Houston Landscaper Refuses To Work For Gay Customers

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by KingYaba, Oct 22, 2006.

  1. KingYaba macrumors 68040

    KingYaba

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2005
    Location:
    Up the irons
    #1
    Here is the story

    So what do you think? Is this guy right/wrong for refusing service to the paying customer?

    I think he is a fool, the man (who happens to be gay) is a paying customer and should be treated as such. Just because you don't like gay marriage does not mean this individual advocates for it. Secondly, you promise a service and if you can't keep it, at least come up with a better excuse! :rolleyes:

    But here is a thought, how did he find out the customer was gay? Did he assume? Or did the customer openely delcare he was gay? If he assumed... uh oh
     
  2. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #2
    I am puzzled as to the meaning of the phrase "homosexual behaviour". What is "homosexual behaviour", and what makes "heterosexual behaviour" any better?
     
  3. KingYaba thread starter macrumors 68040

    KingYaba

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2005
    Location:
    Up the irons
    #3
    It is instances like this that makes Texas look even more redneck/close-minded than it actually is.

    Not that being a redneck is a bad thing... you get my point.

    I bet many who read this article are shaking their heads and thinking what a dumbass
     
  4. jsw Moderator emeritus

    jsw

    Joined:
    Mar 16, 2004
    Location:
    Andover, MA
    #4
    It's impossible to explain the concept to people like you. Heterosexual behavior is better simply because it is not homosexual behavior, and homosexual behavior is bad because it isn't heterosexual behavior.

    I'm unclear as to why homosexual behavior is any different than behavior between heterosexuals, when at least one of them is infertile or using birth control, but it's not up to me to decide what's wrong. I let other people tell me. BTW, note the sig below...
     
  5. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #5
    Personally, I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt. :)
     
  6. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #6
    I did catch the merest whiff of irony... :D
     
  7. Dont Hurt Me macrumors 603

    Dont Hurt Me

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2002
    Location:
    Yahooville S.C.
    #7
    Another moron judging others when he has no right to, Maybe he should be judged?
     
  8. mpw Guest

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2004
    #8
    From my, male heterosexual point of view, I'm gonna say boobies. :D

    Love and let love I say.
     
  9. AP_piano295 macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2005
    #9
    Hmmm i wonder if they also refuse to work for black people...

    In my opinion the gay marriage issue is just another example of people attempting to secure their rights as citizens. So to me refusing to work for gays (simply because they are gay) is every bit as bad as refusing to work for someone based on their race.

    This company is scum
     
  10. someguy macrumors 68020

    someguy

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2005
    Location:
    Still here.
    #10
    Not that I think it's fair or moral by any means, but isn't it this guy's right to choose who he will and will not work for?

    That said, what a homophobe. ;)
     
  11. KingYaba thread starter macrumors 68040

    KingYaba

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2005
    Location:
    Up the irons
    #11
    Because it's morally detrimental? I think this is in that category of not serving due to someone's race.
     
  12. Dont Hurt Me macrumors 603

    Dont Hurt Me

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2002
    Location:
    Yahooville S.C.
    #12
    Just as Govt has no business in anyones personal lives or bedroom same goes for this person. Perhaps the public should know what positions he uses and if he or his wife have oral sex and the like? Another Bible thumper who seems to miss many of Jesus teachings. It doesnt surprise though after all we have a president who bombed the hell out of another country with no WMDs and has the nerve to call himself a Christian. I wonder what Jesus would say?
     
  13. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #13
    Ethically or legally? Clearly he's a bigot, but under the law as it stands today, he's got a right to his bigotry.
     
  14. CanadaRAM macrumors G5

    CanadaRAM

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2004
    Location:
    On the Left Coast - Victoria BC Canada
    #14
    What IJ says.

    You can disagree with his personal beliefs, but you cannot deny him them.

    You can disagree with the business choice to reflect those beliefs publically in his business communications, but you cannot deny him the right to be principled/stubborn/stupid/bigoted take your pick what you call it.

    And you cannot deny him the right to refuse any customer - whether they are pink, brown, professional, blue collar, right, left, religious or athiest or just because the business owner doesn't like the name "George".

    Take a moment to extend that thought. If a person cannot choose -- discriminate-- between the clients they will work for, then the state compels them to serve everybody. Including crooks, people who have caused trouble for the business already, people who have no means to pay, and people wearing sheets who spray paint hate slogans on the business wall while ordering a new shrubbery.

    It's the same with the pharmacist who won't dispense the morning after pill. You may disagree, but you cannot force a business to carry and sell a product.
     
  15. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #15
    Well, I qualified my answer. I don't think this sort of discrimination should be legal. Laws protecting people from discrimination on the basis of their sexual orientation haven't caught up to the laws already prohibiting discrimination on the basis of race and religion. Yet. I expect they will, some day.
     
  16. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #16
    Eh... I don't see what the big stinky deal is here. As a private citizen and business owner, he should be able to do business with whomever he wants. Of course his professional organization is also well within it's rights to expel him if he doesn't meet their values.

    And the general public has the right to be revolted by this guy's behavior, and seek other landscaping options. Or be exceedingly loyal customers.
     
  17. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #17
    We long ago rejected this logic where race and religion are concerned. Maybe if employers started advertising "homosexuals need not apply" and restaurants began posting "we refuse to serve gays" signs, the issue might be brought into sharper relief.
     
  18. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #18
    A business owner can do whatever he wants, but he also needs to remember how stupid he can look while doing it.

    He also needs to remeber that he's running a business, not a church. If he chooses not to do business with a certain group of people on this basis, he must understand that it could potentially harm his business.

    That said, that guy's an a**hole.
     
  19. mactastic macrumors 68040

    mactastic

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2003
    Location:
    Colly-fornia
    #19
    As an employee, you should not take a job that you cannot fulfill. If a pharmacy owner decides not to stock something, fine. But if you take a job for someone who does something you disagree with, that's your problem. Otherwise you can have vegans refusing to sell you meat at the grocery store, and Earth First!ers who could refuse to sell you gasoline or let you into a national park.
     
  20. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #20
    Actually, no, he can't. Discrimination in many forms is illegal. But I notice this point is being ignored, which is.... interesting.
     
  21. yg17 macrumors G5

    yg17

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2004
    Location:
    St. Louis, MO
    #21
    Ditto. People are ignoring it because it's a small business. If this was Wal-Mart or any other nationwide company, they'd have a huge discrimination lawsuit on their hands
     
  22. CanadaRAM macrumors G5

    CanadaRAM

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2004
    Location:
    On the Left Coast - Victoria BC Canada
    #22
    Discrimination in employment, and other areas are protected where it intersects with employment equity, school admissions, public transportation (unless you look like someone Homeland Security would be interested in but that's a whole 'nother kettle), and other areas of public interest.

    I am not aware that discrimination on the basis of any grounds is protected in the context of a private business contract. Anyone have links to legislation? I am willing to be convinced otherwise.

    For example, if I want to offer a discount to members of my Rotary Club, there is nothing obligating me to extend that to any other group.

    Again, the guy is in my opinion an AssHat, but he is (as far as I know) entitled to be one.
     
  23. IJ Reilly macrumors P6

    IJ Reilly

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2002
    Location:
    Palookaville
    #23
    I don't know about Canada, but in the United States it is illegal to discriminate on the basis of race, creed, color, sex or religion in employment, housing or other forms of public accommodation. Some of this law was established by Congress, some by the Supreme Court. I don't claim to be an expert on the intricacies of the law, but I do know that a line is quickly crossed from strictly private to sufficiently public such that discrimination is not allowed. Funny you should mention Rotary because that is one organization which did not admit women as members in the U.S. until the mid-1980s, when the Supreme Court decided that it was not legal to exclude them.
     
  24. Ugg macrumors 68000

    Ugg

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2003
    Location:
    Penryn
    #24
    Pharmacies are public services and therefore required to stock certain items by law. The morning after pill is a special case and as expected, blue states require it to be stocked, red states have a patchwork of laws regarding whether it should be or not. Similar arguments were made regarding birth control pills back in the 70s. Few pharmacists have problems with them now.

    For a brief rundown on the issue, check out this article.

    Hospitals are also required to stock the morning after pill, even those that have a religious affiliation.
     
  25. CanadaRAM macrumors G5

    CanadaRAM

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2004
    Location:
    On the Left Coast - Victoria BC Canada
    #25
    Yup -- the question is whether this is legally extended to private contracts as opposed to areas of public interest.
     

Share This Page