[leekil]

EDIT: Oh, and it happened to be a gay wedding! If there *is* any official prohibition against homosexuality, it would be in the Old Testament, not the New, but apparently this didn't affect her job either.

[redrockcoulee]

I guess you're right about the jurisdiction. However, as I feel it, as long as we talk about PRIVATE business (i.e. not public services, health care or education), the owner should have the right to decide who will be his customer.

The pub owner should decide if smoking will be allowed. And if I get another drink, or not

The flat owner should decide to whom he will rent it.

Etc., etc.

It's illusory to think that by rolling up some regulations the world could become better place.

During WWII my aunt could not be hired at Eaton's selling candy and my mother was not allowed to become a nurse because they were Jewish. That cannot happen today in Canada. I think these rules are for the better today.

I do rent out houses and I get to decide who I will accept and who I will not but not based on anything other than I how thing this particular person or couple will be as tenants but not based on their religion or colour or sexual orientation. While my mother and sister were discriminated against in the work place my father was putting his life on the line fighting for his country and ending up almost dying on Juno Beach on D-Day. I for one do not wish to go back to the days where minority rights are upon the whims of the majority. This photographer should have acted professional with his potential clients. There as a time in that province when just being either French or English would result in discrimination from the other group. Do your job or explain why it is too difficult and help them find someone who is totally professional to do their job.

For many people it is not always easy to find someone else to serve them sure you can in Montreal but what about very small towns where there might only be one or two in any one profession or serve. Quebec and Canadian laws prevail over personal views.

[SpecialK]

"Nip this in the butt at the time of hire and you can save yourself a lot of heat after the fact."

Bud. The phrase you were reaching for is "nip it in the bud."

But is funnier as "butt", which many people use for that reason.

[ffking]

With or without religion you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.

Mmm - I acknowledge that you're just paraphrasing somebody else's quote, but to to me that's a slick soundbite that bears little relation to observed reality - mostly because I don't think that there are such things as good or evil people.

[zzeitg]

During WWII my aunt could not be hired at Eaton's selling candy and my mother was not allowed to become a nurse because they were Jewish. That cannot happen today in Canada. I think these rules are for the better today.

I do rent out houses and I get to decide who I will accept and who I will not but not based on anything other than I how thing this particular person or couple will be as tenants but not based on their religion or colour or sexual orientation. While my mother and sister were discriminated against in the work place my father was putting his life on the line fighting for his country and ending up almost dying on Juno Beach on D-Day. I for one do not wish to go back to the days where minority rights are upon the whims of the majority. This photographer should have acted professional with his potential clients. There as a time in that province when just being either French or English would result in discrimination from the other group. Do your job or explain why it is too difficult and help them find someone who is totally professional to do their job.

For many people it is not always easy to find someone else to serve them sure you can in Montreal but what about very small towns where there might only be one or two in any one profession or serve. Quebec and Canadian laws prevail over personal views.

I think it's about finding a balance between minorities' and majority rights. What I think is that if you push the majority too hard, you can finally (unwillingly) make the minority life more difficult. What's the point in pushing the photographer to do a job he dislikes? Who would wish to hire for a wedding a guy pissed that he has to do such job? It gives no sense.

[Wired]

I'm very impressed with the civility here, this has been a very good discussion. Our Facebook page admin locked our thread after 70 or so comments because two factions started fighting within the group

[DougieD]

I don't think you can legislate solutions to these issues. At least, not in a way that will make everyone happy. Both sexual orientation and religious rights are protected in Canada. Distinguishing between businesses offering a service and the real people behind the business who actually have to perform the service seems superficial to me. If this case were to go to litigation, one party or the other is going to feel like their rights were trampled. That's a pretty safe bet. And they might be right, too!

I support the photographer here. But is there a limit to religious freedom? Certainly no one would argue that head hunters should be allowed to practice their religion unfettered!

[arnold]

I don't condone that kind of response. And I understand and respect the perspective of photographers in this case. But...how do you prevent personal preference not turning into discrimination? How do you prevent a photographer specializing in "Wedding photography for straight white couples."?

Personal preference IS discrimination; it is a matter of choosing with whom you wish to associate. Freedom of association is essential in a free society; the alternative relies on force. Live and let live is my code of conduct. If someone wouldn't deal with me because they didn't like the colour of my hair, I would respect their right to choose, even though I thought my dwindling supply of hair was just fine.

---------- Post added 07-02-17 at 08:38 ----------

I think it's about finding a balance between minorities' and majority rights. What I think is that if you push the majority too hard, you can finally (unwillingly) make the minority life more difficult. What's the point in pushing the photographer to do a job he dislikes? Who would wish to hire for a wedding a guy pissed that he has to do such job? It gives no sense.

There are no minority or majority rights, only individual rights.

[pakinjapan]

Montreal photographer allegedly refuses to shoot gay wedding | CTV News
How would you respond to this if the wedding has elements you were not comfortable with shooting?

I would politely let the couples know the fact that I am not comfortable to do this but I will have to do it by the law. Knowing the fact, if the couple still want to me to do it, then I will just have do it.

by the way, I am not belonged to any religion. So if it makes money, it is unlikely I will refuse the opportunity

[yucatanPentax]

I don't think you can legislate solutions to these issues. At least, not in a way that will make everyone happy. Both sexual orientation and religious rights are protected in Canada. Distinguishing between businesses offering a service and the real people behind the business who actually have to perform the service seems superficial to me. If this case were to go to litigation, one party or the other is going to feel like their rights were trampled. That's a pretty safe bet. And they might be right, too!

I support the photographer here. But is there a limit to religious freedom? Certainly no one would argue that head hunters should be allowed to practice their religion unfettered!

I'm curious as to what religion has the principle tenant as: "You cannot provide a service to anyone having a gay marriage."
Just as no religion has a central principle of: "White people should not marry Black people," it seems to me that a sort of distortion of "religious beliefs" is taking place in the mind of the Toronto photographer. The central principles of Christianity are laid out (sometimes differing somewhat by various factions). "Gay marriage" is not found among them. No one is prevented from practicing their religion by providing a service to gay marriages. In fact, there are many strong arguments in the words of Christ for actually providing the services.

For the sake of argument, let's say there existed the "Church of No Gay Marriage." You can practice not getting "gay married" all day long. But when it comes to other people in society, you cannot force them to comply with your religious beliefs. Freedom of Religion does not include compulsory imposition of beliefs upon other people. Or denial of services to others based upon your beliefs. *** "your" does not refer to DougieD, but everyone in general.

The line of Religious Freedom is one frequently encountered. Should American Indians be allowed to use Peyote? Should Grateful Dead followers be allowed to freely smoke weed? Should Christian Identity White Nationalists be allowed to attack people of color? The line is not affecting other people. You are free to believe your beliefs, but not deprive other people.

If your practice or belief affects only you, I believe you should be allowed to carry on. If your belief or practice affects others, negatively, then that's where government has a role, because government is where people come together to decide how people live among one another.

"Your right to freely swing your arms ends where my nose begins." Fundamental human rights. Long-standing law.

"Your right to swing your arms ends just where the other man's nose begins."

Zechariah Chafee -- "Freedom of Speech in Wartime", 32 Harvard Law Review 932, 957 (1919).

[zzeitg]

I would politely let the couples know the fact that I am not comfortable to do this but I will have to do it by the law. Knowing the fact, if the couple still want to me to do it, then I will just have do it.

I'm wondering if this is how it feels to be mentally (or emotionally?) raped

[Rondec]

I just think the biggest question as a photographer is whether you can adequately take care of the couple's needs.

This should not be about sexual orientation and I question whether as a photographer you are "supporting" gay marriage anyway. You are documenting something that is happening and would happen regardless of whether or not you are there. There are still plenty of non-sexual orientation reasons why a photographer would bow out and if I was on the other side of the table and the photographer told me he/she didn't think their style of photography would fit my needs, I would accept that at face value and seek another photographer.

I do question the value of suing folks to get them to do something they don't want to do. It feels like if anything it stirs up the hatred and antagonism, rather than hopefully getting them to leave their stereotypes behind.

[yucatanPentax]

I'm wondering if this is how it feels to be mentally (or emotionally?) raped

On either side of the question, right?

[leekil]

I'm wondering if this is how it feels to be mentally (or emotionally?) raped

The quick answer is "No". But maybe if you explained your idea more there could be more of a discussion on it?

[RobA_Oz]

Without wanting to take this in an unintended direction, the core problem (or, perhaps more accurately, one of them) seems to be one of definition. I use the following as a working definition of religion: the social organisation of a set of irrational beliefs. Note that I also use "irrational" dispassionately, as in "not able to be proven using rational processes". With social organisation comes a lot of extraneous attitudes and practices that may or may not have anything to do with the original set of beliefs, and hence (ultimately) the feelings of discomfort (at the least) that some people, even against their own rationality, may experience in certain situations. You have to feel sorry for people put in this situation, through no conscious act of their own, but with the weight of generations of behaviour bearing down on them.