Ontario Same-Sex Couple Denied Videography for Gay Wedding

[-Ra-]

Or they could just find another videographer who accepts them.

They can just find another hotel or restaurant too?

It depends. If the couple are in need of necessary shelter or food, then no it should not be legal to deny service. However, if hotel and restaurant is a commodity purchase and the couple can find accommodation elsewhere, then a bed-and-breakfast owner should have the right to deny service to a gay couple.

[Telconi]

No, and you are lying or deliberately misinformed. Segregation was state-backed and -enforced. This is an issue of personal freedom, not state function. If no one wishes to serve them, the gay couple can go to the government office and get married there. The government cannot deny them service. Individuals can.

Discrimination is discrimination with or without state support.

Religious oppression is religious oppression, with or without state support. Or yours for that matter.

[Novus America]

No, and you are lying or deliberately misinformed. Segregation was state-backed and -enforced. This is an issue of personal freedom, not state function. If no one wishes to serve them, the gay couple can go to the government office and get married there. The government cannot deny them service. Individuals can.

Discrimination is discrimination with or without state support.

The laws that apply are different. You cannot demand a Catholic Church hold a gay wedding just because the hold weddings.

But a governmental entity probably cannot say they will not have your wedding if they allow others.

[-Ra-]

No, and you are lying or deliberately misinformed. Segregation was state-backed and -enforced. This is an issue of personal freedom, not state function. If no one wishes to serve them, the gay couple can go to the government office and get married there. The government cannot deny them service. Individuals can.

Discrimination is discrimination with or without state support.

Freedom is freedom regardless of whether you agree with how a person exercises their freedom.

[New haven america]

1. Well you're assumption's wrong because that only applies to the successful ones. Again: Unsuccessful artists don't have the income to be principled
2. Yes he is. He's deny showing them in any light, that is conservative censorship and is probably due to coming from a household that participated in a similar form of censorship, and by being allowed to continue with this behavior he's continuing that censoring behavior. It's ok to admit that you're fine with censorship towards things you might not like, but please stop trying to beat around the bush and say your arguing for civil rights when that's the exact opposite of what you're doing.

1. False. Every artist I know is broke as shit and none of them have made degenerate artwork of two bipedal wolves in Nazi uniforms.
2. Censorship isn’t refusing to provide people with a service. Censorship would be if the guy tried to prevent anyone, even the couple themselves, from recording the wedding.

1. That you know about.
2. Sure it is, a lot of places during the Jim Crow era would try to censor the fact that black people use the establishment by putting them as far from the public eye as possible. Why are you for censorship?

[Cordel One]

Discrimination is discrimination with or without state support.

Freedom is freedom regardless of whether you agree with how a person exercises their freedom.

Discrimination is discrimination with or without state support.

The laws that apply are different. You cannot demand a Catholic Church hold a gay wedding just because the hold weddings.

But a governmental entity probably cannot say they will not have your wedding if they allow others.

Again with the segregationist arguments. We're kinda going around in circles so I'm gonna head somewhere else now, but these people do deserve rights.

[Ors Might]

1. False. Every artist I know is broke as shit and none of them have made degenerate artwork of two bipedal wolves in Nazi uniforms.
2. Censorship isn’t refusing to provide people with a service. Censorship would be if the guy tried to prevent anyone, even the couple themselves, from recording the wedding.

1. That you know about.
2. Sure it is, a lot of places during the Jim Crow era would try to censor the fact that black people use the establishment by putting them as far from the public eye as possible. Why are you for censorship?

1. Fuck, I might be friends with secret furries. GG, mate.
2. I’m sorry that you’ve chosen to be wrong but declining to provide a service isn’t censorship.

[-Ra-]

Freedom is freedom regardless of whether you agree with how a person exercises their freedom.

The laws that apply are different. You cannot demand a Catholic Church hold a gay wedding just because the hold weddings.

But a governmental entity probably cannot say they will not have your wedding if they allow others.

Again with the segregationist arguments. We're kinda going around in circles so I'm gonna head somewhere else now, but these people do deserve rights.

And religious people deserve the right to practice and observe their religion.

Freedom of religion is enshrined in the US constitution. The right of gay people to get married isn't. The former supersedes the latter.

[New haven america]

1. That you know about.
2. Sure it is, a lot of places during the Jim Crow era would try to censor the fact that black people use the establishment by putting them as far from the public eye as possible. Why are you for censorship?

1. Fuck, I might be friends with secret furries. GG, mate.
2. I’m sorry that you’ve chosen to be wrong but declining to provide a service isn’t censorship.

1. No no, you are friends with furries, you just don't know about it yet.
2. So says the individual who's pro-censorship.

[Cordel One]

Again with the segregationist arguments. We're kinda going around in circles so I'm gonna head somewhere else now, but these people do deserve rights.

And religious people deserve the right to practice and observe their religion.

Freedom of religion is enshrined in the US constitution. The right of gay people to get married isn't. The former supersedes the latter.

[Telconi]

And religious people deserve the right to practice and observe their religion.

Freedom of religion is enshrined in the US constitution. The right of gay people to get married isn't. The former supersedes the latter.

Wedding pictures are a necessary condition to life now...

[Ors Might]

1. Fuck, I might be friends with secret furries. GG, mate.
2. I’m sorry that you’ve chosen to be wrong but declining to provide a service isn’t censorship.

1. No no, you are friends with furries, you just don't know about it yet.
2. So says the individual who's pro-censorship.

1. What have I done to deserve this?
2. So says the individual who’s pro-being wrong.

[Novus America]

Freedom is freedom regardless of whether you agree with how a person exercises their freedom.

The laws that apply are different. You cannot demand a Catholic Church hold a gay wedding just because the hold weddings.

But a governmental entity probably cannot say they will not have your wedding if they allow others.

Again with the segregationist arguments. We're kinda going around in circles so I'm gonna head somewhere else now, but these people do deserve rights.

That is just the law. The law allows some forms of private religious and political judgments a public entity cannot make.

Yes they do deserve rights. Both the couple AND the photographer deserve rights.
You miss that last part.
There is a conflict of rights.

Nobody is saying the couple should have no rights.

[Ors Might]

And religious people deserve the right to practice and observe their religion.

Freedom of religion is enshrined in the US constitution. The right of gay people to get married isn't. The former supersedes the latter.

Bruh, it’s a fucking wedding photo.

[-Ra-]

And religious people deserve the right to practice and observe their religion.

Freedom of religion is enshrined in the US constitution. The right of gay people to get married isn't. The former supersedes the latter.

"I want the civil right to force people to be my wedding videographer."

Some civil right huh?

Also comparing religious Christians with the KKK? Stay classy, leftists.

[New haven america]

1. No no, you are friends with furries, you just don't know about it yet.
2. So says the individual who's pro-censorship.

1. What have I done to deserve this?
2. So says the individual who’s pro-being wrong.

1. You decided to be friends with struggling artists.
2. I see the right's trend of unoriginality continues in every facet of life.

[San Lumen]

They can just find another hotel or restaurant too?

It depends. If the couple are in need of necessary shelter or food, then no it should not be legal to deny service. However, if hotel and restaurant is a commodity purchase and the couple can find accommodation elsewhere, then a bed-and-breakfast owner should have the right to deny service to a gay couple.

Why should they be able to? By your logic why shouldn't we repeal the civil rights act?

[Novus America]

And religious people deserve the right to practice and observe their religion.

Freedom of religion is enshrined in the US constitution. The right of gay people to get married isn't. The former supersedes the latter.

Dude, seriously? Where did the photographer say he wanted gays killed? Which actually in the US, but not Canada he would have the right to say.

In other US nobody in that picture is breaking the law. I think the KKK is obviously wrong, but they are not doing anything illegal.

[Cordel One]

"I want the civil right to force people to be my wedding videographer."

Some civil right huh?

Also comparing religious Christians with the KKK? Stay classy, leftists.

Hating gay people isn't a Christian value, most Christians I know would hate being put under that label.

[Ors Might]

1. What have I done to deserve this?
2. So says the individual who’s pro-being wrong.

1. You decided to be friends with struggling artists.
2. I see the right's trend of unoriginality continues in every facet of life.

1. Fair enough. Hang out with degens, learn things about degens.
2. I am only right in the sense that I’m correct in all things. Beyond that, I resent this remark and will be pushing for the legalization of dueling so that I might correct this wrong.

[New haven america]

(Image)

"I want the civil right to force people to be my wedding videographer."

Some civil right huh?

Also comparing religious Christians with the KKK? Stay classy, leftists.

Thank you for showing historical ignorance.

First Egyptian sexuality, now not understanding the history of the KKK, what's next?

[-Ra-]

It depends. If the couple are in need of necessary shelter or food, then no it should not be legal to deny service. However, if hotel and restaurant is a commodity purchase and the couple can find accommodation elsewhere, then a bed-and-breakfast owner should have the right to deny service to a gay couple.

Why should they be able to? By your logic why shouldn't we repeal the civil rights act?

Because serving gay people may be retrograde to their religious beliefs, and forcing them to condone same-sex couples and same-sex activities would be a violation of their religious freedom.

"I want the civil right to force people to be my wedding videographer."

Some civil right huh?

Also comparing religious Christians with the KKK? Stay classy, leftists.

Hating gay people isn't a Christian value, most Christians I know would hate being put under that label.

Not really about hating gay people. It's about staying true to one's religious convictions.

[Telconi]

"I want the civil right to force people to be my wedding videographer."

Some civil right huh?

Also comparing religious Christians with the KKK? Stay classy, leftists.

Hating gay people isn't a Christian value, most Christians I know would hate being put under that label.

I've never video recorded any wedding, does that mean I hate everyone?

[Cordel One]

Hating gay people isn't a Christian value, most Christians I know would hate being put under that label.

Not really about hating gay people. It's about staying true to one's religious convictions.

It's homophobia no matter what you want to call it, and it's not a Christian value.

[San Lumen]

Why should they be able to? By your logic why shouldn't we repeal the civil rights act?

Because serving gay people may be retrograde to their religious beliefs, and forcing them to condone same-sex couples and same-sex activities would be a violation of their religious freedom.

Hating gay people isn't a Christian value, most Christians I know would hate being put under that label.

Not really about hating gay people. It's about staying true to one's religious convictions.

You can believe that but you dont have a right to impose it on others.