Couple rejected after video company says it doesn’t film gay weddings

[Dragonlady]

Maybe Canucks aren't on the gay train.
..Like Trudeau.

Canada has had gay marriage since 2002 - nearly twenty years. The latest update of the Human Rights Code became law in 2008, but it's been illegal to discriminate against gays since 2000, when the original Human Rights Code was passed.

You could have googled that, with your superior "critical thinking skills".

 

[Orangecat]

This is in Canada so I don’t know what the law is.

I'm sure there are many other video companies willing to do the job. If it were my wedding, I'd want people who approved of it to be involved. Choosing someone who disapproves is risking sub-par results as well as the possibility of other drama. Of course, if I were trolling for attention and a lawsuit settlement, I'd certainly sound the alarm on those who don't want to work for me.

 

[Ame®icano]

Well, then find someone else to film your wedding. And be sure to lodge your comments, opinions, and reviews on whatever website they frequent for their business. Let the public know their leanings. That's not cancel culture. The market can decide.
My personal opinion is why waste time getting offended and trying to make a point when it's easier to just go for the jugular...their wallets.

Ok, but we allow them this discrimination...why? Because it is religious? Discrimination like this should not be legal.

Good for them. Nobody should be force to do business or associate with someone against their wishes.

So, cool to hang a "No Blacks!" sign?

It was always cool when Democrats did it.

Except i have been arguing it was not cool. So...wipe that tear away...

If it was not cool, then why Democrats were doing it?

You are quite the simpleton. Plenty of others will happily engage you in that line. Those democrats sucked. Obviously.

Those only?

As much I am concerned, all Democrats sucks. It's simple as that.

 

[Markle]

Please show us where Democrats used religion as a justification for segregation.

No should can look that up. There are extensive writings on this, going back to slavery.

Look at state supreme court rulings on segregation, like in pennsylvania. Look at why Burnett won the governorship of mississippi in 1960. It was at the heart of arguments on the senate floor in debate of the civil rights act.

What you want is special treatment for religion under a discrimination law. In other words, you want a law respecting religion.

So, once again you have nothing. Thank you!

As you know well, the Plessy v Fergusson was a landmark decision by the USSC. Is that decision based on religion?

 

[Markle]

One should be able to determine who one does business with. I just wish they would post it in the window or on their website so as to not waste people's time and I can avoid doing business with them also.

One of my biggest complaints about these business owners is that they hide their views and then spring them on would-be clients instead of being honest in their advertising. Two cases that I actually checked on were that crazy baker in Colorado and a wedding venue. They never said a word on their websites that they would refuse business. Instead, the message to the public was "come to my business." I do, however, support public-accommodation laws that are generally applicable to all business owners.

I also have a question as to whether these business owners would be in favor of all business owners having the right to refuse service on other grounds, such as religion. Would an LGBT business owner have the right to refuse service to someone who is a member of an anti-gay religion? Everyone should have the same rights.

The thing is these people don't want to deny point of sale transactions, or non-customized items, they just don't want to perform one contracted transaction, and even if "sprung" on people, it's not like finding another baker/photographer/florist is that hard.

Would you want to force an hard core Atheist photographer to work at a Christian Fundamentalist wedding?

Yes. Public-accommodation laws serve an important public interest. Allowing refusals of service is a recipe for complete chaos. The photographer is there to provide a service on a for-pay basis. S/he is not a part of the proceedings any more than a waiter at the reception is.

The thing is, you are trying to shift the burden onto an innocent would-be customer when it is the business owner who must shoulder the burden that he or she created for themselves. The business owner advertised that his/her goods or services were available and people came in response to the advertisement. They shouldn't have to be humiliated and then forced to drive around looking for something else. You seem to be expecting that would-be customers must have a crystal ball or something.

The false-advertising issue is separate. Even if we allowed discrimination to override our public-accommodation laws, this issue would remain.

As much I remember, the federal public accommodation laws say you may not discriminate on the basis of "race, color, religion, or national origin". No mention of sexual orientation.

You're right, no mention of sexual orientation but there are seven protected classes. Race, color, religion, national origin, sex, [added in 1974] familial status, and handicap [both in 1989].

 

[Markle]

For more than 45 years, I have regularly needed headshots for promotion. I can't imagine "forcing" a professional photographer to take those photos. Oh, I'm certain they would be among the best I'd ever seen!

 

[Picaro]

One should be able to determine who one does business with. I just wish they would post it in the window or on their website so as to not waste people's time and I can avoid doing business with them also.

One of my biggest complaints about these business owners is that they hide their views and then spring them on would-be clients instead of being honest in their advertising. Two cases that I actually checked on were that crazy baker in Colorado and a wedding venue. They never said a word on their websites that they would refuse business. Instead, the message to the public was "come to my business." I do, however, support public-accommodation laws that are generally applicable to all business owners.

I also have a question as to whether these business owners would be in favor of all business owners having the right to refuse service on other grounds, such as religion. Would an LGBT business owner have the right to refuse service to someone who is a member of an anti-gay religion? Everyone should have the same rights.

The thing is these people don't want to deny point of sale transactions, or non-customized items, they just don't want to perform one contracted transaction, and even if "sprung" on people, it's not like finding another baker/photographer/florist is that hard.

Would you want to force an hard core Atheist photographer to work at a Christian Fundamentalist wedding?

Would an LGBT business owner have the right to refuse service to someone who is a member of an anti-gay religion? Everyone should have the same rights.

There are a couple of businesses in my town that fly the homo pride rainbow flag in front of their store.
I view it as a public service for people who want to avoid entering a store that caters to mentally deranged fudge packers. ...

You definitely don't want to eat at any food place run by faggots, given the list of epidemic diseases they lead the country in spreading.

Currently, the most spreaders of epidemic diseases in the U.S. seem to be right-wing assholes and their ignorant religious cults that have to assemble to do that wave-their-hands-at-God thing that they somehow can't do online.

Bullshit. Any references for that you cum-bucket?

LOL no, she doesn't. The CDC has the lists of diseases faggots have been leading the list of spreading for the few decades. WHO runs hepatitis epidemics every year during 'Gay Pride Month' world wide. Spreading diseases to their fellow faggots and the blood supply and hospitals is a major Gay Pride platform. After all, spreading AIDS around and killing each in sociopathic orgies of mindless self-indulgence generated such a major Pity Party for the mentally ill cretins by other cretins they can now adopt children and own a harem of little boys now. Why should they bother with safe sex?

They almost singledhandedly keep syphilis alive, drug resistant staph infections, and yes, HIV, too; all that 'education' money' is wasted on the mentally ill homo 'community', to name a few. Now the media rush to blame 'The Homeless' in California for the hepatitis outbreaks there.

 

[justinacolmena]

Why don't the two bull dykes just find a homo owned company that caters to lezbo pretend marriages? ...

How does that compare to a Muslim man with four wives? Or say, Jacob (a.k.a. Israel) in the Hebrew Bible, married to Laban's daughters Leah and Rachael, each of whom had her own female maidservant, so that was four women total, too.

Now the media rush to blame 'The Homeless' in California for the hepatitis outbreaks there

'The homeless' are being blamed for all these ills because they lack the financial means to support more than four street women at a time on their block.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Well, then find someone else to film your wedding. And be sure to lodge your comments, opinions, and reviews on whatever website they frequent for their business. Let the public know their leanings. That's not cancel culture. The market can decide.
My personal opinion is why waste time getting offended and trying to make a point when it's easier to just go for the jugular...their wallets.

Ok, but we allow them this discrimination...why? Because it is religious? Discrimination like this should not be legal.

Good for them. Nobody should be force to do business or associate with someone against their wishes.

So, cool to hang a "No Blacks!" sign?

It was always cool when Democrats did it.

Except i have been arguing it was not cool. So...wipe that tear away...

If it was not cool, then why Democrats were doing it?

You are quite the simpleton. Plenty of others will happily engage you in that line. Those democrats sucked. Obviously.

Those only?

As much I am concerned, all Democrats sucks. It's simple as that.

Good for you. We got your baby tantrum out of the way quickly, so that's good.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I can't imagine "forcing" a professional photographer to take those photos

Nobody is being forced to do anything. They have the option to find a different line of work.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

You're right, no mention of sexual orientation but there are seven protected classes

Right, but the supreme court affirmed the ability of the States to pass such laws. Eventually it will be federal law. Just need a few more bigots to die off, first.

 

[Picaro]

I can't imagine "forcing" a professional photographer to take those photos

Nobody is being forced to do anything. They have the option to find a different line of work.

Nobody is forcing demented faggots to run around annoying business people with their sick fetishes, either.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I can't imagine "forcing" a professional photographer to take those photos

Nobody is being forced to do anything. They have the option to find a different line of work.

Nobody is forcing demented faggots to run around annoying business people with their sick fetishes, either.

Neato! But you are a brain damaged, sociopathic idiot, so nobody is paying any mind to that insane opinion

 

[Picaro]

I can't imagine "forcing" a professional photographer to take those photos

Nobody is being forced to do anything. They have the option to find a different line of work.

Nobody is forcing demented faggots to run around annoying business people with their sick fetishes, either.

Neato! But you are a brain damaged, sociopathic idiot, so nobody is paying any mind to that insane opinion

Retarded homo boi forgets about Prop 8, passing in 'liberal' California, and all those latinos his Party is going to flood the country with who don't think his dick sucking fetish is something they want their children to be 'tolerant' of. It's cute how they're in denial, and that worm is going to turn, and sooner than he/she/it/mutant thinks.

 

[Marion Morrison]

That was a restaurant open to the public. Services like videographer are personal services. Personal services should always be discretionary.

So, any job not performed in the public storefront? In other words... most "jobs"? Every single internet service? Every ... landscaper? Every housepainter? Roofer? Housebuilder?

Hmm, no, sorry. That's not going to work.

I don't have to work for anybody I don't want to.

 

[Markle]

I can't imagine "forcing" a professional photographer to take those photos

Nobody is being forced to do anything. They have the option to find a different line of work.

Two people wanted their fifteen minutes of fame. They got it, now hire a photographer and move on with life.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

That was a restaurant open to the public. Services like videographer are personal services. Personal services should always be discretionary.

So, any job not performed in the public storefront? In other words... most "jobs"? Every single internet service? Every ... landscaper? Every housepainter? Roofer? Housebuilder?

Hmm, no, sorry. That's not going to work.

I don't have to work for anybody I don't want to.

I have had two businesses as a career. I had a law office and a dog grooming salon. Whoever walked through that door got whatever service that business offered. Black, green, gay, it didn't matter. I did a divorce between a man and his blow up doll. Gay pet owners have Fluffy's standing spa day every week. When it came to painting, that was a personal service, it was not available to the public. When two lesbians wanted me to paint their portrait I told them to **** off. They sued and the judge agreed with me. Personal services should never be forced. This includes hair stylist, masseuse, counselor, landscaper, house painter and every form of artistic expression.

 

[Ame®icano]

Well, then find someone else to film your wedding. And be sure to lodge your comments, opinions, and reviews on whatever website they frequent for their business. Let the public know their leanings. That's not cancel culture. The market can decide.
My personal opinion is why waste time getting offended and trying to make a point when it's easier to just go for the jugular...their wallets.

Ok, but we allow them this discrimination...why? Because it is religious? Discrimination like this should not be legal.

Good for them. Nobody should be force to do business or associate with someone against their wishes.

So, cool to hang a "No Blacks!" sign?

It was always cool when Democrats did it.

Except i have been arguing it was not cool. So...wipe that tear away...

If it was not cool, then why Democrats were doing it?

You are quite the simpleton. Plenty of others will happily engage you in that line. Those democrats sucked. Obviously.

Those only?

As much I am concerned, all Democrats sucks. It's simple as that.

Good for you. We got your baby tantrum out of the way quickly, so that's good.

OK, how about you name Democrats that doesn't suck?