Ontario Same-Sex Couple Denied Videography for Gay Wedding

[Novus America]

Why waste your time and energy arguing with these people? Dogs turn and trample on that which is wise and then tear who bears it to pieces.
They don't want to accept your argument of freedom of association because they hate it and the position in which it is based. They'll oppose it how ever you put it to them and however times you repeat it.
The left hate it when people think for themselves and strive to live their lives without interference from leftist laws.

No, we hate it when religious bigots feel that their private beliefs give them the right to treat human beings differently merely based on who they love.

I could care less what religion you follow, how you pray, or how you live your life in your own home, or house of worship. But you do not have the right to discriminate because of these beliefs.

But herein lies the issue. If I want to hire you to photograph a wedding at my place of worship, that means to photograph the wedding you have to enter my place of worship, participate in my ceremony, and make a video making my place of worship looks good. You should not be required to participate and endorse my private ceremony, at my place of worship.

Although you should not be able to just keep me from walking in to you store an buying a camera because you disagree with my religion, sexuality, race etc. The two circumstances can and should be differentiated.

[Jedi Council]

No, we hate it when religious bigots feel that their private beliefs give them the right to treat human beings differently merely based on who they love.

I could care less what religion you follow, how you pray, or how you live your life in your own home, or house of worship. But you do not have the right to discriminate because of these beliefs.

But herein lies the issue. If I want to hire you to photograph a wedding at my place of worship, that means to photograph the wedding you have to enter my place of worship, participate in my ceremony, and make a video making my place of worship looks good. You should not be required to participate and endorse my private ceremony, at my place of worship.

Although you should not be able to just keep me from walking in to you store an buying a camera because you disagree with my religion, sexuality, race etc. The two circumstances can and should be differentiated.

I don't see why that is an issue. If I were asked to be a photographer for a religious ceremony, I would participate, because providing a service does not mean I am endorsing their beliefs.

[Nazeroth]

I agree with the leftists, whenever someone get's denied it should be okay, but that dosn't mean we all can't review bomb them or make calls.

[La Xinga]

But herein lies the issue. If I want to hire you to photograph a wedding at my place of worship, that means to photograph the wedding you have to enter my place of worship, participate in my ceremony, and make a video making my place of worship looks good. You should not be required to participate and endorse my private ceremony, at my place of worship.

Although you should not be able to just keep me from walking in to you store an buying a camera because you disagree with my religion, sexuality, race etc. The two circumstances can and should be differentiated.

I don't see why that is an issue. If I were asked to be a photographer for a religious ceremony, I would participate, because providing a service does not mean I am endorsing their beliefs.

And in some religions, it does.

[Telconi]

But herein lies the issue. If I want to hire you to photograph a wedding at my place of worship, that means to photograph the wedding you have to enter my place of worship, participate in my ceremony, and make a video making my place of worship looks good. You should not be required to participate and endorse my private ceremony, at my place of worship.

Although you should not be able to just keep me from walking in to you store an buying a camera because you disagree with my religion, sexuality, race etc. The two circumstances can and should be differentiated.

I don't see why that is an issue. If I were asked to be a photographer for a religious ceremony, I would participate, because providing a service does not mean I am endorsing their beliefs.

I don't see why eating pork is an issue, but I'd still be an asshole if I forced Muslims or Jews to do it, wouldn't I?

[Jedi Council]

I don't see why that is an issue. If I were asked to be a photographer for a religious ceremony, I would participate, because providing a service does not mean I am endorsing their beliefs.

I don't see why eating pork is an issue, but I'd still be an asshole if I forced Muslims or Jews to do it, wouldn't I?

Very different concept, since pigs are likely to be fairly pleased they are not being eaten.

[San Lumen]

The Civil Rights Act was the basis for a Supreme Court ruling Bostock v. Clayton County Gerald Bostock, a juvenile court official, sued his former employers for unfair dismissal based on his sexuality. Judge Gorsuch said

An employer who fired an individual for being homosexual or transgender fires that person for traits or actions it would not have questioned in members of a different sex. Sex plays a necessary and undisguisable role in the decision, exactly what Title VII forbids. Those who adopted the Civil Rights Act might not have anticipated their work would lead to this particular result. But the limits of the drafters' imagination supply no reason to ignore the law's demands. Only the written word is the law, and all persons are entitled to its benefit

The premise which this ruling is based on is that all human sexuality is equally valid. According to the abstract,transcendent ruling of the court, traits or actions it would not have questioned in members of a different sex therefore must be considered equally valid if they are performed between members of the same sex. Any moral judgments that make a legitimate distinction between sexual behaviour in heterosexuality and sexual behaviour in homosexuality and are the basis on which an individual may deal with another individual, are invalid, morally wrong, and illegal. If I choose not to accommodate homosexuals in my private, commercial property because I disapprove of homosexual 'traits and actions' and will not tolerate them practiced on my personal property, then I am technically breaking the law on discrmination? Am I expected to be intimidated by anti-discriminatory legality into compliance and allow anybody into my property to do that which I find morally wrong?
It's thought control and it denies the basic human right to act according to one's conscience.

Thought control?

[Ors Might]

I don't see why eating pork is an issue, but I'd still be an asshole if I forced Muslims or Jews to do it, wouldn't I?

Very different concept, since pigs are likely to be fairly pleased they are not being eaten.

I’ve never known any carcass to have an opinion about it being consumed.

[Telconi]

I don't see why eating pork is an issue, but I'd still be an asshole if I forced Muslims or Jews to do it, wouldn't I?

Very different concept, since pigs are likely to be fairly pleased they are not being eaten.

Ah, yes, the opinion of the pig is more important than the beliefs of the person who you're mistreating. Stay classy, my dude.

[Novus America]

But herein lies the issue. If I want to hire you to photograph a wedding at my place of worship, that means to photograph the wedding you have to enter my place of worship, participate in my ceremony, and make a video making my place of worship looks good. You should not be required to participate and endorse my private ceremony, at my place of worship.

Although you should not be able to just keep me from walking in to you store an buying a camera because you disagree with my religion, sexuality, race etc. The two circumstances can and should be differentiated.

I don't see why that is an issue. If I were asked to be a photographer for a religious ceremony, I would participate, because providing a service does not mean I am endorsing their beliefs.

Even if you found their message horribly offensive? Even if the priest or imam said gays should burn in the fires of hell you would be fine with that? It is still requiring you to participate.
And maybe you would not care, but many people do care, and you should not force them to participate in religious ceremonies they disagree with because that violates freedom of religion amongst other things.

[Novus America]

I don't see why eating pork is an issue, but I'd still be an asshole if I forced Muslims or Jews to do it, wouldn't I?

Very different concept, since pigs are likely to be fairly pleased they are not being eaten.

The pigs opinion is not the relevant factor. The factor is the Jews and Muslims have freedom of religion which means they should not be forced to partake in a private religious ceremony they find offensive.

[Jedi Council]

Very different concept, since pigs are likely to be fairly pleased they are not being eaten.

Ah, yes, the opinion of the pig is more important than the beliefs of the person who you're mistreating. Stay classy, my dude.

Obvious joke was obvious

[Tarsonis]

Ahah! Race you cannot control or change, but but being homosexual surely you can!

Yeah, no. That's not how it works. The idea you can force yourself to change sexual orientations has been thoroughly debunked.

Can orientation shift over time? Sure. But you cant just will yourself to be straight any more than you can will yourself to be another race.

Trust me, I spent the better half of my life trying.

I dunno if that's true. I have a theory that anyone who looks at John Barrowman long enough will become attracted to men.

[Tarsonis]

No, we hate it when religious bigots feel that their private beliefs give them the right to treat human beings differently merely based on who they love.

I could care less what religion you follow, how you pray, or how you live your life in your own home, or house of worship. But you do not have the right to discriminate because of these beliefs.

But herein lies the issue. If I want to hire you to photograph a wedding at my place of worship, that means to photograph the wedding you have to enter my place of worship, participate in my ceremony, and make a video making my place of worship looks good. You should not be required to participate and endorse my private ceremony, at my place of worship.

Although you should not be able to just keep me from walking in to you store an buying a camera because you disagree with my religion, sexuality, race etc. The two circumstances can and should be differentiated.

I'm gonna disagree here. Photographers aren't really participants, so much as they are a visual documentarian Just like a war correspondent doesn't partake in the war, they just document it. I don't buy the logic that simply photographing a (non critical) situation, makes you a complicit participant. Seems like a stretch that this person is just trying to hide behind.

[Novus America]

But herein lies the issue. If I want to hire you to photograph a wedding at my place of worship, that means to photograph the wedding you have to enter my place of worship, participate in my ceremony, and make a video making my place of worship looks good. You should not be required to participate and endorse my private ceremony, at my place of worship.

Although you should not be able to just keep me from walking in to you store an buying a camera because you disagree with my religion, sexuality, race etc. The two circumstances can and should be differentiated.

I'm gonna disagree here. Photographers aren't really participants, so much as they are a visual documentarian Just like a war correspondent doesn't partake in the war, they just document it. I don't buy the logic that simply photographing a (non critical) situation, makes you a complicit participant. Seems like a stretch that this person is just trying to hide behind.

This is different, because you are paying them specifically to portray the ceremony in a positive manner.
Wedding photographers to not do a accurate visual documentation. Their job is not to show are balanced, realistic portrayal.

Their job is quite different than a war correspondent. More like a military public affairs/propagandist, who is actually taking part in the conflict.

[New haven america]

Hey, remember the multiple times in the Bible where Jesus said to love others regardless of position in life, that discrimination is wrong, and that humility is a virtue?

No? You sure? Ok then...

[Tarsonis]

I'm gonna disagree here. Photographers aren't really participants, so much as they are a visual documentarian Just like a war correspondent doesn't partake in the war, they just document it. I don't buy the logic that simply photographing a (non critical) situation, makes you a complicit participant. Seems like a stretch that this person is just trying to hide behind.

This is different, because you are paying them specifically to portray the ceremony in a positive manner.
Wedding photographers to not do a accurate visual documentation. Their job is not to show are balanced, realistic portrayal.

Their job is quite different than a war correspondent. More like a military public affairs/propagandist, who is actually taking part in the conflict.

Yeah that's a bullshit distinction you're drawing there. "Its not the same because here they look happy" A photographers job is to make everything "look good" You're trying to justify discrimination with the flimsiest of arguments here.

[Kiu Ghesik]

Hey, remember the multiple times in the Bible where Jesus said to love others regardless of position in life, that discrimination is wrong, and that humility is a virtue?

No? You sure? Ok then...

I do, but burning people at the stake just seems much more fun.

[Tarsonis]

Hey, remember the multiple times in the Bible where Jesus said to love others regardless of position in life, that discrimination is wrong, and that humility is a virtue?

No? You sure? Ok then...

I do, but burning people at the stake just seems much more fun.

Not like there was anything better to do.

[Salus Maior]

This is different, because you are paying them specifically to portray the ceremony in a positive manner.
Wedding photographers to not do a accurate visual documentation. Their job is not to show are balanced, realistic portrayal.

Their job is quite different than a war correspondent. More like a military public affairs/propagandist, who is actually taking part in the conflict.

Yeah that's a bullshit distinction you're drawing there. "Its not the same because here they look happy" A photographers job is to make everything "look good" You're trying to justify discrimination with the flimsiest of arguments here.

Better tell that to the guy who photographed the victims of America's napalm bombings.

[Tarsonis]

Yeah that's a bullshit distinction you're drawing there. "Its not the same because here they look happy" A photographers job is to make everything "look good" You're trying to justify discrimination with the flimsiest of arguments here.

Better tell that to the guy who photographed the victims of America's napalm bombings.

um...no?

[Novus America]

Better tell that to the guy who photographed the victims of America's napalm bombings.

um...no?

I mean that is the point. Actually many photographers photograph things to make them look bad.

If I hire a photographer to make a political opponent look bad, or they do it to advance their political cause, they are trying to photograph someone to make them look bad. Photography (and videography obviously) is much more complex than simply taking a picture. It is an art, not a standardized service.

Ideally a journalist should try to take an objective photograph, in a neutral light, depicting the reality, warts and all, good and bad. But of course they really usually put their own spin on it. Make it look more dramatic to sell it, make their political side look good or bad. But a wedding photographer is not even supposed to be neutral!

Two people can take pictures of the same thing, yet create a radically different impression to one viewing their photographs, which will be different.

Do you not think the job of, and the photography produced by a military public affairs officer and someone working for an anti war outfit will not be different in both intent and the impression they create, even when photographing the same war?

Differentiations between art, especially that art which depicts something involved a religious and political controversy, and other things absolutely should be meaningful, if you care about artistic, political and religious freedom.

[Tarsonis]

um...no?

I mean that is the point. Actually many photographers photograph things to make them look bad.

If I hire a photographer to make a political opponent look bad, or they do it to advance their political cause, they are trying to photograph someone to make them look bad. Photography (and videography obviously) is much more complex than simply taking a picture. It is an art, not a standardized service.

Ideally a journalist should try to take an objective photograph, in a neutral light, depicting the reality, warts and all, good and bad. But of course they really usually put their own spin on it. Make it look more dramatic to sell it, make their political side look good or bad. But a wedding photographer is not even supposed to be neutral!

Two people can take pictures of the same thing, yet create a radically different impression to one viewing their photographs, which will be different.

Do you not think the job of, and the photography produced by a military public affairs officer and someone working for an anti war outfit will not be different in both intent and the impression they create, even when photographing the same war?

Quelle surprise you're taking my anallogy to its most illogical conclusion as a smokescreen.

[Novus America]

I mean that is the point. Actually many photographers photograph things to make them look bad.

If I hire a photographer to make a political opponent look bad, or they do it to advance their political cause, they are trying to photograph someone to make them look bad. Photography (and videography obviously) is much more complex than simply taking a picture. It is an art, not a standardized service.

Ideally a journalist should try to take an objective photograph, in a neutral light, depicting the reality, warts and all, good and bad. But of course they really usually put their own spin on it. Make it look more dramatic to sell it, make their political side look good or bad. But a wedding photographer is not even supposed to be neutral!

Two people can take pictures of the same thing, yet create a radically different impression to one viewing their photographs, which will be different.

Do you not think the job of, and the photography produced by a military public affairs officer and someone working for an anti war outfit will not be different in both intent and the impression they create, even when photographing the same war?

Quelle surprise you're taking my anallogy to its most illogical conclusion as a smokescreen.

No, I simply took your analogy and elaborated on it. You created the analogy, you should have thought through the implications.
But I also see you failed to address the rest.

Saying photographers only document is false, saying they always create a positive impression (which of course blatantly contradicts your first false claim) is also false.

Sorry, but I think the issue is you do not understand photography very well.

I know a bunch of tricks that can make a photograph or video of the same thing, create a dramatically different impression, (positive or negative) and I am not a professional.

Art, especially art depicting an area of political and religious controversy absolutely goes to ideas of artistic, religious and political freedom far beyond selling someone a camera, and we must take this into account.

[Tarsonis]

Quelle surprise you're taking my anallogy to its most illogical conclusion as a smokescreen.

No, I simply took your analogy and elaborated on it. You created the analogy, you should have thought through the implications.
But I also see you failed to address the rest.

No, the point was that taking photographs of combat is not the same as taking part in combat. You of course tried to twist this into a different point. As for the rest, It's contrived nonsense so there was no reason to engage with it.

Saying photographers only document is false, saying they always create a positive impression (which of course blatantly contradicts your first false claim) is also false.

Yes if I was just talking about the theoretical idea of photography. But of course since we're talking about a wedding photographer, the context about what I was referring to was clear to anyone not trying to twist words and make a strawman argument.

Sorry, but I think the issue is you do not understand photography very well.

Yeah there's what photography is, and then there's what self aggrandizing photographers think photography is.

I know a bunch of tricks that can make a photograph or video of the same thing, create a dramatically different impression, and I am not a professional.

Good for you. It's good you have a hobby. It's also completely irrelevant.

Art, especially art depicting an area of political and religious controversy absolutely goes to ideas of artistic, religious and political freedom far beyond selling someone a camera, and we must take this into account.

We really don't. While I have no doubt that there is an incredible about of talent, skill, knowhow, etc, and yes Photography is a valid art form, merely painting a picture does not an artist make. Event photographers are to photographic artistic expression, as those people who make road signs are to painters. Sure it's photography, but they're not being paid for their artistic expression, they're being paid to take quality photos of the event that the clients can send to their family or keep on their shelf. Nobody is asking them to propagandize anything, insert their artistic opinion on the subject, or anything like that. They are asked to simply take photos of a happy event for their client.


A person who photographs a Mass is not a participating in the Mass via photography. Shutter clicks and lighting do not supplant prayer and engagement. Taking pictures of a same sex wedding does not make them a participant in the wedding.