Ontario Same-Sex Couple Denied Videography for Gay Wedding

[Cordel One]

In that case you would have loved the Jim Crow era.

We went over that, why comparing not being able to force someone to write a certain message on a cake is completely different than people force to sleep in their cars with no food.

It is also offensive to cheapen the horrors of Jim Crow laws to Simone not wanting to write a message on a cake.

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.

Some people consider cooking to be an art too. Let's say you're a racist and a black guy walks into your restaurant and orders some food. Do you have any right to kick them out?

I’d say so, yeah. Frankly I don’t know why you’d want to pay someone that thinks you’re less than human.

What's your opinion of the Jim Crow era?

[-Ra-]

A black person can never not be black. Nobody can choose whether or not to "present" as black. Black people are black at all times. The same applies for sex.

Gay people who are in same-sex relations choose to be in those relationships. Gay people have the option of not presenting in couples or gay, whereas a black person does not have this privilege.

One does not chose to be gay. Why should a gay couple hide it?

Nobody is saying they should hide it. Gay couples have the right to free expression and can therefore express themselves as couples.

Likewise, religious people have the right to free expression and therefore the right to oppose same-sex marriages and deny a wedding service if they believe them being there would be retrograde to their religious beliefs.

Freedom for everyone to go around.

Photography is generally accepted to be a form of art, while forcing an artist to accept your commission is generally accepted to be a bad thing to do.

Some people consider cooking to be an art too. Let's say you're a racist and a black guy walks into your restaurant and orders some food. Do you have any right to kick them out?

This situation is not analogous. They wedding videographer didn't refuse service because they were gay per see, but because they were a gay couple getting married, which is against the videographer's beliefs.

[New haven america]

No it's actually not.

Most artists are just scrapping by and usually head over heels happy to get payed for their work.

1. Yes it actually is.

2. And when they wish to refuse to create art for someone, it’s bad to force them to.

1. I mean, you say this, but then you forget what a commission actually is: Paying an artist to make something for you. If they didn't want to deal with this type of controversy then they shouldn't have been open to commissions quite frankly.
2. Only the luckiest of the lucky in the art world would be lucky enough to live by this mindset.

[Novus America]

Gay Marriage is entirely controllable. Is it good or bad? That is a subjective values judgement.
Again it is refusal to participate in a voluntary ceremony. Which is different.

Say I have a restaurant. A black guy comes in and orders a sandwich. I should not be able to say “no sandwich because you are black.
BUT say I do catering as well, and he asks me to cater a BLM rally.
I should be able to say no to that if I disagree with the BLM Movement.

Being black is not controllable, not a political or religious statement.
Holding a BLM rally though? Completely controllable political statement.

They aren't getting married to make a political statement, they're getting married because they're two people who love each other.

Irrelevant, they are still asking you to make a political statement whether they intend to or not.
Marriage is a controversial matter in politics and religion.

So it is not fair to force a private entity to participate in a certain marriage ceremony.

[Ors Might]

1. Yes it actually is.

2. And when they wish to refuse to create art for someone, it’s bad to force them to.

1. I mean, you say this, but then you forget what a commission actually is: Paying an artist to make something for you. If they didn't want to deal with this type of controversy then they shouldn't have been open to commissions.
2. Only the luckiest of the lucky in the art world would be lucky enough to live by this mindset.

1. “If you didn’t want to make Pro-Nazi artwork, you shouldn’t have been open to commissions”
2. I don’t think artists would consider themselves lucky if the government forced them to accept all commissions they received, though.

[Cordel One]

Some people consider cooking to be an art too. Let's say you're a racist and a black guy walks into your restaurant and orders some food. Do you have any right to kick them out?

This situation is not analogous. They wedding videographer didn't refuse service because they were gay per see, but because they were a gay couple getting married, which is against the videographer's beliefs.

In that case the videographer needs to get over themself because the event isn't about them and do their job.

[-Ra-]

We went over that, why comparing not being able to force someone to write a certain message on a cake is completely different than people force to sleep in their cars with no food.

It is also offensive to cheapen the horrors of Jim Crow laws to Simone not wanting to write a message on a cake.

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.

Imagine comparing the Jim Crow era, when black people in the US were fearful of their lives if they so much as drank from the whites' only fountain, to a wedding videographer denying service to a fucking wedding. You''re unironically incredibly insensitive to history and probably racist.

Get over yourselves.

[New haven america]

1. I mean, you say this, but then you forget what a commission actually is: Paying an artist to make something for you. If they didn't want to deal with this type of controversy then they shouldn't have been open to commissions.
2. Only the luckiest of the lucky in the art world would be lucky enough to live by this mindset.

1. “If you didn’t want to make Pro-Nazi artwork, you shouldn’t have been open to commissions”
2. I don’t think artists would consider themselves lucky if the government forced them to accept all commissions they received, though.

1. Yes, that's generally how it works in the art world. There are a lot of non-racist tattoo artists that have to make Nazi and white supremacist tattoos for example because they seriously need the cash. Or writers who make tons of furry porn despite not being furries.
2. "Oh no! The government's forcing me to be a decent person and even paying me to do so! What a tragedy!"

[Ors Might]

This situation is not analogous. They wedding videographer didn't refuse service because they were gay per see, but because they were a gay couple getting married, which is against the videographer's beliefs.

In that case the videographer needs to get over themself because the event isn't about them and do their job.

If they haven’t accepted the commission, then recording the wedding isn’t their job.

[-Ra-]

This situation is not analogous. They wedding videographer didn't refuse service because they were gay per see, but because they were a gay couple getting married, which is against the videographer's beliefs.

In that case the videographer needs to get over themself because the event isn't about them and do their job.

No. In that case the couple could go find another videographer who would be more willing to accommodate them.

[Cordel One]

They aren't getting married to make a political statement, they're getting married because they're two people who love each other.

Irrelevant, they are still asking you to make a political statement whether they intend to or not.
Marriage is a controversial matter in politics and religion.

So it is not fair to force a private entity to participate in a certain marriage ceremony.

It is relevant, you can't compare it to a BLM rally when it's more comparable to a black person unknowingly walking into a restaurant owned by a racist.

[Novus America]

We went over that, why comparing not being able to force someone to write a certain message on a cake is completely different than people force to sleep in their cars with no food.

It is also offensive to cheapen the horrors of Jim Crow laws to Simone not wanting to write a message on a cake.

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.

I’d say so, yeah. Frankly I don’t know why you’d want to pay someone that thinks you’re less than human.

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.

[Ors Might]

1. “If you didn’t want to make Pro-Nazi artwork, you shouldn’t have been open to commissions”
2. I don’t think artists would consider themselves lucky if the government forced them to accept all commissions they received, though.

1. Yes, that's generally how it works in the art world. There are a lot of non-racist tattoo artists that have to make Nazi and white supremacist tattoos for example because they seriously need the cash.
2. "Oh no! The government's forcing me to be a decent person and even paying me to do so! What a tragedy!"

1. It isn’t though. I have friends that do commissions and I’m pretty sure they’re fully willing to refuse requests for Nazi furry porn.
2. Yes, it is a tragedy when the government forces artistic expression from the unwilling.

[Cordel One]

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.

Imagine comparing the Jim Crow era, when black people in the US were fearful of their lives if they so much as drank from the whites' only fountain, to a wedding videographer denying service to a fucking wedding. You''re unironically incredibly insensitive to history and probably racist.

Get over yourselves.

Discrimination is discrimination, and the bit about racism is probably projection.

Historical events are comparable to modern ones, and if that offends you so be it.

[Ors Might]

We went over that, why comparing not being able to force someone to write a certain message on a cake is completely different than people force to sleep in their cars with no food.

It is also offensive to cheapen the horrors of Jim Crow laws to Simone not wanting to write a message on a cake.

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.

I’d say so, yeah. Frankly I don’t know why you’d want to pay someone that thinks you’re less than human.

What's your opinion of the Jim Crow era?

Oh shit, sorry, didn’t see this. Yeah, I think it was garbage actually. The state government forcing legislating who you’re allowed to serve and how is pretty shit.

[New haven america]

1. Yes, that's generally how it works in the art world. There are a lot of non-racist tattoo artists that have to make Nazi and white supremacist tattoos for example because they seriously need the cash.
2. "Oh no! The government's forcing me to be a decent person and even paying me to do so! What a tragedy!"

1. It isn’t though. I have friends that do commissions and I’m pretty sure they’re fully willing to refuse requests for Nazi furry porn.
2. Yes, it is a tragedy when the government forces artistic expression from the unwilling.

1. ffs I've already been over this with you: Only the luckiest of the lucky in the art world can be picky about commissions, and for the most part the vast majority aren't.
2. So you agree that censorship is immoral and unconstitutional?

[Cordel One]

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.

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

[Novus America]

Irrelevant, they are still asking you to make a political statement whether they intend to or not.
Marriage is a controversial matter in politics and religion.

So it is not fair to force a private entity to participate in a certain marriage ceremony.

It is relevant, you can't compare it to a BLM rally when it's more comparable to a black person unknowingly walking into a restaurant owned by a racist.

You can, it is not wanting to participate in a voluntary ceremony or event, not denying someone an essential service.
You should not be force to participate in someone else’s ceremony if you do not agree.
Say a Muslim finds Wicca offensive, should he be forced to participate in a Wiccan coven meeting? Of course not.

It is not simply waking into a restaurant you are demanding the make a custom thing for you advocating a particular religious and political viewpoint.

[Cordel One]

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?

Oh shit, sorry, didn’t see this. Yeah, I think it was garbage actually. The state government forcing legislating who you’re allowed to serve and how is pretty shit.

A lot of Jim Crow and post-Jim Crow events weren't mandated by the government, they were just racists discriminating.

[Ors Might]

1. It isn’t though. I have friends that do commissions and I’m pretty sure they’re fully willing to refuse requests for Nazi furry porn.
2. Yes, it is a tragedy when the government forces artistic expression from the unwilling.

1. ffs I've already been over this with you: Only the luckiest of the lucky in the art world can be picky about commissions, and for the most part the vast majority aren't.
2. So you agree that censorship is immoral and unconstitutional?

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

[-Ra-]

Imagine comparing the Jim Crow era, when black people in the US were fearful of their lives if they so much as drank from the whites' only fountain, to a wedding videographer denying service to a fucking wedding. You''re unironically incredibly insensitive to history and probably racist.

Get over yourselves.

Discrimination is discrimination, and the bit about racism is probably projection.

Historical events are comparable to modern ones, and if that offends you so be it.

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

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

Freedom is freedom.

[Ors Might]

Oh shit, sorry, didn’t see this. Yeah, I think it was garbage actually. The state government forcing legislating who you’re allowed to serve and how is pretty shit.

A lot of Jim Crow and post-Jim Crow events weren't mandated by the government, they were just racists discriminating.

Do you have a source for Jim Crow laws not being mandated by the government?

[New haven america]

1. ffs I've already been over this with you: Only the luckiest of the lucky in the art world can be picky about commissions, and for the most part the vast majority aren't.
2. So you agree that censorship is immoral and unconstitutional?

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

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

[Novus America]

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.

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

Answer the question about the Lesbian!

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

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

[Cordel One]

Discrimination is discrimination, and the bit about racism is probably projection.

Historical events are comparable to modern ones, and if that offends you so be it.

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

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

Freedom is freedom.

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

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