Ontario Same-Sex Couple Denied Videography for Gay Wedding

[Kannap]

But none of those things require a specifically gay photographer.

True, as I mentioned. But with a gay photographer who specializes in gay weddings you at least know you avoid any political disagreements on the subject of gay marriage. At least it removes that ambiguity.

But sure a straight photographer who does good work regarding gay weddings might be just as good too, but someone who disagrees with gay marriage will basically always be a poor choice.

Sure a straight person passionate about gay marriage might be just as good though, that is a fair point, but someone not passionate about gay marriage is not the one to pick.
To err on the safe side, if you do not personally know the photographer it probably makes sense to pick one who makes it clear on the are gay marriage friendly.
And if they put off a particularly socially conservative type presentation probably do not go with them.

You at least should pick one openly supportive of gay marriage.
Sure there are straight people who openly support gay marriage and gay people who do not though.
Although I think the latter is very uncommon.

Not sure how we got off on this tangent of expecting an anti-gay person to do your wedding for you. The couple probably just found a wedding videographer online, looked at their work, liked their stuff, and contacted them. They even frontloaded the information that they were a same-sex couple so that they would be denied immediately if the person didn't do gay weddings rather than getting their hopes up and finding out later down the road, when things could be more complicated.

By all accounts, I think the couple did everything right and they shouldn't have to seek out a gay specific videographer.

[Kannap]

Strange how the Free Market is supposed to correct these things but you have more businesses refusing to serve LGBTs than welcoming them.

I somehow doubt that's the case, but [citation needed]

Umm Citation? Because that sounds like total BS.

The Harms of Refusing Service to LGBTQ People and Other Marginalized Communities

This doesn't mention anything about your claim that more businesses refuse to serve LGBT persons than businesses that welcome them.

My assumption would be that most businesses would serve LGBT persons, especially in major population centers but even in rural areas - considering that most businesses aren't providing services based on your sexuality. Gay people aren't kissing or having sex at the grocery store, for example, so I seriously doubt most grocery stores would deny service to gay couples.

[Novus America]

Umm Citation? Because that sounds like total BS.

The Harms of Refusing Service to LGBTQ People and Other Marginalized Communities

That does not support you claim. It makes the dubious claims that getting turned down for a wedding cake causes serious mental harm but supports it with a non sequitur, simply cited studies that say some types of discrimination can cause serious harm, but no studies specifically covering something a trivial as cake. Those studies showing harm likely refer from the harm caused by serious discrimination on important matters.

If I was fired from my job because of discrimination yes that could cause me a lot of serious issues. But a cake would not. Apples and oranges. Yet your source fails to differentiate.

And says some places refuse to do it, but provides no statistical data saying the majority of places refuse to provide the service. It does not support your claim.

Besides it only talks about the very trivial items of wedding attire and cakes, not essential services.
Also just go to a bigger company. Sure maybe a rural town only has a few boutique bakeries, just go to the grocery store. The bigger companies are mostly big into rainbow capitalism.

[Salus Maior]

1: that's just slippery slope arguing, and 2. That doesn't actually support your point that there are "more" businesses refusing LGBT people.

It would be nice if an actual statistic was compiled, or is this an excuse to deny such things because data has not been compiled so far?

You're making a claim, you need to support it with fact.

Otherwise, nobody has to take it seriously.

[Novus America]

True, as I mentioned. But with a gay photographer who specializes in gay weddings you at least know you avoid any political disagreements on the subject of gay marriage. At least it removes that ambiguity.

But sure a straight photographer who does good work regarding gay weddings might be just as good too, but someone who disagrees with gay marriage will basically always be a poor choice.

Sure a straight person passionate about gay marriage might be just as good though, that is a fair point, but someone not passionate about gay marriage is not the one to pick.
To err on the safe side, if you do not personally know the photographer it probably makes sense to pick one who makes it clear on the are gay marriage friendly.
And if they put off a particularly socially conservative type presentation probably do not go with them.

You at least should pick one openly supportive of gay marriage.
Sure there are straight people who openly support gay marriage and gay people who do not though.
Although I think the latter is very uncommon.

Not sure how we got off on this tangent of expecting an anti-gay person to do your wedding for you. The couple probably just found a wedding videographer online, looked at their work, liked their stuff, and contacted them. They even frontloaded the information that they were a same-sex couple so that they would be denied immediately if the person didn't do gay weddings rather than getting their hopes up and finding out later down the road, when things could be more complicated.

By all accounts, I think the couple did everything right and they shouldn't have to seek out a gay specific videographer.

Fair enough, but I do not see this particular case as particularly serious.
They were not seriously harmed.

You have conflicting rights here, their right to not be discriminated against vs the right of the photographer not to be forced to make and artistic product they do not want to make.

The right to free speech here on a nonessential artistic, religious and political service is more important than getting a specific photographer.

Obviously for another more important matter (like emergency medical services) the balance would be different.

[Alcala-Cordel]

If you don't want to do your job as a videographer, find another job. Discrimination is stupid.

[Novus America]

1: that's just slippery slope arguing, and 2. That doesn't actually support your point that there are "more" businesses refusing LGBT people.

It would be nice if an actual statistic was compiled, or is this an excuse to deny such things because data has not been compiled so far?

We are not denying it sometimes happens, just your completely baseless claim the majority of businesses do it.
And you made the claim, the burden is on you.

[Salus Maior]

If you don't want to do your job as a videographer, find another job. Discrimination is stupid.

Well, not everybody can get everything they want, and people have the right to choose who and what they associate with.

[Alcala-Cordel]

If you don't want to do your job as a videographer, find another job. Discrimination is stupid.

Well, not everybody can get everything they want, and people have the right to choose who and what they associate with.

I certainly agree that not everybody can get everything they want. If it's your job to take pictures and videos of weddings, you shouldn't discriminate against them no matter how much you want to.

[Novus America]

Well, not everybody can get everything they want, and people have the right to choose who and what they associate with.

I certainly agree that not everybody can get everything they want. If it's your job to take pictures and videos of weddings, you shouldn't discriminate against them no matter how much you want to.

I disagree, because there is a conflict of rights here we have to use a balancing test.
Because this involves a completely nonessential, frivolous and easily available elsewhere personal service involving a matter of artistic expression, with religious aspects, the right to freedom of expression and religion are more important.

Also it is better to be open about this, if you disagree with the subject you are depicting in art you are probably not going to depict it in a good light. Would the couple not rather know the photographer has no desire to do it, then get a photographer at their wedding who dies not want to be there?
For example I would not hire someone who opposed the military to film/photograph a military wedding, that would be a bad idea. I would hire someone who likes the military.

Art is quite different than simply buying a fungible item or service. Art is unique, and not fungible (hence why it gets some special treatment in contracts law). If I am buying gas from a gas station I usually care little about the political, personal and religious opinions of the owner, (unless they are a threat to me or something like that) it is irrelevant to how well the gas runs in my car.

But in art they are relevant.
This is a perfect example:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man_at_the_Crossroads
Here the artist and the client had very different political views, resulting in the client getting a painting the client did not want, and then destroyed.

Now as brought up before if this was something non artistic, and actually important the balance would come out differently, and emergency room doctor is a completely different matter.

[Andsed]

Well, not everybody can get everything they want, and people have the right to choose who and what they associate with.

I certainly agree that not everybody can get everything they want. If it's your job to take pictures and videos of weddings, you shouldn't discriminate against them no matter how much you want to.

I mean they don´t have to, it is just scummy in a moral sense and stupid in a business sense for them to refuse to do so on the basis of sexuality.

[Kannap]

Well, not everybody can get everything they want, and people have the right to choose who and what they associate with.

I certainly agree that not everybody can get everything they want. If it's your job to take pictures and videos of weddings, you shouldn't discriminate against them no matter how much you want to.

That's not how things work. The best society can do is voice and show their displeasure and move on.

[Alcala-Cordel]

I certainly agree that not everybody can get everything they want. If it's your job to take pictures and videos of weddings, you shouldn't discriminate against them no matter how much you want to.

That's not how things work. The best society can do is voice and show their displeasure and move on.

It might not be how things work, but it's how they should work. We used to have a similar issue with racial discrimination, remember?

[Andsed]

That's not how things work. The best society can do is voice and show their displeasure and move on.

It might not be how things work, but it's how they should work.

Not really. Private businesses do not have to give service to everyone. They should have the right to deny service to people(provided they are not essential like hospitals or publicly funded.)

[Alcala-Cordel]

It might not be how things work, but it's how they should work.

Not really. Private businesses do not have to give service to everyone. They should have the right to deny service to people(provided they are not essential like hospitals or publicly funded.)

This sounds suspiciously like a segregationist argument.

[Andsed]

Not really. Private businesses do not have to give service to everyone. They should have the right to deny service to people(provided they are not essential like hospitals or publicly funded.)

This sounds suspiciously like a segregationist argument.

If I was arguing for this to be applied to public organizations like public schools then it would be. But I am only pointing out that private organizations have a right to association with regards to who they choose to serve.

[Alcala-Cordel]

This sounds suspiciously like a segregationist argument.

If I was arguing for this to be applied to public organizations like public schools then it would be. But I am only pointing out that private organizations have a right to association with regards to who they choose to serve.

So schools shouldn't be segregated, but we should've let the bus companies make black people sit in the back and let other places refuse service to/segregate them. Segregation was part of private industry as well.

[Novus America]

If I was arguing for this to be applied to public organizations like public schools then it would be. But I am only pointing out that private organizations have a right to association with regards to who they choose to serve.

So schools shouldn't be segregated, but we should've let the bus companies make black people sit in the back and let other places refuse service to/segregate them. Segregation was part of private industry as well.

If the bus is contracted to a city government it should not be allowed to discriminate.
Besides a bus is a necessary, non political, non artistic and non religious functions.
Thus it is a completely different thing than a frivolous, nonessential, artistic, political and religious expression matter. We went over this.

Apples to oranges, and really comparing getting turned down by a wedding photographer of all things to the plight African Americans faced is offensive.

[Alcala-Cordel]

So schools shouldn't be segregated, but we should've let the bus companies make black people sit in the back and let other places refuse service to/segregate them. Segregation was part of private industry as well.

If the bus is contracted to a city government it should not be allowed to discriminate.
Besides a bus is a necessary, non political, non artistic and non religious functions.
Thus it is a completely different thing than a frivolous, nonessential, artistic, political and religious expression matter. We went over this.

Apples to oranges, and really comparing getting turned down by a wedding photographer of all things to the plight African Americans faced is offensive.

What about restaurants? Should they have the right to refuse customers based on their race? Should private places force them into segregates restrooms? and places to sit?

[Novus America]

If the bus is contracted to a city government it should not be allowed to discriminate.
Besides a bus is a necessary, non political, non artistic and non religious functions.
Thus it is a completely different thing than a frivolous, nonessential, artistic, political and religious expression matter. We went over this.

Apples to oranges, and really comparing getting turned down by a wedding photographer of all things to the plight African Americans faced is offensive.

What about restaurants? Should they have the right to refuse customers based on their race? Should private places force them into segregates restrooms? and places to sit?

I would argue restaurants would generally be not allowed to discriminate with some exceptions.
They should not be allowed to discriminate to the regular customers they serve as food is essential, and serving food to someone is generally not an endorsement of their religious, political beliefs or an artistic matter, because while food is artistic in some ways, you generally do not make each meal as a new unique thing specific to each customer, that is impractical. You serve off a menu.

But if the customer say is Muslim and demands you make a Halal dish just for them, when you do not make them, you should have a right to say no. Making a custom food, especially one with a message written on it (like a cake with a message) is different.
You should not be required to make a new menu item you do not provide, nor required to endorse a certain religious, political or artistic viewpoint.

Or if a customer wants to rent out your restaurant for a specific event, you should have a right to turn them down if you disagree with the message of the event.

So you could discriminate as to custom, specific matters involving a political, artistic or religious message, but not as to general food service, if you already offer a general menu item you should not discriminate on who can buy that item (in most cases).

[Alcala-Cordel]

What about restaurants? Should they have the right to refuse customers based on their race? Should private places force them into segregates restrooms? and places to sit?

I would argue restaurants would generally be not allowed to discriminate with some exceptions.
They should not be allowed to discriminate to the regular customers they serve as food is essential, and serving food to someone is generally not an endorsement of their religious, political beliefs or an artistic matter, because while food is artistic in some ways, you generally do not make each meal as a new unique thing specific to each customer, that is impractical.

But if the customer say is Muslim and demands you make a Halal dish just for them, you should have a right to say no. Making a custom item is different.
Or if a customer wants to rent out your restaurant for a specific event, you should have a right to turn them down if you disagree with the message of the event.

So as long as it's not essential, you can and discriminate the hell out of anyone you'd like. Nice.

[Novus America]

I would argue restaurants would generally be not allowed to discriminate with some exceptions.
They should not be allowed to discriminate to the regular customers they serve as food is essential, and serving food to someone is generally not an endorsement of their religious, political beliefs or an artistic matter, because while food is artistic in some ways, you generally do not make each meal as a new unique thing specific to each customer, that is impractical.

But if the customer say is Muslim and demands you make a Halal dish just for them, you should have a right to say no. Making a custom item is different.
Or if a customer wants to rent out your restaurant for a specific event, you should have a right to turn them down if you disagree with the message of the event.

So as long as it's not essential, you can and discriminate the hell out of anyone you'd like. Nice.

Not essential and a custom item or service of a political, religious or artistic nature, yes.
Absolutely. Otherwise it opens up too many doors. For example if the Wesboro Baptist Church wants to rent your restaurant out for a rally, and you make a cake endorsing them, should you be required to? Absolutely not.

But if a member of the church stops in to get food off the menu (and does not harass other customers, etc.) you should not be allowed to discriminate against them.
Discrimination is actually often necessary, we do it all the time.

For good reasons. For example if I refuse to hire someone with a swastika tattooed on their forehead that is discrimination, but valid.
(because many in my restaurant will assume I endorse the political message of their tattoo).

Discrimination is a much more complex matter than “all discrimination is bad”.

Also say I am a communist artist, should I be forced to paint a painting extolling Ayn Rand?
Or if I am and Atheist artist should I be forced to paint a painting extolling the Catholic Church?
Of course not. But again painting a painting especially for someone, to support their message is quite different than simply serving them something off a menu.

[Alcala-Cordel]

So as long as it's not essential, you can and discriminate the hell out of anyone you'd like. Nice.

Not essential and a custom item or service of a political, religious or artistic nature, yes.
Absolutely. Otherwise it opens up too many doors. For example if the Wesboro Baptist Church wants to rent your restaurant out for a rally, and you make a cake endorsing them, should you be required to? Absolutely not.

You should have to make hem a cake as long as it doesn't say something terrible or make it look like you're endorsing them. Feel free to be very passive-aggressive though, F those people.

But if a member of the church stops in to get food off the menu (and does not harass other customers, etc.) you should not be allowed to discriminate against them.
Discrimination is actually often necessary, we do it all the time.
For good reasons. For example if I refuse to hire someone with a swastika tattooed on their forehead that is discrimination, but valid.
(because everyone in my restaurant will assume I endorse the political message of their tattoo).

That's hate speech, which is a good reason to discriminate. Nazi isn't a race.

Discrimination is a much more complex matter than “all discrimination is bad”.

Also say I a a communist artist, should I be forced to paint a painting extolling Ayn Rand?
Or if I am and Atheist artist should I be forced to paint a painting extolling the Catholic Church?

That's different, you shouldn't be forced to push an agenda you don't want to push. Taking pictures of a wedding is not pushing an agenda.

Of course not. But again painting a painting especially for someone, to support their message is quite different than simply serving them something off a menu.

[Novus America]

Not essential and a custom item or service of a political, religious or artistic nature, yes.
Absolutely. Otherwise it opens up too many doors. For example if the Wesboro Baptist Church wants to rent your restaurant out for a rally, and you make a cake endorsing them, should you be required to? Absolutely not.

You should have to make hem a cake as long as it doesn't say something terrible or make it look like you're endorsing them. Feel free to be very passive-aggressive though, F those people.

But if a member of the church stops in to get food off the menu (and does not harass other customers, etc.) you should not be allowed to discriminate against them.
Discrimination is actually often necessary, we do it all the time.
For good reasons. For example if I refuse to hire someone with a swastika tattooed on their forehead that is discrimination, but valid.
(because everyone in my restaurant will assume I endorse the political message of their tattoo).

That's hate speech, which is a good reason to discriminate. Nazi isn't a race.

Discrimination is a much more complex matter than “all discrimination is bad”.

Also say I a a communist artist, should I be forced to paint a painting extolling Ayn Rand?
Or if I am and Atheist artist should I be forced to paint a painting extolling the Catholic Church?

That's different, you shouldn't be forced to push an agenda you don't want to push. Taking pictures of a wedding is not pushing an agenda.

Of course not. But again painting a painting especially for someone, to support their message is quite different than simply serving them something off a menu.

So you agree sometimes it is fine to discriminate.

And if the WBC wants to hold a rally at your restaurant? You should have to do it?
Anyways better to openly say no than passively aggressively sabotage it. Would you want your wedding photographer to passive aggressively sabotage your pictures?

I disagree that it is different. Wedding photography is an art, your are creating a work of art with a message. It is a custom item of a nonessential and artistic nature that may include political and religious message. So you should be able to turn a customer down for any reason (admittedly it is probably better to just say no without telling them why exactly).

[The Two Jerseys]

I certainly agree that not everybody can get everything they want. If it's your job to take pictures and videos of weddings, you shouldn't discriminate against them no matter how much you want to.

I disagree, because there is a conflict of rights here we have to use a balancing test.
Because this involves a completely nonessential, frivolous and easily available elsewhere personal service involving a matter of artistic expression, with religious aspects, the right to freedom of expression and religion are more important.

Also it is better to be open about this, if you disagree with the subject you are depicting in art you are probably not going to depict it in a good light. Would the couple not rather know the photographer has no desire to do it, then get a photographer at their wedding who dies not want to be there?
For example I would not hire someone who opposed the military to film/photograph a military wedding, that would be a bad idea. I would hire someone who likes the military.

Art is quite different than simply buying a fungible item or service. Art is unique, and not fungible (hence why it gets some special treatment in contracts law). If I am buying gas from a gas station I usually care little about the political, personal and religious opinions of the owner, (unless they are a threat to me or something like that) it is irrelevant to how well the gas runs in my car.

But in art they are relevant.
This is a perfect example:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man_at_the_Crossroads
Here the artist and the client had very different political views, resulting in the client getting a painting the client did not want, and then destroyed.

Now as brought up before if this was something non artistic, and actually important the balance would come out differently, and emergency room doctor is a completely different matter.

Also worth noting that had this dispute arisen before Diego Rivera signed a contract with the Rockefellers, he would have been well within his rights to refuse the commission, and there's nothing that the Rockefellers could do about it because they're not entitled to his labor.