits all usually fits none. We already absolutely “split hairs” over which businesses are which and apply different laws to different types of businesses. As we should. Regulating a doctor the the same exact way we regulate a wedding photographer is not something we should do.

[Nilokeras]

Because people selling things still have rights. By protecting the rights of the buyer, you take away rights from the seller.
In cases of essential services this might be justified, because limiting the ability of who you sell a standard product or service too does not really infringe on much.

But forcing you to participate in and endorse a religious and political ceremony you object to, and force you to make art saying a certain message is a major restriction on your rights. And in that case the need would have to be so compelling as to overcome that. There is no such need here.

Correct. As I noted, pursuing real equality necessarily means you realize that some people need more protection than others, and that might mean taking away the ability of privileged groups to be bigots. As for the second paragraph, perhaps where we differ is that I care about the right of people to happiness, prosperity and security of the person in their own communities, rather than the discomfort of a baker in having to make money off of a cake they find distasteful.

One size fits all usually fits none. We already absolutely “split hairs” over which businesses are which and apply different laws to different types of businesses. As we should. Regulating a doctor the the same exact way we regulate a wedding photographer is not something we should do.

When it comes to human rights legislation, I see no reason why we should treat them any differently. If we're interested in pursuing real equality it requires us to treat all prejudice with vigilance, not let some slide here and there.

[Nejii]

I’ve always had a conflicted attitude regarding this. The whole “discrimination regarding religious principles and personal moralities” point. In my opinion, this should and should not apply to certain businesses. For example; restaurants, grocers, hardware stores, home furnishing stores, clothing boutiques and etcetera should not be allowed to discriminate against costumers for any reason.

However, wedding planners, photographers, direct catering services, therapists and etcetera should be allowed their rights to refuse certain clientele. For example, the infamous case of the christian bakery that refused to cater to a homosexual wedding. Or maybe a therapist who’s a devout practitioner of Islam who doesn’t wish to handle homosexual clients. It’s called find another therapist or find another bakery.

I see no need to legislatively split hairs and create a culture war over what constitutes an essential service, while simultaneously throwing vulnerable classes of people under the bus in their own communities as we dither about whether or not the only cake shop in a small town fits in Column A or Column B.

A truly equal nation protects they rights of all. Including those who’s own lifestyle and morals differ from your own.

A country that is truly interested in the business of establishing real justice and equality would realize that genuine equality does not actually exist yet, and that some classes of people really do need more protection than others.

True equality doesn’t exsist yet, your right. And some groups do in fact need more protection than others. Just be sure not to neglect or oppress those who wouldn’t by taking the fanatical road. Legalizing gay marriage and stating an intolerance for agrressive homophobia is one thing, but forcing your own principles and moralities on others be it by the pen or by protest is something else.

[Novus America]

Because people selling things still have rights. By protecting the rights of the buyer, you take away rights from the seller.
In cases of essential services this might be justified, because limiting the ability of who you sell a standard product or service too does not really infringe on much.

But forcing you to participate in and endorse a religious and political ceremony you object to, and force you to make art saying a certain message is a major restriction on your rights. And in that case the need would have to be so compelling as to overcome that. There is no such need here.

Correct. As I noted, pursuing real equality necessarily means you realize that some people need more protection than others, and that might mean taking away the ability of privileged groups to be bigots. As for the second paragraph, perhaps where we differ is that I care about the right of people to happiness, prosperity and security of the person in their own communities, rather than the discomfort of a baker in having to make money off of a cake they find distasteful.

One size fits all usually fits none. We already absolutely “split hairs” over which businesses are which and apply different laws to different types of businesses. As we should. Regulating a doctor the the same exact way we regulate a wedding photographer is not something we should do.

When it comes to human rights legislation, I see no reason why we should treat them any differently. If we're interested in pursuing real equality it requires us to treat all prejudice with vigilance, not let some slide here and there.

But why do you think the baker has no right to happiness, no right to political, artistic and religious freedom in their art?
The problem here is you picked a side, and do not care what harm the other side suffers
Bakers are people too.

Because such legislation helps some people but harms others, yes we should consider that. Does the benefit outweighs the harm? Whereas I would say requiring a doctor to give emergency treatment regardless outweighs any harm to the doctor, I do not think that wanting a certain message on a cake outweighs the artistic, religious and political freedom, of the baker, and their right to not be forced to work against their will.

Because rights conflict, you have to settle the conflict in the way that the benefit of the restriction outweighs the harm.

[Nilokeras]

True equality doesn’t exsist yet, your right. And some groups do in fact need more protection than others. Just be sure not to neglect or oppress those who wouldn’t by taking the fanatical road. Legalizing gay marriage and stating an intolerance for agrressive homophobia is one thing, but forcing your own principles and moralities on others be it by the pen or by protest is something else.

Fanaticism here is taking the position that the ability of a bigot to be a bigot in their expression is more important than the ability of a person to live within their own community without discrimination or ostracism. And in pretending that holding that stance constitutes the oppression of the bigot.

But why do you think the baker has no right to happiness, no right to political, artistic and religious freedom in their art?
The problem here is you picked a side, and do not care what harm the other side suffers
Bakers are people too.

In art you can do whatever you like. Bakers can sit in the comfort of their own homes and create beautiful 'GOD HATES FAGS' cakes to their hearts content. When they offer a service to the public however, that isn't art - that is a service that performs a social function, and like any other service in society it must necessarily be regulated to ensure the continued maintenance and improvement of that society.

Because such legislation helps some people but harms others, yes we should consider that. Does the benefit outweighs the harm? Whereas I would say requiring a doctor to give emergency treatment regardless outweighs any harm to the doctor, I do not think that wanting a certain message on a cake outweighs the artistic, religious and political freedom, of the baker, and their right to not be forced to work against their will.

Because rights conflict, you have to settle the conflict in the way that the benefit of the restriction outweighs the harm.

Unlike you I am not willing to impose my own aesthetic judgement on the function and importance of cakemaking to society. I merely insist that all public services be held to the same set of rules, and can therefore transcend the pointless and brain-melting pursuit of fighting pointless culture wars and actually get to the work of building a more equal and just society.

[Novus America]

True equality doesn’t exsist yet, your right. And some groups do in fact need more protection than others. Just be sure not to neglect or oppress those who wouldn’t by taking the fanatical road. Legalizing gay marriage and stating an intolerance for agrressive homophobia is one thing, but forcing your own principles and moralities on others be it by the pen or by protest is something else.

Fanaticism here is taking the position that the ability of a bigot to be a bigot in their expression is more important than the ability of a person to live within their own community without discrimination or ostracism.

But why do you think the baker has no right to happiness, no right to political, artistic and religious freedom in their art?
The problem here is you picked a side, and do not care what harm the other side suffers
Bakers are people too.

In art you can do whatever you like. Bakers can sit in the comfort of their own homes and create beautiful 'GOD HATES FAGS' cakes to their hearts content. When they offer a service to the public however, that isn't art - that is a service that performs a social function, and like any other service in society it must necessarily be regulated to ensure the continued maintenance and improvement of that society.

Because such legislation helps some people but harms others, yes we should consider that. Does the benefit outweighs the harm? Whereas I would say requiring a doctor to give emergency treatment regardless outweighs any harm to the doctor, I do not think that wanting a certain message on a cake outweighs the artistic, religious and political freedom, of the baker, and their right to not be forced to work against their will.

Because rights conflict, you have to settle the conflict in the way that the benefit of the restriction outweighs the harm.

Unlike you I am not willing to impose my own aesthetic judgement on the function and importance of cakemaking to society. I merely insist that all public services be held to the same set of rules, and can therefore transcend the pointless and brain-melting pursuit of fighting pointless culture wars and actually get to the work of building a more equal and just society.

No, it is still art and a political message just because you sell it. According to your logic nothing that is sold is art, and receives no protections on this ground. Obviously this logic is problematic, as it would mean no songs that are commercially available are art for example. No movies in theaters are art. No paintings sold are art.

The fact is the baker needs to sell things to live, so unless you are going to provide him with all the lost income of not being able to sell, you basically give the baker a choice of being forced to say any political message, even one he disagrees with or lose his businesses and starve. Not much a choice.

This I find completely unacceptable. The problem is you ARE imposing your judgment, in deeming cake making (if it is sold) is NOT an art!
This does not end the fighting of culture wars, as now bakers will be trying to change the law! You simply picked a side, you transcended nothing! As well as imposing an authoritarian law. The problem is you cannot see past your own bias, you are being a culture warrior trying to crush the opposing side and give them nothing!

Which completely invalidates your justification.
The only way to settle a culture war is a compromise, that gives BOTH SIDES something. But here you give one side everything and the other nothing.

Again in a conflict of rights the only just thing is a balancing test, which right gets priority. And whether or not the consumer or producer wins would depend on the the circumstances. One size fits all, winner takes all that always prioritizes the consumer over the producer regardless of what is at stake is a very wrong approach that does not solves the issue, just makes the losing side angrier.

[La Xinga]

Number of strawmans today so far: 2.

I.am.not.saying.that. PERIOD.

I'm saying that people in private areas should be allowed to refuse people they don't want or like. I'm not sure what language that translates to:
"Second calls citizen in some areas"

If a large number of places won't serve you then once de facto is.

Once de facto is? Typo?

[San Lumen]

If a large number of places won't serve you then once de facto is.

Once de facto is? Typo?

It’s a Latin phrase that describes practices that exist in reality, even though they are not officially recognized by laws

I still fail to understand why you take a their business their rules approach. Why should someone whose gay have equal rights , their marriage recognized, their children recognized in one area but not another?

[La Xinga]

Once de facto is? Typo?

It’s a Latin phrase that describes practices that exist in reality, even though they are not officially recognized by laws

I still fail to understand why you take a their business their rules approach. Why should someone whose gay have equal rights , their marriage recognized, their children recognized in one area but not another?

1. I know it's a Latin phrase.

2. Because the owner of that place makes the rules for his/her property. That is my reason. Would you like it if someone decided to encroach their views on your property, tossing aside your views that aren't even violent?

[South Ccanda]

I think a business should be able to refuse service to any costumer for any reason no questions asked. A business owner should be allowed to serve whoever they want to serve.

[San Lumen]

It’s a Latin phrase that describes practices that exist in reality, even though they are not officially recognized by laws

I still fail to understand why you take a their business their rules approach. Why should someone whose gay have equal rights , their marriage recognized, their children recognized in one area but not another?

1. I know it's a Latin phrase.

2. Because the owner of that place makes the rules for his/her property. That is my reason. Would you like it if someone decided to encroach their views on your property, tossing aside your views that aren't even violent?

So if I make a reservation at a hotel With my boyfriend I should have to wonder when I arrive if that Will be honored?

[La Xinga]

1. I know it's a Latin phrase.

2. Because the owner of that place makes the rules for his/her property. That is my reason. Would you like it if someone decided to encroach their views on your property, tossing aside your views that aren't even violent?

So if I make a reservation at a hotel With my boyfriend I should have to wonder when I arrive if that Will be honored?

If you're making a reservation at a hotel you should know their policies first.

[Nilokeras]

No, it is still art and a political message just because you sell it. According to your logic nothing that is sold is art, and receives no protections on this ground. Obviously this logic is problematic, as it would mean no songs that are commercially available are art for example. No movies in theaters are art. No paintings sold are art.

The fact is the baker needs to sell things to live, so unless you are going to provide him with all the lost income of not being able to sell, you basically give the baker a choice of being forced to say any political message, even one he disagrees with or lose his businesses and starve. Not much a choice.

You're conflating two categories of thing here. Creating something and then selling it based upon your own creative vision is not the same thing as offering to craft something based on another person's specifications. One is the process of creating and selling art. The other is offering a service in exchange for money. When an author has a day job writing ad copy we are perfectly happy to split their work from their artistic pursuits and identify the artist with their art and not the job they use to support themselves, why is cakemaking somehow the exception to the rule?

The only way to settle a culture war is a compromise, that gives BOTH SIDES something. But here you give one side everything and the other nothing.

Speak for yourself. The Charter has been around since 1982 and has more or less ceased to be a political issue here in Canada. The side for equality and human progress won.

[Novus America]

No, it is still art and a political message just because you sell it. According to your logic nothing that is sold is art, and receives no protections on this ground. Obviously this logic is problematic, as it would mean no songs that are commercially available are art for example. No movies in theaters are art. No paintings sold are art.

The fact is the baker needs to sell things to live, so unless you are going to provide him with all the lost income of not being able to sell, you basically give the baker a choice of being forced to say any political message, even one he disagrees with or lose his businesses and starve. Not much a choice.

You're conflating two categories of thing here. Creating something and then selling it based upon your own creative vision is not the same thing as offering to craft something based on another person's specifications. One is the process of creating and selling art. The other is offering a service in exchange for money. When an author has a day job writing ad copy we are perfectly happy to split their work from their artistic pursuits and identify the artist with their art and not the job they use to support themselves, why is cakemaking somehow the exception to the rule?

The only way to settle a culture war is a compromise, that gives BOTH SIDES something. But here you give one side everything and the other nothing.

Speak for yourself. The Charter has been around since 1982 and has more or less ceased to be a political issue here in Canada. The side for equality and human progress won.

If an author is writing as their job, they still should not be forced to write something they disagree with. Say I work for an ad agency, and the agency agency tells me to write an advertisement I strongly disagree with. They should not be able to force me to write it. That is basically slavery. I can simply refuse to write it. They can fire me though. But I can still work as a writer elsewhere. Again each side gets something.

That way my artistic integrity is preserved. Agreeing to write ads is not akin to agreeing with everyone who offers to hire you on everything , or write every word they demand. Moreover in that case I already have a contract with the ad agency.

If I put out notice saying I am seeking write ads, and an agency however, and and agency offers to hire me, I can turn them down. Just because I am seeking work writing does not mean I am forced to work for the first company who hires me!
That would be ludicrous.

You should be able to fire me if I refuse to write what you want, but i should not be forced to work for you in the first place.

Now on the last part you show your true colors. “I won, screw you if you disagree!”
And obviously this is still an issue in Canada, otherwise why is this in the news?

Here there are two sides, those consumers who want to have gay marriages, and some producers that do not want to endorse gay marriage. You simply decided your side should win because you want the other side to lose. That is a poor basis for policy and only exacerbates the culture wars, not ends them!

For the record I support legal marriage equality and think that if a government allows straight marriage it should not deny it to gay couples, but I do not support forcing everyone to agree with me on that.
That is how a free society works. Compromise and reasonable accommodations of disagreements.

[Nilokeras]

If an author is writing as their job, they still should not be forced to write something they disagree with. Say I work for an ad agency, and the agency agency tells me to write an advertisement I strongly disagree with. They should not be able to force me to write it. That is basically slavery. I can simply refuse to write it. They can fire me though. But I can still work as a writer elsewhere. Again each side gets something.

Again, you're conflating things. The issue at play here is refusing service based on the character of the people, not the message.

Now on the last part you show your true colors. “I won, screw you if you disagree!”

In politics there are winners and losers, yes. Perhaps this is why American liberals are so good at getting nothing done - they forgot that fact.

And obviously this is still an issue in Canada, otherwise why is this in the news?

That discrimination happens is still newsworthy. Note, however, in both news pieces that the existence of the Charter and the human rights legislation of Ontario is not presented as a political issue at all - merely a statement that the actions of the videographer are illegal. That's because the question of whether or not this should be a Charter violation or even the existence of the Charter is politically settled.

[Novus America]

If an author is writing as their job, they still should not be forced to write something they disagree with. Say I work for an ad agency, and the agency agency tells me to write an advertisement I strongly disagree with. They should not be able to force me to write it. That is basically slavery. I can simply refuse to write it. They can fire me though. But I can still work as a writer elsewhere. Again each side gets something.

Again, you're conflating things. The issue at play here is refusing service based on the character of the people, not the message.

Now on the last part you show your true colors. “I won, screw you if you disagree!”

In politics there are winners and losers, yes. Perhaps this is why American liberals are so good at getting nothing done - they forgot that fact.

And obviously this is still an issue in Canada, otherwise why is this in the news?

That discrimination happens is still newsworthy. Note, however, in both news pieces that the existence of the Charter and the human rights legislation of Ontario is not presented as a political issue at all - merely a statement that the actions of the videographer are illegal. That's because the question of whether or not this should be a Charter violation or even the existence of the Charter is politically settled.

No, it is based on the message. The message that you support gay marriage. You are demanding the videographer endorse your message.

But sure, so you admit to being unwilling to compromise. But this does not end the culture wars. As there are still disagreements in Canada on cultural issues. Frankly your views come off as quite authoritarian.

And clearly not everyone agrees this should be illegal, the videographer obviously disagrees, and should have a right to disagree. Also do you have a poll or something to back you up saying nearly everyone in Ontario thinks it should be illegal for a wedding videographer to opt out of videoing a gay wedding?
If an issue is truly settled, then it could no longer be an issue.

Very few things are truly settled, and things change. The views of the vast majority 100 years ago are very different than the vast majority now. And people have a right to agree try to change things in the direction they want.
Ironically your view here is very conservative in the true sense of the word, you think the status quo must be accepted without question. Which only works if the status quo is in your favor. In the North Korea for example it is a politically settled matter that the Kim family are dictators for life, should we simply say that is good and arguing against it wrong because it is politically settled. Something being politically settled does not make it right, or wrong.

Only the merits of the matter are important.
Your entire argument there is a logical fallacy:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum
So even if your claim is true, it is still a garbage argument.

[Nilokeras]

No, it is based on the message. The message that you support gay marriage. You are demanding the videographer endorse your message.

The existence of gay people is not a political message. In a civilized country you don't get to object to the existence or public presence of a class of people. That's called discrimination.

Also do you have a poll or something to back you up saying nearly everyone in Ontario thinks it should be illegal for a wedding videographer to opt out of videoing a gay wedding?
If an issue is truly settled, then it could no longer be an issue.

20 years after the Charter was instituted, in 2002, 75% of people supported it. In younger Canadians back then, support was up to an average of 81% and was probably even higher depending on region (Atlantic Canada's aggregate support was 84%, probably even higher than that in younger people given the Canada-wide trend). No public polling has been conducted since then, even on the 30th anniversary of the legislation in 2012, reflecting just how ingrained support for it is.

Very few things are truly settled, and things change. The views of the vast majority 100 years ago are very different than the vast majority now. And people have a right to agree try to change things in the direction they want.

So you agree that politics is a contest, and that change requires you to be willing to work to defeat people that disagree with you and work to engineer change in society such that their ideas become unpopular. Wonderful.

Ironically your view here is very conservative in the true sense of the word, you think the status quo must be accepted without question.

People are allowed to disagree all they like, and to try and effect change as they see fit. They should merely expect that their political opponents will try to prevent that.

[San Lumen]

So if I make a reservation at a hotel With my boyfriend I should have to wonder when I arrive if that Will be honored?

If you're making a reservation at a hotel you should know their policies first.

They should have to make their discrimination policy public? I’m still failing to to see where this alleged right to discriminate comes from. A store while private property is still a public place. A members only club can do what they want but there are limits. A store like Costco probably can’t have a whites only policy

[State of Turelisa]

They should have to make their discrimination policy public?

Polite notices on websites advertising services and on doors to privately owned outlets.

I’m still failing to to see where this alleged right to discriminate comes from.

The reasoning has been outlined more than once, by myself and La xinga. Only a moron would fail to understand it, and you are clearly a highly intelligent man. A disingenuous attitude is the only possibility left to deduce.The argument is becoming a cyclical waste of time and energy, and I'm out of here.

[San Lumen]

They should have to make their discrimination policy public?

Polite notices on websites advertising services and on doors to privately owned outlets.

I’m still failing to to see where this alleged right to discriminate comes from.

The reasoning has been outlined more than once, by myself and La xinga. Only a moron would fail to understand it, and you are clearly a highly intelligent ma. A disingenuous attitude is the only possibility left to deduce.
The argument is becoming a cyclical waste of time and energy, and I'm out of here.

If they want to post they are homophobic and racist that's fine with me.

I asked you to define where it is in the constitution and in law. Why has no judge recognized this supposed right?

[The New California Republic]

The reasoning has been outlined more than once, by myself and La xinga. Only a moron would fail to understand it, and you are clearly a highly intelligent man. A disingenuous attitude is the only possibility left to deduce.The argument is becoming a cyclical waste of time and energy, and I'm out of here.

This is the second time on this thread that you have accused people of being disingenuous when your argument has failed to have the impact you desired. Really not good.

[La Xinga]

If you're making a reservation at a hotel you should know their policies first.

They should have to make their discrimination policy public? I’m still failing to to see where this alleged right to discriminate comes from. A store while private property is still a public place. A members only club can do what they want but there are limits. A store like Costco probably can’t have a whites only policy

1. Yes.
2. It shouldn't be. If it is founded by one owner, it should be entirely to the owner.

[Novus America]

No, it is based on the message. The message that you support gay marriage. You are demanding the videographer endorse your message.

The existence of gay people is not a political message. In a civilized country you don't get to object to the existence or public presence of a class of people. That's called discrimination.

Also do you have a poll or something to back you up saying nearly everyone in Ontario thinks it should be illegal for a wedding videographer to opt out of videoing a gay wedding?
If an issue is truly settled, then it could no longer be an issue.

20 years after the Charter was instituted, in 2002, 75% of people supported it. In younger Canadians back then, support was up to an average of 81% and was probably even higher depending on region (Atlantic Canada's aggregate support was 84%, probably even higher than that in younger people given the Canada-wide trend). No public polling has been conducted since then, even on the 30th anniversary of the legislation in 2012, reflecting just how ingrained support for it is.

Very few things are truly settled, and things change. The views of the vast majority 100 years ago are very different than the vast majority now. And people have a right to agree try to change things in the direction they want.

So you agree that politics is a contest, and that change requires you to be willing to work to defeat people that disagree with you and work to engineer change in society such that their ideas become unpopular. Wonderful.

Ironically your view here is very conservative in the true sense of the word, you think the status quo must be accepted without question.

People are allowed to disagree all they like, and to try and effect change as they see fit. They should merely expect that their political opponents will try to prevent that.

But this is not about the existence of gay people. You can acknowledge gay people exist, have equal rights, without FORCING people to participate in and endorse a voluntary ceremony they do not want to participate in!
Now you are the one conflating issues.

Although no, actually you should have a right to object to the existence of people within reason (you should be able to say you think x group should not exist, but obviously not actually attack them) although sure you do not have the ability to always limit their rights obviously. But again the issue here is a conflict of rights, unfortunately rights are often mutually exclusive with other rights. Which requires a balancing test.

Sure a majority of people support the Charter, but that does not specifically cover this issue and actually uses a proportionality concept like I proposed. Also it guarantees the “freedom of conscience, freedom of religion, freedom of thought, freedom of belief, freedom of expression, freedom of the press and of other media of communication, freedom of peaceful assembly, and freedom of association.”

One can support the charter without supporting forcing people to participate in religious and political ceremonies in violation of their freedom of conscience, religion, expression, media and communication!

75% supporting the charter does NOT mean they necessarily support YOUR INTERPRETATION of it as it applies to this case.
Also again this argument is a logical fallacy, that it is valid simply because it is the politically accepted status quo.

And many details of how the charter applies and how the conflicts within it are resolved are NOT settled.

So you have nothing beyond “I want my side to win, no compromises” great, I understand why you want to win (although again this the no compromise part is problematic to a free and pluralistic society) but you have completely failed to explain why your view is the one others should support, especially those whose rights you want to violate.

[Nilokeras]

Although no, actually you should have a right to object to the existence of people within reason

And the truth comes tumbling out. As I noted before, you are far more interested in apologizing for and protecting the speech of bigots than you are the actual well-being of the people they are bigoted against. Maybe this is that American liberal surrender complex coming out, maybe its just your secret sympathies for these people. Who knows.

Sure a majority of people support the Charter, but that does not specifically cover this issue and actually uses a proportionality concept like I proposed. Also it guarantees the “freedom of conscience, freedom of religion, freedom of thought, freedom of belief, freedom of expression, freedom of the press and of other media of communication, freedom of peaceful assembly, and freedom of association.”

Correct. And a large history of cases tried for Charter violations shows that situations like the one we're talking about are in fact, a Charter violation.

75% supporting the charter does NOT mean they necessarily support YOUR INTERPRETATION of it as it applies to this case.
Also again this argument is a logical fallacy, that it is valid simply because it is the politically accepted status quo.

And many details of how the charter applies and how the conflicts within it are resolved are NOT settled.

It's not my interpretation - it's the interpretation of ~40 years of Supreme Court of Canada justices, and is the law of the land in Canada. We have an appeals system that also works just fine.

So you have nothing beyond “I want my side to win, no compromises” great, I understand why you want to win (although again this the no compromise part is problematic to a free and pluralistic society) but you have completely failed to explain why your view is the one others should support, especially those whose rights you want to violate.

I've said it several times now - because this system understands that equality and justice are things a society has to build. And in order to build that you need to create protections for classes of people that are commonly discriminated against.

As for the last bit I see no particular need to convince them of anything. The position of the Canadian legal system that I've so far explained is the law of the land, and people that disagree with it are a vanishingly small minority of holdouts and bigots.