I don't know about it being okay, as that is a pretty ambiguous word, but it should certainly be legal for privately owned business to choose to serve or not serve whomever they want, IMO. If a company doesn't want to serve blacks, women, homosexuals, whites, men, or any other group you would like to come up with, they are only reducing their customer base. If you are one of the people they are not serving, find an alternative. Public entities must serve everyone, but people should be able to control their own businesses.
And it's perfectly legal for them to be subsequently lambasted for said behavior (death threats being an exception obviously) and run out of business for being openly bigoted. Capitalism at work!
While the letter of the law allows you to refuse to serve anyone you choose - I mean, you can white men only golf courses...that doesn't mean it is right to do so. These guys deserve the criticism - perhaps not the harrassment, but definitely the criticism. You can discriminate all you want. But people can say whatever they want in response. See this is real discrimination. Not calling someone a *** or whatever...but actually denying someone a service because of who they are is just sick in my opinion. I hope they get run out of business. I'm glad the world doesn't tolerate intolerance when it comes to discrimination.
There are laws to prevent discrimination. I believe private or public entities are all subjects under those laws. I don't have enough knowledge to be certain. Maybe some legal experts can chime in and comment. But my understanding is always that, one can think whatever one likes, but one can not always do whatever one wants to.
You're thinking of China. Here you can do whatever it is you want so long as it doesn't hurt someone else's rights or endanger another person. The equal rights amendment has not been passed.
At least a dozen states, including ny and ca, and most major cities have added sexual orientation to their anti-discrimination laws.
Didn't you put me on ignore? Now you also know what I am thinking of? Anyways, what do you mean by saying I am thinking China. Actually, in China, discrimination against gender and age in working places is still allowed, not legally allowed, but common practice. With all the messages I got from all the US companies about they are equal opportunity etc, I thought it's mandatory. But I also said I am not knowledgable enough to be certain on that, and need opinion of others.
Oh, I never claimed otherwise. Just as they can choose who not to work for, people can choose not to hire them. In fact, in selecting your gardener, you are free not to hire bigots, men, women, heterosexuals, homosexuals, blacks, whites, latinos, etc. I have no problem with people getting up in arms over them not working for homosexuals (I wouldn't because though it is an idiotic position to take, it doesn't seem like that big a deal to me, it is there business). I just don't think they should face legal action because of that stance.
you are on ignore...but i sneaked a look at your post anyway. look, if you want to stay civil and not call other posters morons and idiots even when you're upset...then i will listen to your arguments...just don't personalize it ok? i think a company can claim to be equal opportunity if it follows certain guidelines....
I do not want to derail this thread, especially when it's an interesting topic. However, I would like to clarify a couple of things. I never called anyone moron or idiot, and I never insulted any poster personally, beside you. If someone calls me names, I don't take it seriously. But I don't take generalized and ethnic group based offense lightly. Some of your flamebaiting towards Chinese people as a whole, and "Chinese posters", were very offensive, in my opinion. Therefore, the name calling. However, I was still trying to stay on topic. If you stop generalization, I will stop personalization. Deal? I believe that one is responsible for himself, and one only represents himself. I like to discuss case by case individually, and person by person individually. "To be certain is the opposite of being open-minded" is certainly a beautiful quote.
It's a big conclusion to jump to when you say that someone hates homosexuals because they choose to not accept a landscaping job. I can't stand it when people want to put words in people's mouths and thoughts in their heads. That gardening couple did not in any way infringe on anyone's rights. The two dudes are free to call another landscaper instead of trying to bring down someone's business for no practical reason. This is America, people have the right to believe what they want to believe without getting death threats. It's amazing to me that people will get all bent out of shape about something like this, but meanwhile somebody gets drunk and kills someone with their car, gets out of jail in a year or so (or doesn't even go to jail) and not much of a stink is made. Priorities are really screwed up in society.
ask someone about jesus. they'll say, "kind. loving. compassionate. gives grace to sinners." ask the same person about the church, and you will get the opposite. what is wrong with this picture? this reminds me of the many e-mails i've written to westboro baptist church but have never sent. i begin writing, trying to be level-headed and understanding, and then it eventually branches out into a full-blown hateful attack on them. i honestly can't understand christians who lambast homosexuals. it's one thing to be rigid in your beliefs, but my god. my heart sinks every time i hear about more hate and intolerance toward people by christians. aren't followers of jesus instructed to love everyone? shouldn't these people, created by the hand of god, be allowed to live the lives everyone else lives? seriously, why do so many evangelical christians judge their brother? what about the speck and the plank? we need to focus on our own inequities, we will all have to stand before god and his righteous judgment one day. jesus is so different than the modern church, it's just mind blowing. those people have it all wrong. their letter clearly implies they are trying to start a crusade, and honestly, i think it's disturbing.
Anti discrimination laws are designed to protect people from discrimination based on race, ethnic group, sex, disability, and in many states and cities sexual orientation. The gardners discriminated against the couple based on their sexual orientation, and in many states and most large cities this is illegal. They should have come up with another excuse if they didn't want to work for this couple. it was a big mistake to put in writing their reason.
nobody can stop generalizing. we wouldn't be able to debate if we had to list every generalization we make - we all know it's there. but c'mon...you aren't in the name calling business....i can reproduce all those posts where you called me a clown and such....but i don't care to rehash all of that. there's no deal real_egal....there's just being cival and accepting the way i post or there is the personal attacks which i won't tolerate. whatever i am as a person or who you are as a person is completely irrelevant to this board....it's debate and discussion - and only the topic at hand matters. so if you are willing to do that, then fine...but it's an unconditional offer. i should not have to barter for civility not matter how caustic you find my posts... there's nothing else to say.
If a popular, well-respected or prestigious business decides to exclude groups that are already a small portion of their clientele, other business that want to emulate them will follow suit. That creates de-facto discrimination that would bring about the same economic disparities as historical de-jure discrimination.
Would a business be popular and well-respected if they were discriminitory in their practices? The response to this Garden Guy incident suggests not.
