I can understand why a Christian printer would refuse to print pro-homosexual literature, or a caterer would refuse to cater a union of butt buddies. Heck, I would never design an explicitly pro-sodomite web site. But landscaping? I don't get it.
If a homosexual couple asked me to design a website to sell office supplies, or televisions, or to promote a flower shop or something, I wouldn't think twice about it.
Landscaping a yard for someone is not participating in their sin, for goodness sake.
Exactly.
I agree. And like the book says, "The wealth of the sinners is laid up for the just."
But seriously, didn't Joseph work for an ungodly Pharaoh? Joseph was such a good steward of the Pharaoh's money, that he got promoted and became very rich himself.
I hardly think that Pharaoh was any more righteous than these two homosexuals.
I wouldn't refuse their business for something like that either.
BUT, I support the gardener's freedom to do so.
".......But landscaping? I don't get it."
You just might if you spent your day on your hands and knees with your butt stuck up in the air! As I said on the origunal thread, landscaping and gardening requires you to be in often compromising positions. How'd you like to spend your work day thinking that you were being peered at by some tinkerbell admiring your butt-crack? Not for me.
Besides that, the food I bought with the money earned just wouldn't taste right. Would you shake hands with this guy to "seal the deal"?
I say good for the Garden Guy & his family for taking a stand against these perverts. More should follow his example to let them know they are NOT accepted in our society.
We are contractors in the same general field. We completed a job, and then got to thinking about what this lady's profession was. She worked at an abortion clinic. We thought about it, and almost returned her money with a letter, but then, we decided to give the profit $$ to the local pro-life center.
Perhaps what they should have done was to make their Christian position explicit to their prospective clients, and wait to see if the gay men still wanted to hire them. Chances are they would refuse to give their business to "homophobes" - and no one would raise a peep about discrimination against Christians.
Homosexual sex is NOT a constitutional right and therefore it is STILL not required by a business of public accomodation to require service to. I don't want to see a day where I am required by law to do business with people simply because they can sue me if I don't. As a capitalist, I have the choice in whom I provide service to and any 'bigotry' or bias I might have takes away from my bottom line. And I already willing admit that I do not do business with racists, criminals or liberal activists. I don't care that it costs me income personally because I am paying for the luxury of doing business only with people I enjoy servicing. I already have the luxury of not doing business with people I think are too stupid to appreciate my value. Fortunately, that isn't yet illegal.
Homosexual sex is NOT a constitutional right and therefore it is STILL not required by a business of public accomodation to require service to. I don't want to see a day where I am required by law to do business with people simply because they can sue me if I don't. As a capitalist, I have the choice in whom I provide service to and any 'bigotry' or bias I might have takes away from my bottom line. And I already willing admit that I do not do business with racists, criminals or liberal activists. I don't care that it costs me income personally because I am paying for the luxury of doing business only with people I enjoy servicing. I already have the luxury of not doing business with people I think are too stupid to appreciate my value. Fortunately, that isn't yet illegal.
Well, I think they view it as participating in their "setting up housekeeping," so to speak. They should have the right to freedom of association. And frankly I cannot identify with the "what about all sinners" argument. Okay. What about NAMBLA members? See, no one would think they should be forced to do landscaping for known NAMBLA members even though apparently the group can legally exist. So the "What about all other sinners" argument is really a statement about the person making the argument. They don't find homosexuality repulsive enough to warrant that response. Fine. They don't have to. But give this couple their right to differ.
Maybe the packers wanted lewd or suggestive trimmings.
A lot of people think that being principled means turning off their brain at the door.
Perhaps some folks' principles are more strongly-held than yours.
By taking this position, nobody can say to the Farbers,
"Well, you SAY you oppose queers, but you're willing to take their money!"
My guess is that the Farbers will come out ahead on this. There are still a few decent people in Houston.