They are trying to bring down the people's business because they are bigoted, not for no reason. There is reason to want people who run their business based on bigotry to be forced out of business. You are right that none of us know if hate exists in their hearts or whatever. But judging from their actions it certainly isn't brotherly love.
Concur. The reason that such societal and/or monetary tools have not been the sole method for stamping out bigotry is that bigotry can be upheld by an ignorant majority. That's why it took legislation to desgregate the south. That's why it took legislation to assure that black people would not be unfairly persecuted. The Rights of Man trumps private property. No person should be denied something simply due bigoted ideology. I don't sympathize with the so-called "christians" here at all. And it's ridiculous for you to act like its "no big deal" just because you can't relate.
That's a little harsh, isn't it? I would think he has reasons other than he "can't relate" This case seems to be very much an exception rather than the norm - we do live in liberated times after all. If the two guys had just dismissed those idiots as what they are and gone to another landscaper without letting it get to them, I find it hard to imagine they would encounter such a scenario again. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. Although, of course, they had every right to send a few e-mails, b**** about their treatment, maybe lodge a complaint or two. That's perfectly understandable. But the big deal to me here is that so many people are quick to react viciously when they see something they don't agree with. You could be 100% convinced you're "on the side of justice" and the majority of the world could even agree with you.. but that still doesn't give you the right to ruin somebody's life, idiot or no. Putting them out of business, turning their lives into a living hell = making the world a better place? I'm sorry, but I'll pass on your vision of utopia We're all crusaders, taking it into our own hands to pass judgment and deal out punishment. I don't know, but that's a little scary to me There is more reason to want these people to change their business practices without being forced out of business.
I don't care that much about their business. I would rather their attitudes toward prejudice and homosexuals changed. That in turn would change their business practices. As is they are free to apologize, and change their business practices, and I am sure that the attempts to ruin their business would subside as well.
Maybe, but for a straight man (as I assume SM is) to say it's "no big deal" that a business refuses customers because they're gay seems a bit arrogant to me. I understand SM's point - private property and/or private business can be used in whatever way the owner wants (within reason). But there is a fine line to walk between one's "rights" as a business and ideals such as justice and equality. It's just not so simple to say "let society take care of it". Society (American society in particular) has repeatedly demonstrated that it is quite adverse to change on it's own wrt long-established collectivist bigotry.
I agree with you, but we all know they are bigots. I don't see them apologising, much less changing their attitudes. This is where legislation comes in, as rhadamanthus has said. They will have to adapt, or perish. Let's leave the responsibility for their survival with them - not take it into our own hands Agreed, and the current witch-hunt is not the right way to go about it either.
No one should be receiving death threats if that's waht you mean. As for the couple in question, nobody actively pursued them for this until they made a public show of their bigoted views. That's not a witch hunt, that's reaction - a surprisingly open-minded and just reaction.
But as consumers and concerned citizens I don't see anything wrong with taking legal action to show them that their prejudiced actions will not serve them well, and won't work. It seems that this is a good way for them to learn to change their business practices.
If that's the motivation, then by all means. I don't have anything against legal action as a fix. The vibe I get from the whole affair, however, is that plenty of people want them to suffer because they are bigots. That itself is bigotry, by definition. Doing it for the greater good? For their good? I don't buy it. People are angry, and they are retaliating with anger - with hatred, even. Why should we condone such behaviour any more than that of the couple? That may be reaction, but some of it is also overreaction. Sending hateful e-mails to the couple telling them they should never have children is not particularly open-minded. It may be just, but I don't really believe in the concept of justice so I wouldn't know
Seems to me The Garden Guy missed a prime opportunity to witness to a hellbound sinner. He could have cut their lawn in the shape of a cross, or trimmed their hedges in the shape of one man boofing another and then set the bush on fire. Clearly this man does not think outside the box (pun intended).
I would agree with what you are saying if there was a high probability that the gay couple could not find another landscaper. I believe that is not the case though. This isn't a case where an essential service is being denied to them across the board, but rather that one vendor among many has chosen to pass for personal reasons. Their problem doesn't need to be solved by lawsuits and protests because it can be solved by simply calling any other landscaper in the area. Oh, and they didn't make a public show of their bigoted views, they sent a private email to someone who had previously contacted them. The scorned custormers made a public show of Garden Guy Inc.'s bigoted views, which they are welcome to do.
It doesn't matter. Gandhi was offered another seat on a train when told his seat was reserved for white people only. Rosa Parks didn't move from her seat when told to go to the back of the bus. To be refused a service or to be treated differently based on race, sex, or orientation - for who you are....is wrong and so unamerican. It's repeating the mistakes of the past. We have out-grown discrimination haven't we? Why does someone's orientation have to do with their landscaping needs? Were they asked to make phallic references? No.... It's so unamerican that we should never stand by it....so don't defend it. They can do it, but let us all show them how out of place and time they are.
The buses and trains are for the public, run by the government (hence the name, public transportation). Your examples have no bearing on privite enterprises. A better example would be whites only restaurants. In that case though, in many cases there would not be one whites only restaurant amid a sea of restaurants willing to serve anyone, but instead you had to hunt for the restaurants that would serve anyone. The best contemporary example I can think of that directly related to this story is Augusta and their membership policies. They chose to discriminate against women, as was their right, and they were soundly ridiculed from all corners because of it. The vast majority of us have outgrown discrimination. The few people who choose to cling to their outdated ways deserve your mokery and your pity. Having said that, they should be free to do what they will with their business, as long as they are not hurting anyone (and I don't mean hurting their feelings).
I essentially agree with you here. A private enterprise should be allowed to discriminate so long as it incurs no favor from public entities (tax breaks, government contracts, etc...).
I don't think that's legally allowed by the law. Even if you're a small mom and pop shop, you still can't discriminate in hiring.
Every private enterprise in the United States benefits hugely from the stable economic/legal/political system that is funded to a great degree by everyone's taxes. Black, white, gay, straight, we all pay the taxes that fund this system. It is totally legitimate to prohibit private businesses from discriminating based on factors such as race or sexual orientation.
Are you sure about that? You might be right - I would think though that in practice this happens a lot. (Korean store owners only hiring Koreans...)
I think the thing here isn't that they aren't hiring, it is they are refusing to be hired by... Legally they can choose to work or not work for anyone they want.
Not the case....under federal civil rights law - you can't discrimate on race, sex, age for hiring or who you will serve. In this case, they are "serving" a certain kind of customer. However; gay rights are not covered under EEO or federal civil rights laws - so i guess you can discriminate against gays legally. Is that right?
