robi2106's Journal: Acceptance vs Tollerance vs YOU WILL OBEY US

I thought I would point out an interesting article brought to my attention by another slashdotter regarding a landscaping business that chose not to bid for the business of a gay couple. "I need to tell you that we cannot meet with you because we choose not to work for homosexuals."

Now seeing as I am a very libertarian kind of guy, this doesn't strike me as being wrong. Just the opposite. I would have no problems what so ever if a gay business owner told me they could not submit a bid for my landscaping because my values conflicted with theirs. No problem-o-reeno. America is still a somewhat free market and I have a choice for who gets my money. As a private person and as a small business owner / operator I feel that NO ONE should tell me who I have to do business with. My choice, my loss of profit.

If your business is strong enough to turn away customers for these sort of reasons then you are fortunate to have such a strong business. I personally would not produce a wedding video for a gay couple (ok that would just be weird). And I am in DIRE need of business so this would be a big set back for my business. But as a business owner (and as any person, company, etc) I SHOULD have the right to choose with my Franklin's or lack there of.

The offended / rejected gay couple sent an email to 200 of their friends (hell, I don't have 200 friends with email let alone 200 friends!). The gay couple naturally blame the problem on the ignorance of the business owners. Because obviously anyone that doesn't fully support or contribute to GLAD is ignorant. "I'm still shocked by the ignorance that exists in today's society," Lackey said in his e-mail. " Because GLAD has the secret knowledge and those ig-nant (to borrow from Chris Rock) Christians are too stupid to know any better.

The expected result of the news article is rage, threats of murder, rape, etc against...... but wait. Was it the potential customers that were being threatened for their alternative life style and "God Hating Homosexual Perverted Lifestyle"? Not this time. This time, the boogie men were the gay activists and it was the Christian business owner, under no obligation to work for anyone, that had his family threatened with DEATH & the RAPE of his children for his decision by homosexual activists from all over the world, thanks to the intar-web.

How did the bigoted ignorant Christian's react? Spewing threats of returning violence towards the gay couple? Well close, if by close you mean not close. "It was just our intent to uphold our rights as small business owners to choose our clientele," she said. "All the hate, the threats of sodomizing my children, the threats of me being murdered, came out because of a very businesslike straightforward e-mail I sent. The crowd of tolerance and diversity is not so tolerant." Yep. Real mean of them to do that. Repressing poor gay folk. To be fair, some on the message board for the business did say the gay folk will be going to hell. Oh no. If you don't believe in hell then that is about as mean as saying that you won't get a visit from the tooth fairy. If you don't believe it exists then there isn't anything threatening about it.

This is yet another example of how the aim of many (notice I didn't say all) homosexual activists is NOT for acceptance like lets-go-out-for-lunch-and-talk-about-gay-pride type, or even passive tolerance of the roll-your-eyes-but-ignore-it-and-get-on-with-your-life type, but is instead the browbeating YOU WILL ALLOW US TO DO WHAT WE WANT AND YOU WILL FULLY SUPPORT EVERYTHING WE SAY type.

So true that the crowd of tolerance and diversity is not so tolerant.

jason

Much better

[trmj]

The way you went about dealing with this article is significantly better than the way Railgunner went about it. See my reply to his journal entry there for my reasons.

I am a liberal democrat. I believe in a mostly free market, in letting others choose how to live so long as it doesn't attack the life of another, and in moral law (abstracted from belief and formed around the idea of the human, not the race, gender, orientation, etc). I completely agree with what the landscaping company did. It's their rig

Re:

[Mantorp]

It'd be interesting to see if you still kept the opinion if you were denied entry at your favorite restaurant for example because (insert bullshit reason here).

Re:

[trmj]

Earn what you get. It's important to say it that way and not the other way around, you get what you earn. The latter implies receiving regardless of effort or thought, whereas the former implies effort and thought regardless of receiving.

If you've earned and are not receiving, go somewhere that changes the situation. It's part of earning. I've done it when situations have changed, and one of those situations was when I was looked upon as worthless and I was unable to get more than rudimentary services (f

Re:

[Mantorp]

I can think of so many instances where it's not practical to earn what you get that I don't know where to start. A few examples, urgent medical attention on a trip, gas stations, remote restaurants, phone companies or other utilities. If they would just start denying people their services willy-nilly the whole country would fall apart.

Re:

[robi2106]

I would be surprised, possibly annoyed. And then I would go somewhere else and tell me friends about that place. I would probably journal about the people and place. And that is about it.

jason