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

[Ame®icano]

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

So?

Find a different company.

No brainer

But, but, but muh feelingssssss.

 

[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.

 

[Ame®icano]

A crime is a crime, but since when is turning down a job a crime?

Well, for example, refusing to serve black people became a crime in 1964.

It's no coincidence, but that's right about time when Democrats were forced to start serving them.

 

[Ame®icano]

I'd have no issues photographing this.

I would expect that there are an abundance of qualified photographers/videographers that would be willing to take the gig which is all the more reason not to penalize this one company that will not do it.

But this faggot couple wanted exactly this one to make them a "wedding" video. But no worries, it's just coincidence.

 

[Ame®icano]

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

Because they're sick mentally ill attention whores, is all, and they know most of the media is, too.

My pop used to tell me "if you get rejected, and you will be, there is 90% chance it happened cause you acted like an asshole, and 10% chance is that you became one."

 

[martybegan]

Which is the Thought. 1984 was a warning, not an instruction manual.

Well that was a vapid, useless post.

Spot on, Mr. Charrington.

 

[Ame®icano]

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

So?

Find a different company.

No brainer

Is this your position on stores requiring masks?

I avoided several businesses that required masks so yes. What a dumb question.

Masks are now mandated by the government so I dunno wtf that has to do with this.

I don't mind wearing the mask if business requires it. Their business, their rules.

I do mind if government required it under threat of penalty, without legislation.

 

[martybegan]

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.

Photography contracted for an event is not a PA. You can try to justify forcing them all you want.

Sorry, but having to find another caterer/photographer/florist is not at the same level of being forced to do something you don't want to do or give up your business in this case.

You just hate religious people and anyone who doesn't think JUST LIKE YOU.

 

[martybegan]

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?

 

[Ame®icano]

I don't refuse homo customers. In fact I have a whole little circle of them in town.
2 hot blondes own one of the hottest night spots there, I have a stack of free entrance tickets. (will never use)
They're really cool, too.
I'm not a photographer or wedding planner, though.

Plumber?

 

[Ame®icano]

Yes, it is, in fact, different and it is because of religion.

Thank you for making my point for me. We don't give them special treatment under laws, because that would be a law respecting religion. Will you be assisting me for the whole thread?

By the way...the racist pukes used the same religion based horseshit to argue for segregation and discrimination against blacks. Didn't work, in the end. So you are on not just the wrong side of morailty, but also of history.

Quick reminder, that segregationists were all Democrats.

 

[Ame®icano]

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.

 

[Ame®icano]

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

Since Canadians are not rioting, then video company must be Muslim owned.

What does "rioting," as little as it is actually occurring in the U.S., have anything to do with either Canada or that nation's Muslim citizens? Is there an actual point to your comment?

There is, but your limitations are not my responsibility.

I could draw it to you, and it still would be too hard for you to understand.

I recommend you try few more times, and if still having trouble with it, I'll help you out.

 

[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...

 

[Ame®icano]

I have no doubt there are many video companies who will be happy to take their money and film their wedding just go find one.

Well, to me it looks like they're not interested in doing business with companies who would happily accept them. They're on a prowl for those who don't.

 

[Ame®icano]

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.

If so, than how do you explain that most spreading is in leftists communities?

 

[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?

 

[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.

 

[Dragonlady]

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

Discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is illegal under the Ontario Human Rights Code. Violations are reported to the Tribunal and dealt with in a hearing, but I couldn't find out what the fines would be.

Policy on discrimination and harassment because of sexual orientation | Ontario Human Rights Commission

www.ohrc.on.ca

The only other similar case I've heard of is a jeweller in Toronto who refused to make wedding rings for a gay couple, but I don't know how that case turned out. Results from Tribunal hearings tend not to be big news.

 

[Papageorgio]

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.

I agree, no gays, no blacks, no Jews. Put it in the window and be done with it.