Ontario Same-Sex Couple Denied Videography for Gay Wedding

[The Free Joy State]

So people in southern United States should have just said oh well and gone elsewhere or moved?

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

Being a racist doesn't meet any definition of a protected characteristic.

[The Emerald Legion]

My opinion on this is the same as the one on the same-sex wedding cake: Businesses have the right to choose who to serve. Should a business be forced to video a Klan rally or make a cake with the words "Death to the n****rs" written on it?

So people in southern United States should have just said oh well and gone elsewhere or moved?

San, there's a significant difference between refusing someone access to your supermarket or hospital, facilities that are both necessary, and really require no effort on the part of the owner to serve you, and something like a priest or a wedding photographer. Who are largely tied up in a religious tradition who doesn't approve of your getting married.

Would you force a Muslim Photographer to come to your event where you have a fountain of Bacon Grease, and all the foods are pork derived?

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

Being a racist doesn't meet any definition of a protected characteristic.

Actually it does. Creed is included in that list of protected characteristics.

[Picairn]

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

Misrepresentation earns you back misrepresentation. Got-cha questions are not valid arguments.

[San Lumen]

Misrepresentation earns you back misrepresentation. Got-cha questions are not valid arguments.

Being a racist isn’t a protected class. Where was the misrepresentation? I think it was a perfectly valid question

[Picairn]

Being a racist doesn't meet any definition of a protected characteristic.

Actually, religion or belief are protected characteristics under US and UK laws.

[The Emerald Legion]

Misrepresentation earns you back misrepresentation. Got-cha questions are not valid arguments.

Being a racist isn’t a protected class. Where was the misrepresentation? I think it was a perfectly valid question

It is in Canada. Creed is a protected class. Racism is a Creed.

[Greed and Death]

If an artist does not wish to create art about a specific subject that is their right.

Had they been sellers of photocameras otoh they should be sued for discrimination if they refused to sell.

If you make that loophole official, I think lawyers could get a house through it. Art could be just about any physical thing, and a great many services.

Not really. It would almost certainly be limited custom service contracts that are nonassignable and nondelegable. So think of it like this a typical contract to say mow a law the law mower could give the contract to his buddy or subcontract to someone else if he were too busy. Now if I get a contract to artistically sculpt my hedges the person I hire can't go to home depot and pick someone off the street to sculpt the hedges I hired him and him alone.

So in this case if the gay couple would be happy with the photographers subcontracting the video production to videographers from Walmart then they should be able to proceed. But instead if the contract is presumed to be that particular videographer to do the recording the lawsuit should not proceed.

Their is also a practical matter. If they are sued and lose I as an attorney would advise them to take their money in the future and then call in sick during the day of the wedding maybe even have a provision limited damages for being sick to a refund. Congrats you have stood on your rights and now all gay weddings have a 10% chance of not having a videographer not present since they wont tell you they are bigots. Instead they just no show you.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

So people in southern United States should have just said oh well and gone elsewhere or moved?

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

I can see where this is going. If "offensive to most people" is a reason not to, then "offensive to me because I say so" should be ..?

[San Lumen]

Being a racist isn’t a protected class. Where was the misrepresentation? I think it was a perfectly valid question

It is in Canada. Creed is a protected class. Racism is a Creed.

If you only allow white heterosexuals into your business that’s perfectly ok in Canada?

[The Free Joy State]

Being a racist doesn't meet any definition of a protected characteristic.

Actually it does. Creed is included in that list of protected characteristics.

Creed does not enjoy total protection. White supremacists, for instance, can be fired if their actions bring their employers into disrepute or if they are disruptive because of it.

Hate speech -- such as that cited -- is also not protected.

So, no. Creed (and, truly, shaking my head to see racism defined as a "creed", but I've seen everything on this site) does not enjoy full and equal protection. Not when it is hateful.

[Novus America]

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

Being a racist doesn't meet any definition of a protected characteristic.

Should you be required to say film an event for the Westboro Baptist Church say?
Or for an extreme Wahhabi Mosque advocating the death penalty for homosexuality?

Before someone says “what about the US South” the Emerald Legion covered that.
Providing essential services not requiring political or religious expression should be differentiated from frivolous luxuries that do.

Given that a wedding videographer is a frivolous luxury, that what the definition of marriage should a legitimate point of political dispute, that videography falls under political and artistic expression it should be treated differently than saying a traveler cannot get any essential services in a town while traveling.

If there is one hotel in a town, you need a place to stay a night, the alternative being having to sleep in your car our outside, that is not something you can just say “go somewhere else”.

But a wedding cake or videographer is a completely different matter.

[Greed and Death]

My opinion on this is the same as the one on the same-sex wedding cake: Businesses have the right to choose who to serve. Should a business be forced to video a Klan rally or make a cake with the words "Death to the n****rs" written on it?

So people in southern United States should have just said oh well and gone elsewhere or moved?

Again San Lumen I recall no instance where black people sued to have a cake baked by bigots, or to have their wedding photographed by bigots. Yes Picairn's example is too broad. But we can adjust that.

What about Thor's Hammer ? Used by many Nazi Pagans as well as non bigoted pagans. Should an artist have the right to decline services if symbols like that are present ? These are religious symbols are they not ?

[The Free Joy State]

Being a racist doesn't meet any definition of a protected characteristic.

Should you be required to say film an event for the Westboro Baptist Church say?
Or for an extreme Wahhabi Mosque advocating death to gay people?

Before someone says “what about the US South” the Emerald Legion covers it well.
Providing essential services not requiring political or religious expression should be differentiated from frivolous luxuries that do.

Given that a wedding videographer is a frivolous luxury, that what the definition of marriage should a legitimate point of political dispute, that videography falls under political and artistic expression it should be treated differently than saying a traveler cannot get any essential services in a town while traveling.

If there is one hotel in a town, you need a place to stay a night, the alternative being having to sleep in your car our outside, that is not something you can just say “go somewhere else”.

But a wedding cake or videographer is a completely different matter.

My argument was actually -- if you looked a page back in the thread -- that (while the videographer was clearly homophobic), boycotting was sufficient.

I was more concerned by the actions of the officiant, who is failing to perform what appears to me to be a key part of their job (much in the manner of the pharmacist who refuses to dispense oral contraceptives), and who I believed should have been officially censured.

It's just that Picairn's comparison was ludicrous.

[Greed and Death]

It is in Canada. Creed is a protected class. Racism is a Creed.

If you only allow white heterosexuals into your business that’s perfectly ok in Canada?

They didn't say no gays they said they don't do gay weddings. We do not have all information but they may provide other non wedding related services to gay people ie recording a birthday party.

[The Emerald Legion]

Actually it does. Creed is included in that list of protected characteristics.

Creed does not enjoy total protection. White supremacists, for instance, can be fired if their actions bring their employers into disrepute or if they are disruptive because of it.

Hate speech -- such as that cited -- is also not protected.

So, no. Creed (and, truly, shaking my head to see racism defined as a "creed", but I've seen everything on this site) does not enjoy full and equal protection. Not when it is hateful.

So you use an example from the US, In which Creed is not a protected class outside of certain localities, and of Britain. Canada is neither of those.

Not to mention that the US example has nothing to do with hate, and everything to do with the fact that in many states you can be fired at will for almost any reason your employer feels like.

Didn't invite him to your birthday party? Fired. Prefer a different kind of soda or beer? Fired.

[Novus America]

Should you be required to say film an event for the Westboro Baptist Church say?
Or for an extreme Wahhabi Mosque advocating death to gay people?

Before someone says “what about the US South” the Emerald Legion covers it well.
Providing essential services not requiring political or religious expression should be differentiated from frivolous luxuries that do.

Given that a wedding videographer is a frivolous luxury, that what the definition of marriage should a legitimate point of political dispute, that videography falls under political and artistic expression it should be treated differently than saying a traveler cannot get any essential services in a town while traveling.

If there is one hotel in a town, you need a place to stay a night, the alternative being having to sleep in your car our outside, that is not something you can just say “go somewhere else”.

But a wedding cake or videographer is a completely different matter.




Moreover

My argument was actually -- if you looked a page back in the thread -- that (while the videographer was clearly homophobic), boycotting was sufficient.

I was more concerned by the actions of the officiant, who is failing to perform what appears to me to be a key part of their job (much in the manner of the pharmacist who refuses to dispense oral contraceptives), and who I believed should have been officially censured.

It's just that Picairn's comparison was ludicrous.

Well if the officiant is a public employee sure, but I do not see why a independent person who can sign off on a wedding should be forced to do so, again given it is not an essential service to have a particular one given the fact you can just get a judge to sign off on it.

And it is not like you will be facing health or safety consequences because one particular one does not want to do it.

Because a judge is a public employee required to objectively enforce the law they should be required to officiate all lawful weddings or be removed from that particular position. But a priest should not be forced to sign off on a religious ceremony that goes against their religious sensitivities.

Of course the question here becomes why we think it necessary for the ceremonial officiant and the person doing the legal paperwork for government purposes be the same person.

Maybe just have the religious/ceremonial aspect and the filling out the government paperwork be separate things done by different people.

[Gormwood]

Imagine if this had been Essential Service like a hospital.

[The Emerald Legion]

Imagine if this had been Essential Service like a hospital.

I didn't know Doctors were artists.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

If you make that loophole official, I think lawyers could get a house through it. Art could be just about any physical thing, and a great many services.

Not really. It would almost certainly be limited custom service contracts that are nonassignable and nondelegable. So think of it like this a typical contract to say mow a law the law mower could give the contract to his buddy or subcontract to someone else if he were too busy. Now if I get a contract to artistically sculpt my hedges the person I hire can't go to home depot and pick someone off the street to sculpt the hedges I hired him and him alone.

If an artist does not wish to create art about a specific subject that is their right.

So in this case if the gay couple would be happy with the photographers subcontracting the video production to videographers from Walmart then they should be able to proceed. But instead if the contract is presumed to be that particular videographer to do the recording the lawsuit should not proceed.

Their is also a practical matter. If they are sued and lose I as an attorney would advise them to take their money in the future and then call in sick during the day of the wedding maybe even have a provision limited damages for being sick to a refund. Congrats you have stood on your rights and now all gay weddings have a 10% chance of not having a videographer not present since they wont tell you they are bigots. Instead they just no show you.

I'm pretty sure calling in sick would hurt their business reputation, even if it wasn't public knowledge why. And it might become public knowledge by them telling a friend about it (thinking "none of my friends know any gay people, it can't get back to them"). In either case they don't get paid and have to take most of that day off so they don't leave a record showing they lied about being sick.

Clearly it's much better for the videographer's business if they can just say no without providing a reason. If providing a reason is required by law (?) or there's some kind of presumption that discrimination is the reason (they know you're black, they know you're gay etc) just by saying no without a reason ... then the next best thing would be the delegable contract you mentioned.


Really the worst option, which screws over the client the most, does the most damage to the business reputation if it comes out, and costs the business the most if it comes out, is that option you said you would "advise". Which if I'm not mistaken, is illegal. You really should stop doing that G&D!

[Novus America]

I do also think it rather offensive and trivializing to compare the experience of a black person in a 1930s “Sundown Town” to a particular wedding videography not wanting to do your wedding or a particular baker not wanting to write a particular message on your cake.

I am strongly against saying a gay person cannot get essential, non political and non artistic services but it is definitely trivializing to compare this to that.

Besides for things like doing a cake for your wedding or videoing it, you are better off getting someone who agrees with the message, they will do a better job.
Personal feelings come out in art, if you get someone who disagrees with something to do art about it, they are likely going to present it in a negative light.

Art is a very different thing than an essential service like a emergency room.

[Novus America]

Imagine if this had been Essential Service like a hospital.

Imagine if it was. Then it would be totally different matter.
But this was not.

That is like saying if someone insults you, “imagine if they murdered you”.
Because it involves very different things.

[South Odreria 2]

Rip the video people

[Gormwood]

Imagine if this had been Essential Service like a hospital.

Imagine if it was. Then it would be totally different matter.
But this was not.

That is like saying if someone insults you, “imagine if they murdered you”.
Because it involves very different things.

The implication being discrimination is legal as long as it doesn't involve essential services. The "they can go elsewhere" excuse can only go so far. If it was a monopolistic business then where would the discriminated go?

[The Emerald Legion]

Imagine if it was. Then it would be totally different matter.
But this was not.

That is like saying if someone insults you, “imagine if they murdered you”.
Because it involves very different things.

The implication being discrimination is legal as long as it doesn't involve essential services. The "they can go elsewhere" excuse can only go so far. If it was a monopolistic business then where would the discriminated go?

To Walmart? Or just pull your phone out of your pocket and take pictures.

[Geneviev]

It's just wedding videography. It's rude, but I wouldn't say it's immoral.