Our City Online

Messageboard - General Columbus Discussion

NOTE: You are viewing an archived version of the Columbus Underground forums/messageboard. As of 05/22/16 they have been closed to new comments and replies, but will remain accessible for archived searches and reference. For more information CLICK HERE

Videography Company in Bexley Refusing Service to Same-Sex Couples

Home Forums General Columbus Discussion Videography Company in Bexley Refusing Service to Same-Sex Couples

Viewing 15 posts - 91 through 105 (of 114 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #1067707
    Friendoffacts
    Friendoffacts
    Participant

    Wow, it looks like the couple has reached out to some heavy hitters to get the word out…

    Via @equalityNOWohio
    (their twitter)

    Huffington Post
    George Takaei
    The Ellen Show
    Elle Magazine
    Gaylaxy Magazine
    The Wedding Ringer (Sony Pictures)
    NBC News (national)
    New York Post
    New York Times
    BBC News
    CNN
    Human Rights Watch
    And others….

    #1067710
    Snarf
    Snarf
    Participant

    Well if that’s not proof of the war on Christianity, I don’t know what is.

    America’s going to straight to hell with thanks to these sodomites!

    #1067720

    MRipley
    Participant

    Why do you think actions should not have consequences? I haven’t seen anyone advocate for ruining the woman’s life. I have seen people advocate taking their business elsewhere, along with calling a spade a spade in doing so. She made a choice, but now she is supposed to get a pass because it may cost her her business? That’s not how life ever works. If she loses her business, it’s because of her own decisions. It’s ridiculous to act like people have no responsibility in what they do and say.

    LOL, exactly what actions did the video maker take against the couple? Seem more like she was exercising her right to inaction based on her beliefs. You and others are doing nothing but creating severe consequences for the photog BECAUSE they don’t follow your belief.

    #1067727
    Coremodels
    Coremodels
    Participant

    her right to inaction based on her beliefs.

    “he and others” are exercising their own, very real rights by publicly condemning the practice of discrimination and allowing everyone who hears to vote with their wallet.

    The right to discriminate via “inaction based on her beliefs” is just about out of time everywhere, although Bexley remains a holdout…but just maybe, this incident will spur Bexley into joining the City of Columbus in extending their protection to sexual orientation.

    Oh, and the actions the video company took was telling someone “we don’t serve your kind”. In this country, that’s unacceptable behavior…even for libertarian dicks.

    #1067729

    DavidF
    Participant

    <div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>jbcmh81 wrote:</div>
    Why do you think actions should not have consequences? I haven’t seen anyone advocate for ruining the woman’s life. I have seen people advocate taking their business elsewhere, along with calling a spade a spade in doing so. She made a choice, but now she is supposed to get a pass because it may cost her her business? That’s not how life ever works. If she loses her business, it’s because of her own decisions. It’s ridiculous to act like people have no responsibility in what they do and say.

    LOL, exactly what actions did the video maker take against the couple? Seem more like she was exercising her right to inaction based on her beliefs. You and others are doing nothing but creating severe consequences for the photog BECAUSE they don’t follow your belief.

    Like not serving people because of the color of their skin? It’s just inaction based on beliefs. Shame on anyone who would call them out for that.

    #1067731

    DavidF
    Participant

    The weird thing for me, is all the whackos libertarians going on about their right not to do something based on their religious beliefs, but then calling out others for exercising their actual right of free speech.

    #1067733

    Walter_White
    Participant

    The weird thing for me, is all the whackos libertarians going on about their right not to do something based on their religious beliefs, but then calling out others for exercising their actual right of free speech.

    Nobody is complaining about people voicing their free speech. In fact, I have enjoyed this thread and think the vast majority of comments have some merit to them. What bothers me is that people read this article and are rightfully upset – then they go on wedding websites and trash the place in reviews. They set up Facebook pages to boycott the company. This is all an attempt to shut the business down because the business owner’s beliefs doesn’t match their own.

    Taking joy in shutting down a family business because their beliefs are different than yours is not something I fully understand

    #1067735
    Friendoffacts
    Friendoffacts
    Participant

    I think the couple’s behavior is dick-ish….but whatevs.

    #1067736

    pez
    Participant

    Wow, it looks like the couple has reached out to some heavy hitters to get the word out…

    Via @equalityNOWohio<br>
    (their twitter)

    Huffington Post<br>
    George Takaei<br>
    The Ellen Show<br>
    Elle Magazine<br>
    Gaylaxy Magazine<br>
    The Wedding Ringer (Sony Pictures)<br>
    NBC News (national)<br>
    New York Post<br>
    New York Times<br>
    BBC News<br>
    CNN<br>
    Human Rights Watch<br>
    And others….

    The scorched earth approach to dispute resolution may end up backfiring when she goes to find a job though.

    #1067754

    jbcmh81
    Participant

    <div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>jbcmh81 wrote:</div>
    Why do you think actions should not have consequences? I haven’t seen anyone advocate for ruining the woman’s life. I have seen people advocate taking their business elsewhere, along with calling a spade a spade in doing so. She made a choice, but now she is supposed to get a pass because it may cost her her business? That’s not how life ever works. If she loses her business, it’s because of her own decisions. It’s ridiculous to act like people have no responsibility in what they do and say.

    LOL, exactly what actions did the video maker take against the couple? Seem more like she was exercising her right to inaction based on her beliefs. You and others are doing nothing but creating severe consequences for the photog BECAUSE they don’t follow your belief.

    Again, the action was making a choice to not only deny service, but to go ahead and make it about personal beliefs. She is fully allowed to do that, and that’s not the issue as much as you want to make it that. The issue is that she did and said something that is becoming increasingly out-of-sync with modern society. It would be no different than if she had denied service because they were black. Why should people simply look the other way and tolerate that? No one forced her to deny service. No one forced her to go out of her way and give people ammunition by stating her beliefs. She did that. So how the holy hell is it anyone else’s problem that her business may now be threatened because of it? She did the action, she created the consequences.

    If you want to support her, fine. Go ahead. Drum up some business for her. As with the Chick-Fil-A case, there are plenty of people out there who just get so giddy over supporting businesses that stick it to the gays, so who knows. Maybe her business will skyrocket.

    #1067777
    Coremodels
    Coremodels
    Participant

    I think the couple’s behavior is dick-ish….but whatevs.

    Right? The nerve of that couple being upset that someone refused to do business with them because of who they are. Next thing you know the women and coloreds will want to vote.

    #1067778
    Friendoffacts
    Friendoffacts
    Participant

    So you’re saying an individuals behavior is above reproach, because, you know, they’re “queer”?

    #1067784
    Coremodels
    Coremodels
    Participant

    So you’re saying an individuals behavior is above reproach, because, you know, they’re “queer”?

    I’m saying that anyone who thinks calling out bigotry and discrimination is “dickish” is probably carrying around enough bigotry of their own.

    #1067796

    Matthew
    Participant

    I am probably the only gay on the planet to say this – but – who cares? Go somewhere else. So say we force a small business person by law or otherwise to serve us against their beliefs, yippee hooray we win. Think it will be a positive experience on your big day? Think again. I’m not going to share my wedding day with bigots if I can help it. I’m glad this chick is open enough to tell me she hates me because I might have otherwise spent my hard earned money to support her shitty bigoted lifestyle and that would have hurt me more than being turned down.

    #1067797
    Friendoffacts
    Friendoffacts
    Participant

    Cool. I tend to think that publicity hungry “queers” with pedestrian credentials attempting to slacktivate a difficult issue with supreme court level complexity are an embarrassment to real progress and dialogue.

Viewing 15 posts - 91 through 105 (of 114 total)

The forum ‘General Columbus Discussion’ is closed to new topics and replies.

KEEP LOCAL JOURNALISM HEALTHY.

Local journalism is more important than ever. Please take a moment to read a bit about our mission and consider financially supporting our cause.

CLICK HERE